[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21387-21398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3630, MIDDLE 
     CLASS TAX RELIEF AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 501, SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING ANY 
  FINAL MEASURE TO EXTEND CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS; AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 502

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order, without intervention of any point of order or 
     question of consideration, to take from the Speaker's table 
     the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation 
     of jobs, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments 
     thereto, and to consider in the House a motion offered by the 
     chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that 
     the House disagree to the Senate amendments and request a 
     conference with the Senate thereon. The Senate amendments and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order, without intervention of any point of order or question 
     of consideration, to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 501) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the 
     payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment 
     insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for 
     physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the resolution are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of a motion to instruct 
     conferees pending their appointment to a conference on H.R. 
     3630, the previous question shall be considered as ordered to 
     its adoption without intervening motion except one hour of 
     debate under clause 7(b) of rule XXII. Such motion shall be 
     considered as read and shall not be subject to any question 
     of consideration.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of a motion specified in the 
     first section of this resolution or section 3 of this 
     resolution, the chair may--
       (a) notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, 
     postpone further consideration of the motion to such time as 
     may be designated by the Speaker as though under clause 1(c) 
     of rule XIX; and
       (b) postpone the question of adoption of the motion as 
     though under clause 8 of rule XX.
       Sec. 5.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of January 17, 2012.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of January 15, 2012, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1(c) of rule XV.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield 
myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 502 provides for a 
motion to go to conference on H.R. 3630 and for a closed ruled on H. 
Res. 501.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill.

                              {time}  0920

  To be honest, Mr. Speaker, being here today is almost ridiculous 
because last week the House passed a very good bill, and the three 
major components of it are very simple:
  Payroll tax extension, a holiday--not a 60-day holiday, but a 1-year 
payroll tax extension that is paid for;
  Unemployment insurance; we addressed unemployment insurance in a very 
compassionate way, working as the President has suggested. We need to 
cut it by 20 weeks over time. So our House, in a bipartisan fashion, is 
working to take it from 99 weeks to 59 weeks, holding in truth the 
spirit of our President;
  Finally, the doc fix. If we're going to keep Medicare and the 
recipients of Medicare whole, we have to address the reimbursement 
rates of the doctors. This doc fix stops an almost 30 percent cut in 
the reimbursement rate.
  But beyond that, we decided that it is time to create American jobs. 
So the Keystone pipeline that creates more than 20,000 jobs is in this 
bill. But not only do we want to create jobs, we want to save jobs, and 
so you think of the Boiler MACT that saves more jobs than the pipeline 
creates. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left want to 
continue to hold the middle class hostage because they have a plan to 
continue to raise taxes as they have over the last year.
  As a matter of fact, in 2010, in one bill only, Mr. Speaker, they 
raised taxes on the middle class, and this year, because we're moving 
into an election year, they decided it's time to remember the American 
middle class. Last year, they were taxing that middle class and taxing 
that middle class and taxing that middle class.
  Let me give you a few examples:
  A new $123 billion of taxes on the middle class in investment income; 
a hike in Medicare payroll taxes with $86 billion passed through to the 
middle class.
  I don't know why this year all of a sudden they want to talk about 
tax breaks for the middle class and only give them 60 days, Mr. 
Speaker. I believe that the middle class deserves certainty, and our 
bill gives them certainty. We say for 1 year we need to extend to the 
middle class, people who are struggling every day to make their ends 
meet.
  Our friends on the left are getting ready for campaign season, so 
what they're really concerned about is themselves. But what we've said 
is, when you take into consideration that a person who needs a medical 
device must now pay a pass-through tax upwards of $20 billion, that's 
not compassionate. That's not fair, Mr. Speaker.
  When you think about tanning services, a $2.7 billion pass-through 
tax to the middle class on tanning services. Now, I'm not quite sure 
what tanning services has to do with health care, but we find ourselves 
in the midst, sir, of another backdoor tax increase on the middle 
class.
  Or if we need drugs in the future, let's go ahead and tax the 
innovating companies $22 billion and pass it to the middle class.
  Or if you don't like those taxes, we've got another one on health 
insurers. Let's take $60 billion out of the pockets of the middle class 
by making the insurers pay more, which they know they will pass it 
through to the middle class.
  But since that may not be enough, they decided that they would 
actually tax the health plans of the middle class, $32 billion on the 
plans of the middle class.
  I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We must not only extend this 
tax cut for the middle class; we must also pay for it.
  As I was talking to one of my constituents, a 57-year-old who makes 
$650 every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks she brings home $650, and she needs 
her $600 tax

[[Page 21388]]

cut. But she's very close to Social Security so she says to me: Tim, 
please, as you provide an extension of the tax cut, please don't raid 
the Social Security funds.
  So we on the right have decided, in a bipartisan way, to work with 
the President. Our offsets include 90 percent offsets that the 
President, himself, has agreed to. In a bipartisan way, we address the 
payroll tax extension. We keep Social Security as solvent as it can be 
today, and we continue to make sure that senior citizens have doctors 
who will see them because we fixed the problem of reimbursement rates. 
And unemployment is now a greater incentive for work than it has been 
in more than 2 years or so because we're taking 99 weeks and we're 
working in a bipartisan fashion with the President and taking it down 
to 59 weeks for some States.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
  I want to thank my friend, Mr. Scott from South Carolina, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  A lot of verbiage is going on here this morning, but Mr. and Ms. 
America, let me tell you what we're doing here--nothing. We were 
promised that we could have a vote to concur in what the Senate did, 
89-10, give it to the President and make sure that the payroll tax 
continues, but that's not what we're doing here today.
  What they changed that to is to reject what the Senate did and ask 
for a conference, which the other side, the leader of the Senate says 
he is not going to do. We could have done all of this last week, but 
instead, 435 of us have been flown back here this week to do absolutely 
nothing.
  At the end of the day here, we will not have accomplished a thing. 
There will be no payroll tax; there will be no unemployment insurance; 
there will be no doc fix. It just simply says we reject what they did, 
89-10, which is a miracle in itself, but we're not going to do anything 
here. We're just going to kick it over to the other side.
  In addition to this, the President has not signed the omnibus bill. I 
think he was going to wait for this one, which means that come Friday 
the Government could shut down. We have once again this brinksmanship 
of hanging by our thumbs.
  So if I can make any point today for America: Don't pay any attention 
to that man behind the curtain here. We are not doing anything. We 
could have but we are not.
  And after that great expense of shuttling us all back and forth last 
weekend, we come here today, and we really had a rare opportunity to 
truly come together and provide the vital assistance to Americans in 
need. The Senate certainly answered the call in a bipartisan bill, 
which was really quite wonderful. It made us all feel really good about 
the Congress. It may have even made us go up from 9 to 10 points for 
all I know.
  But they passed a bill with support of 89 Senators, and 80 percent of 
the Republican Senators, and I'm very proud of them. Not only did they 
vote for that, but they are signaling their great displeasure that the 
House can't do the same. And until Saturday night, this bill had the 
blessings of the Speaker of this House.
  After a year of bitter battles in Washington, we stood on the brink 
of a bipartisan agreement to lower taxes and provide much-needed 
assistance to those who are struggling to get through the holiday 
season through no fault of their own, having lost their employment, 
that is, until a small army of ideologues said ``no'' and demanded that 
a truly bipartisan bill be tossed out in the cold. What a shame.
  So we meet today at the height of the Christmas season as the 
timeworn tales of Tiny Tim and Mr. Scrooge are playing out in theaters 
across the country and here in the House. Will we come together to 
provide a gift for the American people or will a small group of 
ideologues let taxes rise and the unemployed go without housing and 
food as we ring in the new year?
  It is my belief, and certainly borne out, I think, by not a shortage 
of media this morning, that one of the reasons that the vote today is 
to reject the Senate bill was had we had a vote to concur in it instead 
and say that we agreed with what the Senate had done, then it would 
have passed.
  Now, I spoke about this game of brinksmanship last week, and 
certainly, you know, we've gone the whole year hoping that there would 
be no payroll tax on the other side. They didn't believe in that and 
certainly did not believe in the extension of unemployment. Now, 
suddenly today, we can't just have two months; we've got to have a 
year.

                              {time}  0930

  The reason they couldn't get a year in the Senate was the difference 
of opinion on how to pay for it. It was decided that, with the 2-month 
extension, we would keep it, that we would not lose it after 2 months. 
During those 2 months, the House and Senate, we would hope, would be 
working out ways we could continue it for a year. There is not going to 
be that great hardship of bookkeeping that everybody is talking about. 
We were going to take our time to fix it during those 2 months, but the 
2 months is basically an emergency measure which is being turned down 
by the House of Representatives.
  We'd love to live in a world where every single principle we believe 
in could be made true, where those who disagree with us would bend to 
our wishes and support our views, but quite simply, we don't live in 
that world. After the majority spent the entire year ignoring the need 
for an extended tax break and renewed insurance for the unemployed, 
I've heard frequent refrain in the last 24 hours that the policies we 
are considering today should not be implemented for 2 months but, 
rather, for a year. That is pretty recent.
  The majority should be heartened to know that hardly a soul in the 
body disagrees with it. We all wanted a year, as did the President of 
the United States. As I've said before, we know that we will get that 
year and that we will have the 2 months to work on getting that 
extension. However, after weeks of negotiation, 435 legislators can't 
agree on an equally important point: How to pay for the tax cuts for a 
year.
  The Democrats have said that millionaires and those who have 
benefited the most in the past decade should pay for this tax break. 
The majority has said that seniors receiving Medicare should pay 
instead, which was, indeed, in the bill passed here last week. This 
simple but profound disagreement is part of what has led us here today.
  The other part of the equation is that the majority needed to design 
a vote by which, no matter the vote totals, they would never lose. 
Isn't that clever? If we had another month to work on resolving our 
disagreement, we could continue to debate without pause. However, the 
clock is about to hit midnight, and the taxes of millions of Americans 
and the unemployment insurance of millions more are about to be harmed 
because we won't strike a deal.
  By now, it should be obvious why we must pass this Senate agreement. 
It's time that all of us accept the world as it is. It's time that we 
came to a compromise, a compromise to benefit millions of Americans in 
this time of holiday cheer for some. There will be many more debates in 
the months to come about how to help the American people, but now we 
must seize our opportunity and provide for the millions of Americans 
who sent us here in order to make sure the season can be a little 
better than the last.
  So I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
when we get to that point, but I want to reiterate again that nothing 
is happening here today. When we leave here, the tax cut will not be 
extended; unemployment will not be extended. We will simply go back 
home to await the consequences of what we're doing here today. I deeply 
regret that because I would have liked nothing better than the 
bipartisanship that the Senate showed in this time of need to have been 
on display here as well in the House of Representatives.

[[Page 21389]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I'm not quite sure if I heard the gentlelady from New York correctly, 
but she seemed to allude, or to suggest, that the President might not 
pass the omnibus bill because of this bill, which sounds like a 
reaffirmation of the fact that they are playing politics on the left 
while we on the right consistently look for ways to help the middle 
class.
  In addition, when Republican Senator Jim DeMint and President Obama 
and Speaker Boehner and Democrat Senator Manchin are on the same page 
on the 1-year extension, we ought to act as a sounding board for those 
four, who are typically in opposite corners.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Georgia, Dr. Rob Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding.
  He knows just how excited I am to be down here today. He knows how 
excited I am because, unlike what my colleague from New York suggests 
about accepting how the world is, today's a day where we decide: You 
know what? We can do better. We can do better.
  The million folks I represent back home in Georgia don't want to 
accept the way this body operates today. They want us to do better.
  I know, when this body passed this 1-year extension last December, 
they knew we were going to be back here today. For a year, we've known 
we were going to be back here today. To suggest if only you'll give us 
another 60 days we'll do better, that's the way this House has worked 
in years past. Yet this year--this year--this body has said, if these 
issues are so important to the American families--and they are--and 
that if these issues are so critical to the economy--and they are--why 
do we need another 60 days? Why not do it today? We know that it has to 
happen. We know that it's coming. Why can't we get together and do it 
today?
  Now, I tell you, I've studied majority politics in this body. 
Traditionally speaking, the majority, which the Republicans are, would 
just bring a bill to the floor and jam it through--my way or the 
highway. You've seen it. You've seen it when Republicans have done it, 
and you've seen it when Democrats have done it, and it could have 
happened that way again today.
  But what did the Rules Committee do?
  The Rules Committee didn't say, My way or the highway. The Rules 
Committee said, We've got a position here in the House. They have a 
position. They're in the Senate. Let's do what we've been doing for 
hundreds of years, and let's come together in a conference to work out 
our differences.
  There are those in this body who would rather work out our 
differences on the front pages of newspapers, and there are those in 
this body who would rather work out our differences on Sunday morning 
talk show programs, but I don't think that's the best way to get the 
people's business done, and neither do the million folks back home whom 
I represent.
  It's okay that we disagree about what this policy ought to look like. 
It's not okay if we let the disagreement put the economy in peril and 
put the budgets of hardworking American taxpayers at home in peril. We 
can do better, and we are doing better. We are doing better.
  The traditional process would have been to go ahead and put this bill 
through late last night by calling everybody back. We could have just 
gone ahead and passed it in the dark of night. But the folks said, You 
know what? That's not the right way to operate this body. We can do 
better if we're proud of what we're doing. Let's put it off until 
tomorrow morning. Let's do it in the light of day, and let's let 
everybody have their say.
  That's what we're doing.
  That's why we're here today.
  I say to my friend from South Carolina: I am proud that we serve on 
that Rules Committee together. I am proud of our leadership for giving 
us this opportunity to be open. I am proud that it is not a small band 
of rebels in the Republican Conference, as my friend from New York 
would suggest, who are hijacking this process. Rather, it is a proud 
band of 240 Republicans who say that regular order has merit. Let's do 
it in the way that we have done it for hundreds of years--House bill, 
Senate bill.
  Let's come together, Mr. Speaker, and work out those differences.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a member of the Committee on Rules, 
Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, at the direction of the 
Republican leadership, the Rules Committee voted out a martial law rule 
that will deny the House of Representatives an up-or-down vote on the 
bipartisan Senate compromise. No vote.
  We're only days away from seeing 160 million hardworking middle-
income Americans see their taxes increase, and there is no vote. We're 
on the verge of allowing 2 million jobless people to lose their 
unemployment benefits and 48 million seniors to lose their health care, 
and the Republicans tell us there can be no vote. Are you kidding me? 
Last night, my friends defended their delaying tactics by saying all 
they wanted was to protect regular order when it comes to legislation. 
Since when? Regular order? Please.
  The Rules Committee is becoming a place where democracy and fairness 
go to die. This process is shameful. We have a habit in this House in 
which we like to point fingers and blame at the Senate for its 
dysfunction, but we can't do that today because the Senate actually 
functioned and gave us a bipartisan compromise. It's not perfect, and 
we all want a 1-year extension of the payroll tax cut. Yet, as we 
struggle to find acceptable pay-fors, which up to this point we have 
not been able to do, the U.S. Senate has provided us with a bridge to 
get there.
  This compromise includes a short-term extension of the payroll tax 
cut, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix. The package also includes 
a requirement that President Obama make a decision on the Keystone XL 
pipeline, which many of us find hard to swallow. Democrats get 
something they want, and Republicans get something they want, but 
that's not good enough for House Republicans.
  At a time when the American people want Democrats and Republicans to 
work together, the Senate actually did. That politicians can come to 
agreement on important matters I believe is a good thing. But what's a 
bad thing is what we're doing here in the House today--trying to 
scuttle this deal by denying us a vote.

                              {time}  0940

  In today's Washington Post, a Republican Member is quoted as saying, 
``It's high-stakes poker.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not a card game. 
In fact, this is not a game of any kind. Let me inform my Republican 
colleagues that this is real life, with real people and real 
consequences. I would say to the Republican leaders of this House, Show 
us that you can govern. This is time for an adult moment. It's time to 
tell your Tea Party wing that the American people come first. It's time 
to put country ahead of political party.
  We're less than 12 days away from a tax increase on middle class 
Americans; and instead of doing what's right for 160 million Americans, 
the Republican leadership is playing politics, denying us a vote, and 
ensuring that today, when all is said and done, we will accomplish 
absolutely nothing for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote down this rule. 
Don't leave town until we have a chance to vote on the Senate 
compromise so that we can ensure that millions of our fellow citizens 
don't see their taxes going up during these difficult economic times. 
Give us a vote. Why won't you give us a vote? We demand a vote. Let us 
have a vote so we can do what's right for the American people.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will just simply say that 
if you are looking for a bipartisan approach to legislation, if you are 
looking for someone who wants to work with the White House, 90 percent 
of our offsets have been agreed to by the President.

[[Page 21390]]

  And I will simply say that when the President is right--and I don't 
agree with him very often--he is right. The President said that 
Congress should not go home for vacation until it finds a way to avoid 
hitting 160 million Americans with a tax hike on January 1. It would be 
inexcusable for Congress not to extend this tax holiday for an entire 
year.
  I think a bipartisan approach has been taken. I am assured by that 
fact because the President and I are on the same page, and that doesn't 
happen but once every year. It must be Christmas.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Jeb 
Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. The American people know why we are here today. We 
are here today because the President's economic policies have failed. 
Since the President was elected, unemployment has been at, near, or 
above 9 percent, one in seven on food stamps, small business startups 
at about a 17-year low. That's the Obama economy.
  And because of that, Mr. Speaker, almost every single Member of the 
House and Senate agree that we should extend the payroll tax holiday 
for another year. What is so confusing to many of us is that, as my 
friends on the other side of the aisle say, yes, we need to do this for 
a year, like the President said, like the American people expect, and 
yet they all want to vote against it.
  So the disagreement we have here is: Do you want to punt the ball 
down the field, do you want to do this for 60 days and do it again in 
60 days for another 60 days, or do you want to solve the problem? 
That's the first debate. And it really begs the question: Why? Why do 
we have so many people saying they want to do this for a year and yet 
they're only willing to vote for 60 days? Are people more interested in 
making a law that will benefit the American people or are they more 
interested in making a campaign issue that may benefit their own 
reelection campaigns? That's the question.
  The second point of debate is: The American people, many of whom are 
suffering because of this economy, they're willing to work over the 
holidays. Are we willing to work over the holidays? The House is 
willing to work. The question is: Where is the Senate; okay?
  Since the dawn of the Republic, we've had this thing called a 
conference committee. You know, if you took Civics 101, you will 
remember it. The House passes a bill; the Senate passes a bill; they 
come together in a conference committee and they work out their 
differences. We stand ready to work over the holidays.
  And here's the third point: Do you want to pass a bill for messaging 
purposes or do you want to pass a bill that works? ABC reported last 
night, ``Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Passed by Senate, Pushed by 
President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say.''
  The National Payroll Reporting Consortium--this is the group that 
handles all the payroll issues for practically a third of all of the 
private sector workers in the country--said that it ``could create 
substantial problems, confusion, and costs affecting a significant 
percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''
  And, in fact, the Associated Builders & Contractors have said: This 
sort of temporary fix underscores Congress's uneven ad hoc approach 
toward the economy and causes more harm than good for America's job 
creators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. So, Mr. Speaker, it really comes down to this: If you 
say you want to do this for a year, put your vote where your rhetoric 
is. If you are not willing to work over the holidays, admit to the 
American people you're not willing to work over the holidays. And if 
you want to support a bill that actually works, talk to the job 
creators in America.
  That's the problem in Washington--people get isolated. Talk to the 
people who are absolutely responsible for this, and they will tell you 
this 60-day ad hoc approach doesn't work. That's why we need a rule to 
go to conference and put forth something the American people want and 
need.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York for the time.
  These last 2 weeks have really shown us the tax-and-spend Republican 
Party up close. First we passed a defense authorization with over $800 
million in earmarks, according to a study by Claire McCaskill. Then we 
passed a huge omnibus spending bill that spent over $900 billion, 
actually increasing defense spending, all deficit spending, spending, 
spending, spending. But, oh, now it gets worse. Republicans are poised 
today to raise taxes by tens of billions of dollars. Worse yet, they 
are not even allowing a vote to keep taxes where they are.
  Whether this bill passes or not, make no mistake, it's purely 
symbolic as it advances no bill to President Obama to keep taxes where 
they are. And so they will go up on January 1 by $1,000 for the average 
American family, costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars 
without even helping reduce the deficit, since this Republican tax 
increase is money the Republicans already spent last week in the 
omnibus $900 billion spending spree.
  Spending, spending, spending. Taxes, taxes, taxes. The deficit goes 
up, up, up. You can't tax your way out of this budget problem this 
country is in, but the Republicans have been trying to do just that for 
these last few weeks.
  To solve our budget problem, we need to cut spending. Now, there are 
some balanced plans out there; and most experts agree that as part of a 
balanced plan with spending cuts, some revenues are necessary.
  In fact, President Obama put together the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan 
plan. The Republican leadership didn't allow a vote.
  The ``Gang of Six'' in the Senate put together a bipartisan proposal 
to cut spending and balance the budget. The Republican leadership 
didn't allow a vote.
  The supercommittee was supposed to come out with a budget fix that 
includes everything we're talking about here today--the SGR fix, the 
payroll tax, unemployment insurance--but it failed. The Republicans 
walked away.
  Now, President Obama and a bipartisan group of 90 percent of the 
Senate proposed not increasing taxes, and yet the Republicans are 
refusing to bring it to the floor. So, instead of a balanced plan with 
spending cuts, here we are on the heels of a huge Republican omnibus 
spending bill with record deficit spending and tax increases, raising 
taxes, and raising taxes on the middle class. The tax-and-spend 
Republican Party is here today and here to stay.
  Not only that, but while the people of the country are waking up, 
Congress is going to sleep. With 10 days left and so much work to do, 
Republicans took the evening off rather than working through the night 
to try to get something as quickly as possible so the Senate might be 
able to reconvene. They gave themselves the night off. Congress didn't 
even debate this topic or have a single vote yesterday night with 10 
days to go.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the bill, and urge 
the Speaker and the tax-and-spend Republican leadership to let us vote 
now on preventing a huge tax increase on January 1.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my 
friends on the left talk about how they need to get on our side and 
stop the tax increases. But the funny problem is that the American 
people may like what they say, but they don't like what they do. I 
would only suggest and ask people to check the voting record on the tax 
increases.
  I would also say that our bill, our payroll tax extension bill, 
reduces the deficit, the debt by $953 million, a $953 million 
reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff 
Nugent.

[[Page 21391]]



                              {time}  0950

  Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, just think about this. Three days ago, Saturday, 
President Obama said: ``It would be inexcusable for Congress not to 
further extend this middle class tax cut for the rest of the year.''
  The same day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ``House 
Democrats will return to Washington to take up this legislation without 
delay, and we will keep up the fight to extend these provisions for a 
full year.''
  And on Saturday, Minority Whip Hoyer said he was disappointed that 
the Senate would not agree to a longer-term extension.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Senate has done--and we've heard this term so 
many times before--it's about business as usual. Let's not make a 
decision we can put off for another 2 months. This House, in a 
bipartisan way last week, came up with a 1-year extension and a 2-year 
doc fix extension that will help those individuals provide medical 
services to our seniors, that gives them a sustainable way to look 
forward on our docs and a doc fix for 2 years, not 2 months.
  When you hear from other individuals in the real world, those that 
have to implement a policy that was designed by those in the Senate for 
2 months, think about it. When you have to report that tax to the 
Federal Government, it's quarterly, not 2 months. How are they supposed 
to do that? How do you reconcile that difference? Once again, the 
Senate refused to take action that the House did. Everybody talks about 
what the Senate has done. The House passed a bipartisan bill and moved 
it forward in regards to a 1-year extension on unemployment benefits, 
1-year extension in regards to the payroll tax, and a 2-year doc fix. 
That's what the House did.
  Now all we're asking is that we go to regular order, just like they 
have done for hundreds of years when the two bodies can't agree. When 
the two bodies can't agree, they go to conference, where conferees from 
both sides sit down and hash it out and come up with a resolution to 
bring back to both bodies. That's what you're supposed to do. That's 
what our Founding Fathers envisioned; not backroom deals, not things 
cut in the dead of night. It's not about us voting--and thank God that 
our Speaker saw the light in regards to not voting in the dead of 
night. He believes in regular order. He believes that we should move 
forward as a body and go to conference with our Senate brothers and 
sisters to decide the course that we need to make.
  I can't believe, I can't believe that there aren't folks in the 
Senate that couldn't get this done with our Members in this House and 
get it done in 2 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I wholeheartedly support the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately with the 
procedure that the Republicans are using today, we miss an opportunity 
for the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to come 
together around an extension of the middle class tax cut for the next 2 
months. It's unfortunate that it's for 2 months, but the Republicans in 
this House sent to the Senate a very extreme bill for 1 year by 
slashing people's unemployment benefits, ruining those families' 
ability to survive this period of economic downturn. And the Senate 
rejected that on a bipartisan basis.
  The Senate was then encouraged by the Speaker of the House to 
negotiate a deal. Harry Reid and McConnell negotiated a deal, and the 
Speaker of the House said he thought it was a good deal. In fact, he 
used the word ``victory.''
  Then when the suggestion was why didn't we vote last week, it was, 
well maybe when it came back from the Senate we could do it on some 
sort of unanimous consent procedure.
  Then there were rumbles in the House that there were going to be 
Republicans in the Republican caucus that wanted to join the 39 
Republicans in the Senate that voted for this procedure. And all of a 
sudden what we see is the emergence of the Tea Party Republicans 
slapping down that idea, slapping down the idea that there'd be 
independent judgments made in the Republican caucus, and they pulled it 
to a grinding halt. We will not be allowed to vote on that bipartisan 
agreement. We will not be allowed to vote on an agreement that brought 
the Republicans and the Democrats together in the Senate. We will not 
be able to vote on a bipartisan agreement that has the opportunity to 
bring Democrats and Republicans together in the House. That's because 
the Tea Party insists upon this radical agenda where they're going to 
throw millions of people off of unemployment insurance who've lost 
their job through no fault of their own, and that's how they'll pay for 
the middle class tax cut, by injuring middle class families who've been 
thrown into economic chaos because of the economic downturn caused by 
their friends on Wall Street and the scandals that they've perpetrated 
on the American people.
  Let's bring people together. Let's pass the Senate bill, and let's 
get on with taking care of the problems of this Nation.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. I rise in support of this motion this morning, but for a 
very important reason. The politics here is thicker than Maine 
molasses, but if you take time and you go back and you talk to the real 
job creators in your district, you'll see the commonsense approach 
that's being detailed right here to look for a solution.
  The House has already voted. We have supported the idea of passing 
the payroll tax. We've passed that bill. We supported the reimbursement 
for the doctors so we can continue to create certainty in the 
relationships between doctors and their patients. We've passed that 
bill. Now we've got to come back and work out the differences. But when 
the difference becomes a 2-month extension, it defies common sense.
  I sat this morning and spoke with one of the individuals who is a tax 
accountant in my district. The quarterly tax return is the way so many 
small businesses do their work. The quarterly tax return, a 3-month 
situation. This bill would require us to go and just change these forms 
all over the country. Let me just close my comments with the words of 
the NFIB.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Employers who don't have correct withholding calculations 
will have to collect more from employees and amend their employment tax 
returns later next year, which may increase their chances for an audit.
  This is the kind of insanity that we're looking at: small businesses 
being audited because Congress can't do their work.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to include in the Record the comments of Republican 
Senators begging the House to take their bill.

       Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): ``The House Republicans' plan to 
     scuttle the deal to help middle families is irresponsible and 
     wrong. I appreciate their effort to extend these measures for 
     a full year, but a two-month extension is a good deal when it 
     means we avoid jeopardizing the livelihoods of millions of 
     American families. The refusal to compromise now threatens to 
     increase taxes on hard-working Americans and stop 
     unemployment benefits for those out of work. During this time 
     of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and 
     come to the negotiating table in good faith. We cannot allow 
     rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand 
     in the way of working together for the good of the American 
     people.''
       Sen. Scott Brown, Press Release: ``Sen. Brown Blasts House 
     For Jeopardizing Tax Relief, Unemployment Benefits'', Dec 19, 
     2011.
       Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): ``I spoke out against this 
     unprecedented two-month policymaking experiment on Saturday. 
     That said, there wasn't an indication that the

[[Page 21392]]

     House would be in disagreement with the Senate's action. 
     Nonetheless, what is paramount at this point is that this tax 
     benefit for hardworking Americans not be allowed to lapse.''
       Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over 
     payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.
       Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.): ``there is no reason to hold up 
     the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is 
     being worked out.''
       Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over 
     payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.
       Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): ``at this point, we must act, 
     as the Senate has done, to prevent a tax increase that will 
     otherwise occur on Jan. 1.''
       Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over 
     payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.
       Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.): ``I'm hopeful there are a 
     majority of Republicans and Democrats today who will proceed, 
     because it seems to me this is best for the country, as well 
     as for all the individuals who are affected.''
       Daniel Strauss, ``GOP's Lugar: House should pass tax bill 
     for the good of the country'', The Hill, 12/19/11.

  I want to put into the Record the key dates in the Boehner payroll 
tax cut debacle:
  Last Wednesday, Speaker Boehner sat at a meeting in Senator 
McConnell's office with Reid and McConnell. Speaker Boehner said the 
two Senate leaders should negotiate a deal and that Senator McConnell 
has his proxy.
  Thursday, Speaker Boehner made public comments promising to live by 
whatever agreement the Senate reached. He said: ``If the Senate acts, 
I'm committed to bringing the House back--we can do it within 24 
hours--to deal with whatever the Senate does.''
  On Friday, Speaker Boehner reacted to reports that we may have to 
settle on a 2-month extension by saying if the Senate passed that, he 
would take it, add the Keystone pipeline provision to it, and send it 
back to the Senate. So we added the pipeline into the deal in the 
Senate because that's what Speaker Boehner said he needed to get the 
measure through the House.
  Friday night after Senator McConnell presents the payroll tax deal to 
his caucus, he's captured in a video leaving the caucus high-fiving 
Senator Barrasso. Later, Senator McConnell tells reporters: 
``Obviously, I keep the Speaker informed as to what I'm doing.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Saturday, McConnell calls the payroll tax cut compromise a bill 
designed to pass. McConnell said: ``I thank my friend, the majority 
leader, for the opportunity to work together with him on something that 
could actually pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''
  Saturday, Speaker Boehner called the deal a ``good deal'' and a 
``victory,'' and according to reports, urged his caucus to declare 
victory and pass it, on a conference call.
  Saturday afternoon, Senator McConnell gave his consent to allow the 
Senate to adjourn for the year.
  On Sunday, once the Tea Party Republicans in the caucus rebelled, 
Speaker Boehner reversed course and is now disowning the deal he 
supported 24 hours earlier.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in just over 2 weeks, Americans who are 
fortunate enough to have work will get their first paycheck of 2012, 
and the paycheck will be lower because there's a tax increase. The 
question before the country today is: Should we stop that, yes or no?
  In 11 or 12 days, a senior will go to see her doctor, and there's a 
very high risk that the doctor will not see that Medicare patient 
because the doctor has seen a 27 percent cut in what the doctor has 
been paid.

                              {time}  1000

  The question before the country is: Should we stop that, yes or no? 
In just over 11 days, over 2 million Americans will see their 
unemployment benefits expire and they will have virtually no income to 
pay any of their bills. The answer is: Should we stop that, yes or no?
  Now, the other body has taken up a bill that gives us the answer. The 
taxes would not go up on the middle class, the senior would be able to 
see their doctor, and the unemployment benefits would not expire. 
Eighty-nine Members of the Senate voted for this. The President of the 
United States said he'd sign this. Virtually every Member of the 
Democratic side of the House is prepared to vote for this. But this is 
not on the House floor today. Now it's just fine for a Member to say, 
yes, I support this compromise or, no, I don't support this compromise, 
but it is an abrogation of the basic duty of this House not to take a 
vote on it.
  The choices ought to be, yes, we support the bill, or, no, we don't 
support the bill. It shouldn't be we don't want to take a vote on the 
bill; we want to duck the question. We are compensated to cast votes 
and explain our votes to the American people. By refusing to let this 
bill come to the floor today, the majority is abrogating its 
responsibility to the country. We should oppose this rule.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for handling the 
rule and for yielding 2 minutes.
  I want to say, first off, that we should all vote for this rule, and 
we should vote for the resolution that's going to come up later.
  I want to point out to my colleagues, again, that you are entitled to 
your opinion, but you're not entitled to rewrite history. The House 
passed a bill last week, a bipartisan bill.
  There's been so much touting of the Senate bipartisan bill, but not 
one mention by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the 
fact that we passed a bipartisan bill last week which did exactly what 
the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer--all those in charge of the 
Democrat Party--said they wanted, a 1-year extension of the policy that 
was passed last year. It also stopped raises for Congress and Federal 
employees and cut spending.
  What our colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot do, and 
what the President seems incapable of doing, is cutting Federal 
spending, which is desperately what we need in this country.
  And I want to point out to my colleague from New York who says that 
we're doing nothing here today--we're not doing anything I believe is 
her comment. I want to point out that the Constitution, in Article I, 
section 1, divides the Congress of the United States, and in section 2 
it talks about the House of Representatives. Well, if the Founders 
thought that the House is irrelevant--and obviously my colleague thinks 
that the House is irrelevant--then maybe some people should go home. I 
don't think the House is irrelevant.
  Mr. Reid has said the House of Representatives must pass their bill. 
Well, nobody made Mr. Reid the king, and I don't think that we have to 
do what Mr. Reid says. He has a very high opinion of himself. I think 
we do what the Constitution tells us to do. When there's a difference 
of opinion, then we go to conference. A ``no'' vote to our colleagues 
means they don't want to follow regular order and want to continue the 
uncertainty.
  What has the Senate done this year? The Senate has passed 
approximately 10 substantive bills. It's my opinion that the Senate is 
out of touch. A 2-month bill is not appropriate. Instead of being in 
``Alice in Wonderland,'' like my colleague said last night, we are in 
``1984.''


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the Senate or its Members.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ms. 
DeGette.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I'm mad, too. I'm mad at the Senate. I'm 
mad this is a short-term extension. I'm mad that this allows this 
pipeline that I object to to be built, and I, too, am mad at the way 
it's paid for.

[[Page 21393]]

  But then, Mr. Speaker, I think about the six constituents that I met 
with a couple of weeks ago in Denver. All six of them are unemployed 
and have been for over 2 years. Every morning these six folks wake up 
with hope. They send out resumes. They make phone calls. They visit 
offices. They do everything they can think of to get a job. By the end 
of the day, they're dispirited.
  By the end of the week, on Sunday, now we want to remove all hope 
that they will have to subsist in any way. This is going to happen in 
12 days. There's almost 36,000 people like this in my district. There's 
2.2 million of them around the country.
  Or I think about the hundreds of thousands of families who do have 
jobs. Now, these folks, as of January 1, are all going to lose $1,000 
in their paychecks in 12 days. These people have planned their 
Christmas budgets around that money. Now, either they'll have to charge 
it on their credit cards, racking up more debt, or maybe they just 
won't buy those toys to put under the tree because of Congress. Merry 
Christmas.
  Don't fool yourselves. I've been in Congress 15 years now. The Senate 
is not coming back. There won't be a conference committee. This motion 
effectively kills the bill. Let's stop arguing about process. Let's 
stop arguing about what we want to see. Let's stop demagoguing this 
issue. Let's start talking, for once, about the people that we 
represent and who will lose hope this holiday season because of us.
  Let's defeat this motion. Let's adopt the bipartisan Senate bill. 
Let's come back in January and work together in a bipartisan and a 
bicameral way to actually fix this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia, my cousin, Austin Scott.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Good morning. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak on this issue.
  I, as most Americans, love this time of year. It's Christmastime 
where we celebrate the birth of Christ and spend time with our family 
and friends and at church. I sent a quick message to my wife last 
night, and I said: Honey, I may be here for a while.
  And she said: We have 5 days until Christmas. Stay in the fight. 
Americans need you.
  I know a lot of people on the other side of the aisle want to use 
that as an excuse to go home, but America needs us to be up here and 
work. A lot has been said today, but the fact is simple: The Senate put 
a bad amendment on a good bill, a bill that passed this House with 
almost as many Democrats voting for it as Republicans who voted against 
it, a bipartisan bill that does what the President asked us to do, 
which is to extend the payroll tax cut for 12 months. Twelve months is 
what the President asked for; 12 months is what we did.
  Now, the Senate, in their haste to get out of town--the Senate, in 
their haste to get out of town--passed it for 60 days. I would 
respectfully submit that if they had done any consideration at all, 
they would have made it at least 90 days. I'm one of those who signed a 
quarterly wage and tax return like many of my freshman colleagues.
  I, again, want to ask the President to stand with the Republican 
House. Let's pass this tax cut for a year and do what the Americans 
need us to do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. You know, I love Christmas, too, but when the gentleman 
on the other side of the aisle suggests that somehow they are going to 
stay around here after today, I don't believe that for 1 minute. I 
guarantee you that at the end of the day, the Republicans are going to 
go home. The difference is they're going to go home without passing the 
Senate bill that allows people to get their payroll tax cut, their 
unemployment insurance, and the seniors to go out and be able to access 
Medicare. If you really cared about these issues, then you would pass 
the Senate bill. You wouldn't put up a vote that rejects the Senate 
bill and doesn't allow us to consider it at all.
  Don't kid anybody here. At the end of the day, the Republicans are 
going to go home, but the consequence for the American people is that 
the economy is in a very perilous situation right now. If you take this 
tax cut and you don't extend it, then it's very possible that people 
won't have money to spend, the economy won't grow, and this teetering 
economy could easily fall back into a recession again.
  So I don't know what's going on here. All I can think of is that the 
Tea Party Republicans--the extremists on the Republican side--are 
wagging the Republican dog and saying to your leadership: We don't want 
to do this.
  They don't want the payroll tax extension. They don't want the 
unemployment extension. I don't know why they don't care about the 
American people, but that's the bottom line here. You're going to go 
home at the end of the day, there isn't going to be any bill passed 
here, the deadline is going to be reached on January 1, people are 
going to be without their unemployment insurance, and they're going to 
have a tax increase. That's the consequence of this.
  I've been hearing the Republicans for years saying they don't want a 
tax increase. Well, they don't care if the tax increase is on the 
middle class. If it's on the wealthy, oh, they don't want that, but 
it's okay to increase taxes on the middle class.

                              {time}  1010

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tom Reed.
  Mr. REED. I rise in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. Why? Because enough is enough. The arrogance of this place 
is outstanding. It's unbelievable. You have to look at what we're 
talking about from the eyes of our constituents and the people back 
home.
  Two months of certainty for people when it comes to their payroll, to 
their paychecks? Two months for how our doctors are going to get paid 
for caring for our sick and our old? That's ridiculous.
  I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there's a 
new dawn that has emerged in this Chamber. We are no longer going to 
run from our responsibility to govern. We are going to do it in the 
open, we are going to do it honestly, and we're going to do it in a way 
that provides certainty to these problems, because God knows we can no 
longer afford Band-Aids. We need real solutions, long-term solutions.
  I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us 
and reach a resolution to bring certainty for a longer period of time 
than 2 months.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield a minute and a half 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here basically because 
the Joker has taken control of the Congress. Everyone knows that this 
is a procedural calamity that will not work. The House bill was dead on 
arrival in the other body because it raised the premiums of Medicare on 
seniors.
  Let me tell you what we're doing today. The Washington Republicans 
are taking a high-risk gamble. This is gambling. This is throwing the 
dice. Dean Heller, a Senator, said, It is important that we extend the 
short term to get to the long term on payroll tax. Richard Lugar said, 
We must do what is best for the American people.
  My voice may be a little raspy, but I am watching the trees and the 
lights in people's homes. As we go through the house, you can see those 
lights brightly shining, and then you get closer to that tree, and you 
see them beginning to pop and burn as the Christmas tree burns. And 
then those who have lights in their homes, candles, you see them 
burning to the very end. It is extinguished.
  They're putting the American people in darkness. That's what this 
joke is doing, not even allowing us to be able to have an up-or-down 
vote on the Senate bill that gives us 2 months to help out seniors, to 
have their doctors, and to be able to have the Medicare reimbursement 
for our doctors fixed.

[[Page 21394]]

  I submit into the Record the Rules Committee agenda, which showed at 
7:05 p.m. on Monday night that the House would vote on the Senate 
compromise to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance 
extension. At 9:15 p.m. the Tea Party Republicans said no--and the 
American people now have lost their holiday season. Millions will now 
suffer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This is a joke. Vote against this rule.


    agenda--emergency meeting, monday, december 19, 2011, 7:05 p.m.

       A motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 
     (Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011).
       A motion to go to conference on H.R. 3630 (Middle Class Tax 
     Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011).
       H. Res. 501--Ways & Means Energy & Commerce House 
     Administration Transportation & Infrastructure--Expressing 
     the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final 
     measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally 
     funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases 
     in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare 
     beneficiaries.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Jeff Landry.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call out hypocrisy because it is 
amazing that the same level of uncertainty that my colleagues from 
across the aisle have injected into our economy today, which is failing 
our economy, they now want to inject that type of uncertainty into the 
American family's budget.
  Two months? One of the pillars of the President's jobs bill was the 
extension of the payroll tax for 1 year, and Republicans agreed with 
him and sent over to the Senate a bill which extends that payroll tax 
holiday for 1 year, and yet, the Senate can only give us a sixth of 
that.
  Where is the compromise? Where is the agreement? Where have the 
Senate majority leader and the President missed each other? The 
President wanted a 1-year extension, and that is what we stand for 
today, a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday to give certainty 
to American families at a time when they need it the most.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. 
Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the 89 Senators--50 Democrats and 
39 Republicans--for their bipartisan agreement to extend the current 
payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance benefits, and Medicare doctors' 
payments for another 60 days while we continue to seek common ground 
for a full 12-month extension.
  Let there be no mistake: The only way for the Members of this body to 
prevent a tax increase on 160 million working Americans is to pass the 
bipartisan agreement.
  Let me be crystal clear: The only way to prevent cutting off 
unemployment insurance from 2.2 million Americans who are currently 
unemployed and looking for work is to pass the bipartisan agreement.
  The only way to prevent cutting funds to pay doctors who care for 
Medicare patients is to pass the bipartisan agreement.
  Now, a good thing happened last weekend. The Senate majority leader 
and the Senate minority leader demonstrated to the American people that 
Democrats and Republicans can work together. They hammered out a 
compromise on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have heard their constituents ask, as I've heard mine ask, time and 
time again: Why can't you guys work together to get things done for the 
American people? It's a good question. It's a fair question. The Senate 
has answered in the affirmative by passing this legislation, and it's 
my fervent hope that we will do so, also.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and join 
our colleagues in the other body to do the right thing for the American 
people. Bring the bipartisan agreement to the floor, and let's have a 
vote.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, the great chairman of the Rules Committee, 
David Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from North Charleston 
for his superb management of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we regularly point to the fact that uncertainty is the 
enemy of prosperity and economic growth, and we know that extending 
this package for a year will, in fact, be doing exactly what President 
Obama has said is necessary for us to do. He said it's inexcusable for 
us not to extend this for a year, and so we've got a great chance to do 
this.
  The other issue that I think is important to note, Mr. Speaker, is 
that uncertainty is now posing a national security threat to the United 
States of America. I say that because last night Stephen Harper, the 
prime minister of Canada, had an interview on Canadian television in 
which he made it very clear that he had been told that there would be 
approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would have allowed for the 
flow of Canadian energy to come into the United States, and obviously, 
uncertainty exists. And so he made it very clear. He said he is very 
serious about selling that energy, moving that energy to Asia, and we 
know that that means to China.
  Now, I'm not an opponent of China's economic growth, but I do believe 
that the potential for us to work with our close ally to the north is a 
very, very important part of our economic growth. Job creation here 
would be enhanced by it, and we know it would help us have access to 
lower cost energy.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, not only is uncertainty the enemy of economic 
growth and prosperity, but uncertainty is now jeopardizing our national 
security.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, some have tried to make the claim that we're not 
going to have an up-or-down vote on the Senate measure. Let me explain 
to our colleagues what, in fact, is going to happen.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. 
Camp, is going to move to disagree with the Senate amendments and 
request a conference. That's the motion that the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee will have. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that 
any Member who believes that we should accept the Senate temporary 2-
month extension, that proposal that the National Payroll Reporting 
Consortium has said is unworkable and that Bloomberg News has said is 
unworkable and other independent analyses have said is unworkable, if a 
Member supports that measure, they should vote ``no'' to the motion 
that will be offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) which 
says, I move to disagree to the Senate amendments and request a 
conference.

                              {time}  1020

  And so I think it's very clear: We have a responsibility, a 
responsibility to do the people's business.
  It's true, our Senate colleagues have gone home. Our Senate 
colleagues have gone home, and they say they don't want to act. We need 
to request this conference so that the Speaker of the House can appoint 
conferees and work can begin immediately.
  Why is it that one would believe that creating this uncertainty in a 
temporary 2-month extension will allow us to get the work done next 
year? It needs to be done now. We have a December 31 deadline. We're 
going to see a tax increase go into effect if we don't act because, 
while the Senate measure provides a $166 tax benefit on the payroll 
issue, ours would provide $1,000.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we get this work done as 
quickly as possible, and we are here prepared to do it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and my colleague from New York, Mr. Engel.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I rise in 
opposition to this rule.

[[Page 21395]]

  I have a challenge to my Republican colleagues who claim to want to 
extend the payroll tax for a year. Give us a clean vote on extending 
the payroll tax for a year. Give it to us today, and we will pass it.
  You talk about the bill that was passed in the House. That bill had 
poison pills in it. It mixed apples with oranges. It had a vote on the 
Keystone pipeline. It was designed to kill it.
  If you're serious and you really want a middle class tax extension, 
payroll tax cut, give us a clean vote. That's all we're asking for.
  The truth is that my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
interested in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but they're 
not interested in tax cuts for the middle class, as the Democrats are.
  So give us a clean bill, and then we'll call the Senate back to pass 
it. What the Senate has done is given us a 2-month breather. Let's take 
their 2- month breather and then pass a clean--a clean--doc fix, a 
clean extension of unemployment benefits, a clean payroll tax cut, not 
with any poison pills or extraneous materials destined to kill it.
  Give us a clean bill, and we'll pass it. I challenge my Republican 
colleagues who control this House.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so 
I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If my colleague is prepared to close, I have one more 
speaker.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, 
our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her for her 
leadership and fighting the good fight at the Rules Committee. I 
commend her for her patience and also for her great knowledge that she 
brings to this debate.
  But this is a pretty simple matter. The fact is what we're debating 
here today is of the utmost importance to the American people, to 
America's working families, and they know it. So much of what we debate 
on the floor may appear irrelevant to meeting their needs. This has a 
direct connection.
  The debate that we have around our table of discussion here relates 
directly to discussions that are happening at kitchen tables across the 
country, as people prepare for the holidays, to see if they're going to 
be able to have a holiday and if they're going to be able to pay the 
bills come January.
  Last night, the leadership of the Republican Party announced that the 
procedure today would be that we would be able to vote up or down on 
the Senate bill. In a matter of minutes, by the time it went to the 
Rules Committee, they changed that and said we wouldn't have a chance 
to vote up or down on the Senate bill.
  This isn't, though, about process. It's about why is this happening, 
and why can't we get the job done for the American people.
  What is at stake is the following: Given the chance to have an up-or-
down vote on the Senate bill will probably attract some Republican 
support. When passed, it could go directly to the President, be signed 
into law today, removing all doubt in the minds of the American people 
as to whether the following will occur:
  They will get up to a $1,500 tax cut, middle income families; 160 
million American workers will get the tax cut. It will mean 48 million 
seniors will have access to their doctors under Medicare. It will mean 
up to 2 million people will be receiving unemployment insurance in the 
next 2 months. For some of those people, losing that unemployment 
insurance cuts off any means of support for them.
  Is that what we are here to do?
  I thought we were here to do what the American people want us to do. 
What they have said they want us to do is to work together to get the 
job done. Why can't we work together, A.
  B, they want jobs, and they want this tax cut. Democrats, 
Independents, Republicans want this tax cut. In fact, Republicans, at 
50-something to 30-something support the payroll tax cut. That is 
Republicans across the country. Republicans in the Senate voted for 
this tax cut, 39 of them did. Ninety percent of the Senate, in a 
bipartisan way, voted for this tax cut. It is just the extreme Tea 
Party element of the Republicans in the House of Representatives who 
are standing in the way of a tax cut for 160 million Americans, 
unemployment benefits for millions of Americans, and Medicare 
opportunity for 48 million seniors.
  Republicans say this is too short. It reminds me of a Yogi Berra 
story. He said: I don't like the food at that restaurant. Besides, the 
servings are too small.
  Well, that's just what they're saying here. They've never wanted a 
tax cut, and now they're saying the tax cut for middle income people is 
too small. So what is it?
  The record shows that, in the beginning of the summer, Speaker 
Boehner said that the tax cut, even the 1-year tax cut, was a short-
term gimmick and he opposed it. It wasn't until President Obama went 
across the country with the American Jobs Act to persuade the American 
people to support the job creation that he was advocating, one part of 
that was a payroll tax cut. The American people overwhelmingly support 
that. They want us to get that job done.
  So the only reason the Republicans are using the subterfuge, these 
excuses, is because they never wanted the tax cut to begin with. Our 
distinguished Mr. Hoyer said it very well. The bill they put forth is 
designed to fail, designed to fail because they didn't want it to begin 
with.
  But this is deadly serious to the American people. The Senate 
Republicans opposed bringing up the House bill, the Republican House 
bill, in the Senate because they knew it would fail. The Republicans in 
the House--let's repeat that. The Republicans in the Senate refused to 
allow a vote on the House Republican bill because they knew it would 
fail. The Republicans in the House refused to bring up the Senate bill 
here because they are afraid it will pass, and it will pass and give 
the tax cut, take us down a path where we can go forward to make plans 
for how we extend it for one solid year.
  But how do you explain this to the American people? Ninety percent of 
the Senate has voted in a bipartisan way--that's what the American 
people want us to do, to work together--for a tax cut that the American 
people want in overwhelming numbers and that we have the opportunity to 
do right here and now today.
  President Thomas Jefferson said very wisely that every difference of 
opinion is not a difference of principle. And so let's see what this is 
today. Is this a difference of opinion of the path we can go down to 
have tax relief for the American people which, economists say, this tax 
cut will create jobs? If we don't pass it, as many as 600,000 jobs can 
be affected, either lost or not continued or not added, 600,000 jobs 
because of the demand injected into the economy by putting money into 
the pockets of the American people, by providing unemployment benefits, 
which are spent immediately and inject demand into the economy, 
therefore creating jobs.

                              {time}  1030

  This is dangerous business not only for how it impacts individual 
families and their survival. It's about the success of our economy, and 
not passing this bill today can hurt our economic recovery.
  So let's really be clear. Republicans said we were going to have a 
vote on the Senate bill. They were afraid it would win; they pulled 
that. So now we have to be engaged in these process maneuvers. That's 
only an excuse. It's not a reason to reject the tax cut. It's an excuse 
because they never wanted the tax cut from the beginning.
  So let's understand what we're here about.
  Getting back to President Jefferson, every difference of opinion is 
not a difference of principle. But maybe here it is. Maybe the 
principle at stake here is the anti-government, ideological warfare 
that the Tea Party Republicans in the extreme have taken us to. They, 
alone, are standing in the way of a tax cut for the middle class. 
Republicans across the country support it, Republicans in the Senate 
support it, some

[[Page 21396]]

Republicans in the House support it. That's why we're not getting a 
chance to vote on it.
  So let's understand that this is a pattern of House Republicans 
isolating themselves from the mainstream of even their own party across 
the country and their colleagues in the Senate who may or may not like 
this bill. It isn't the bill most of us would write, but that's what a 
compromise is. So it's not as if this is a mad, wild embrace of this. 
It's facing the reality of a two-party system of needing 60 votes in 
the Senate and the Republican majority in the House.
  I thought the Speaker said that this was a victory after it passed in 
the Senate. He was the one who instructed Harry Reid--insisted that 
Senator Reid have a discussion with Mitch McConnell. Was that just a 
farce, too?
  Is this all just a delaying, stalling tactic that says we were never 
going to do it before? Remember Yogi Berra: I don't like the food at 
that restaurant, and the servings are too small. They don't like the 
tax cut, and now they're claiming that it is too small. Yet when it was 
a 1-year tax cut, it was called a gimmick by the Speaker of the House.
  So I urge my colleagues to certainly vote ``no'' on the rule. The 
Speaker is proud of saying, The House will work its will. Well, it 
won't if we don't have the opportunity under the rules of the House 
that are put on this floor in opposition to the wishes of the American 
people to take a simple vote on a bill that comes in with the strength 
of a 90 percent bipartisan vote in the Senate of the United States.
  So it's clear: they never wanted a tax cut. Anything they put forth 
is designed to fail because that is what they want to do.
  I tell my caucus--and they may be tired of hearing it from me--that 
it is like a gentleman who is wooing his potential fiancee and keeps 
asking her to marry him. And she says, Of course I'll marry you. I can 
only do it on February 30. Well, that day is never coming. Nor is the 
day coming when the Republicans will wholeheartedly support a tax cut 
for the middle class. Their focus has been on tax cuts for the 
wealthiest people in our country, and those wealthy people want a tax 
cut for the middle class.
  Let's see what the American people want.
  Let's vote ``no'' on this rule so that we have an opportunity to vote 
``yes'' on the Senate bill that can be sent to the President this very 
day so that we can truly wish people a happy holiday season.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to reiterate the way I started today that what we're doing 
here today is killing the tax cut by not voting anything here except 
that we do not concur with the Senate and that we will hope some 
conference will come from someplace. That means there will be no tax 
cut; that means there will be no extension of unemployment benefits.
  Now, last night at 7 o'clock when the Rules Committee was supposed to 
meet, the agenda called for a vote to concur in the Senate bill. But 
after the stormy 2-hour Tea Party conference, they reversed their 
course. And now we have a process where no tax cut can pass today, no 
matter who wins what vote.
  If every Member of the House supported the bipartisan proposal, it 
still does not go to the President, and it does not become law. We have 
one chance, Mr. Speaker, of being able to vote on the Senate bill and 
one chance of winning that, and that will be on the previous question.
  If we are able to defeat the previous question, we can have what I 
will construe as an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. 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, but we want an up-or-down vote on the previous question.
  Let me repeat that because it's terribly important. I urge all of my 
colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle, if you wish an up-
or-down vote on what the Senate has done so that we can actually get 
some legislation done here and get it sent to and signed by the 
President of the United States, you must vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we will have that opportunity, which we have 
absolutely been denied.
  Let me repeat, again, what we're doing here is absolutely nothing. 
It's simply a stalling tactic, I believe, to kill the tax cut and to 
kill the unemployment benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question 
so we can do the compromise today. I urge a ``no'' vote also on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the 
American people are afraid. They're afraid of the party on the left. 
They're afraid because the party on the left raided $500 billion out of 
Medicare to pay for a national health care Ponzi scheme. They're afraid 
because that same party who talks about tax cuts for the middle class 
raised taxes by a half a trillion dollars on the middle class.
  After being held hostage, the middle class now hears from the party 
on the left, Trust me with a 60-day extension. No planning time, no 
time to figure it out. Trust me after I raised taxes on you in the last 
12 months by more than a half a trillion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, regular order suggests for the last 200 years that when 
the House and the Senate don't agree, they go to conference so that the 
folks on the left and those fighting for freedom on the right have an 
opportunity to come together in a conference. So to Mr. Waxman and Mr. 
Levin and others on the left who want a seat at the table, conference 
is the way you get a seat at the table. What we're asking for is common 
sense, something America has not seen from Congress in the last several 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:


    An amendment to H. Res. 502 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, 
     without intervention of any point of order or question of 
     consideration, to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
     (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, 
     and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, 
     and to consider in the House a single motion offered by the 
     chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate 
     amendments 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 or demand for division of the question.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page 21397]]

     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. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 944]

                               YEAS--233

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     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)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     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--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     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
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     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
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     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
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Johnson (IL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Buchanan
     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Filner
     Giffords
     Johnson, E. B.
     Olver
     Paul
     Platts
     Schrader
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1103

  Messrs. LUJAN and GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 944, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  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 231, 
nays 187, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 945]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon

[[Page 21398]]


     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     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
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     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--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     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
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     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
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     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
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Johnson (IL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachmann
     Buchanan
     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Filner
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hanna
     Johnson, E. B.
     Olver
     Paul
     Platts
     Schrader
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1110

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 945 on adoption 
of H. Res. 502, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 945, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________