[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21446-21450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        REFLECTIONS FROM THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized 
for the balance of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time this afternoon. 
It's been a big day, freshmen in this body coming up on the end of our 
very first year. In fact, all of us here, here with my colleague from 
Wisconsin, all of us here, freshmen, finishing up our first year, and 
it's a big day.
  And I've got to tell you, I feel good about the quality of the work 
product that's going on today. I feel good about the fact that there 
are serious issues before this body, and we have said, let's slow down 
and make sure we get it right because families have their futures on 
the line.
  I'd like to ask my friend from Wisconsin how he's seen this day go.
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding. I think 
it's important to note as we have listened to a debate that went on all 
day today that there really is no difference within this House whether 
we should extend the payroll tax holiday or not. Both Republicans and 
Democrats alike have come together and said we want to have that tax 
break for middle class Americans extended.
  But if you were listening to the debate, you might be confused by 
that because we so often heard on the other side of the aisle that they 
don't believe that the Republican side wants to extend it. And so I 
want to take a moment and just talk about what I think is happening 
here with regard to this debate in the House.
  I mean, let's not make a mistake. We have introduced legislation that 
is going to extend the payroll tax holiday for 1 year. And what that 
means is, $1,000 in a tax reduction for middle class Americans 
throughout the country and in my district, central and northern 
Wisconsin, $1,000 for them as well.
  Across the aisle, a proposal has been made that started its process 
in the Senate, where we would do a 2-month extension, a 60-day 
extension, which means the proposal is they would offer middle class 
Americans $170 in tax reduction. So we've proposed $1,000 of tax 
reduction, and the Democrats have proposed $170 in tax reduction.
  And I think as the American people look at this debate, they'd say, 
well, my goodness, I want to go for the $1,000 deduction, not the $170. 
And so as we dive in a little more, we hear a lot about partisanship 
and a lot of differences between the two Chambers.
  And a lot of folks are saying, we can't get this done. Let's adjourn 
for Christmas, and let's come back at the end of January and through 
February and see if we can resolve this very important issue. And I 
would say when we get back next year, there will be 5, maybe 6 weeks to 
work on this. But this won't be the only issue on the table. We're 
dealing with budgets and jobs bills. The docket, the calendar, is full 
of issues that we have to address in this House.
  But for the next 10 days we have nothing on the agenda. The calendar 
is clear. Let's get the House and the Senate to come together and 
address this one very important issue, to extend the payroll tax 
holiday and let's do it for a year.
  We have disagreements. But for 10 days we can talk about those 
disagreements and find solutions that don't work for parties, that 
don't work for Chambers, but solutions that work for the American 
people.
  If the Democrats in the Senate are steadfast in their request that it 
only be 60 days, I'll go for 60 days, but I just can't imagine that the 
American people believe that we're going to get a better resolution in 
60 days than we can in the next 10 days.
  As I look across my district, everyone in my district, they worked 
today. They work tomorrow. They work the next day. They don't take the 
week off before Christmas and after Christmas. They work that whole 
week between Christmas and New Year's. They don't take that off. Why 
should this House? Why should the Senate?
  Let's come back and get this work done for the American people. They 
deserve it. And it has a real impact. People are concerned about how 
they're going to put food on the table for their kids, how they're 
going to pay the mortgage. And $1,000 in the year makes a big 
difference for a lot of people in my district. And to think that the 
offer is we're going to give you 2 months at $170, that doesn't cut the 
mustard for them. They want long-term certainty at least for a year. 
Give them that break for a year.
  I have another concern. We proposed the Keystone pipeline. I know the 
President has talked about job creation. We've talked about job 
creation. We've disagreed on how we do it. The President and others 
will say the government needs to spend money to create jobs and 
economic growth.
  We say, well, listen, it comes from the private sector. Here we have 
a great example with the Keystone pipeline where it's private sector 
money that's going to create 20,000 new jobs, direct new jobs in 
America if that pipeline goes forward. There's going to be 100,000 
indirect jobs, real, good-paying jobs for hardworking Americans. And 
the President is saying he doesn't want to do it.
  I say, listen, Mr. President. We can't wait. The American people 
cannot wait. Let's come together and say, you know what, 20,000 people, 
100,000 hardworking Americans can get a good paying job if you'll sign 
on to this legislation.
  Not only that, we're going to take our energy from Canada, people who 
actually like us instead of countries in the Middle East. Let's get our 
energy, let's get our oil from our friendly neighbor to the north 
instead of those who are not so friendly in other parts of the world.
  Another key component of this extension is Boiler MACT. This is an 
EPA regulation that came out that is going to increase the boiler 
standards that are used in American manufacturing, costing hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, of dollars for our manufacturers to 
increase their boiler standards.
  In my district, just 2 weeks ago, we had one of our energy companies 
indicate that they're going to lay off 74 people; and they made it very 
clear. In their press release they said one of the issues that's 
causing us to lay off these 74 people is Boiler MACT, the EPA.
  Let's take that away. Let's make sure that our energy and our 
manufacturers have the ability to compete, not

[[Page 21447]]

State to State, but in a new global environment, China, India, Mexico, 
Vietnam. We have to be able to compete with those countries.
  And if we implement this Boiler MACT regulation, we're going to shut 
down American manufacturing. In my district it's paper. This regulation 
will cause Wisconsin paper to be crushed because right now they're 
under immense competition from foreign competitors; but not only that, 
they are in a very tough industry as people move to computers and 
iPads, and there's less paper being used.
  So I believe that these parties, I believe that these Chambers have 
to come together in the next 10 days, and we have to find a solution 
that's going to work for the American people, that is going to extend 
this payroll tax holiday, that's going to give them certainty, so as 
they start the next year and as they start it with hope and a thought 
of opportunity, they know what they're going to get in regard to the 
payroll tax holiday that's going to come from this House.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to come together during this 
season where we're all supposed to get along, we're all supposed to 
think about the meaning of Christmas, reach a hand out across the aisle 
to our friends who don't always agree with us, but who can come 
together on this issue and say, America, we're going to stand together 
as the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and pass a bill that's going to 
give you certainty for 1 year, giving you a tax break to the tune of 
$1,000.
  With that, I appreciate my good friend offering me the time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.
  I hope folks were paying close attention. What you have are two 
members of the freshman class on the floor right now, Mr. Speaker, and 
what you heard from my freshman colleague was, when can we come 
together? What you heard from my freshman colleague was, ``I don't want 
to do it if it's about party. I don't want to do it if it's about 
Chamber pride. I want to do it because it's the right thing for the 
American people.'' Is that what you're reading, Mr. Speaker, in the 
newspaper, about what this freshman class is doing? Is that what you're 
reading in the newspaper about what this Congress is doing? Because 
having sat here now for one year, I can tell you that's what is going 
on here today.
  Republicans are in the majority, Mr. Speaker. With the power of your 
gavel, you could demand that the House bill be the only bill that 
anybody considers, that it's our way or the highway. Who cares what the 
Senate has to say. We're in the majority. We're doing it our way. You 
could do that, Mr. Speaker.
  But that's not the advice and counsel that my colleague from 
Wisconsin gives. The advice and counsel that my colleague from 
Wisconsin gives is, we've done the very best we can in this Chamber. 
Work product that we're proud of. And now it's time, since the Senate 
has passed a very different work product, candidly a work product that 
I am not proud of, a very different work product, that we now come 
together, the House product and the Senate product, and try to agree on 
a final product that can pass both Houses.
  This is a process as old as this institution. Thomas Jefferson, when 
writing the rules for this institution, Mr. Speaker, wrote of the 
conference committee process and how that is the tool for resolving 
differences between the bodies.
  Now, why are there differences today, Mr. Speaker? Well, there are 
differences today because these are important issues that we're talking 
about. This isn't some renaming of a post office. I'm not trying to 
denigrate the importance of a good name on a post office. But I put 
that lower on the priority list.
  This is about Medicare beneficiaries being able to find doctors. This 
is about whether or not unemployment checks continue to go out the 
door. This is about payroll tax cuts for every single working American 
family. This is about jobs. Not just folks who don't have them, but 
folks who are looking for them and how we can help them to find them in 
the future.
  Boiler MACT that my friend from Wisconsin mentioned is a job-growing 
proposal. The XL pipeline. A job-growing proposal. That's what we had 
in the House-passed legislation, Mr. Speaker. You know, we had not just 
unemployment benefits, not just payroll tax breaks, but also real 
proposals and reforms to grow this economy once again. Those are absent 
from the Senate proposal.
  Now, I'm not attributing any bad motives to our friends in the Senate 
for producing a proposal that didn't have any job-creating structure to 
it. But I simply point out that is the proposal they produced, and now 
we need to come together and talk about it, and candidly, I think we're 
going to win that one. I think if our friends in the Senate weren't so 
hurried to get out of town, Mr. Speaker, that they would have produced 
a more thoughtful piece of legislation that would have included the 
job-growing provisions that we include.
  We now have the opportunity to come together and do that.
  Let me just talk about why it is the Senate proposal is so concerning 
to me and my constituents, Mr. Speaker.
  This is what ABC News said. ``Holiday passed by Senate, pushed by 
President, cannot be implemented properly, experts say.''
  I don't think that surprises any of the job creators in this country, 
Mr. Speaker. If you're one of those folks who has to fill out 
government paperwork quarter after quarter after quarter, then yeah, 
you're probably thinking don't change the rules on me 10 days before 
the start of the new quarter. And if you do, don't change them back in 
the middle of the next quarter. Cannot be implemented, experts say.
  But the question is, Mr. Speaker, why would we even try to produce a 
short-term solution when we have it within the ability of this Chamber 
and the one next door and down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to produce a 
long-term solution that serves the hardworking taxpayers in this 
country. We can do better, and we owe it to the American people to do 
better.
  From the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council: The confusion 
that the 2-month extension would impose on employers or their payroll 
providers will inevitably divert resources away from productive 
activities. Indeed, the uncertainty regarding what happens next 
following the 2-month expiration date will serve as additional fuel to 
currently low business confidence levels.
  This is what the business community, the employer community, the job-
creator community, is saying about the so-called Senate solution. And 
in fairness, even the Senate, Mr. Speaker, is not standing by their 
solution. They're saying let's just do it for 2 months and then we'll 
come up with something better. As my colleague from Wisconsin said, The 
time to come up with something better is now.
  From the National Roofing Contractors Association, talking about the 
Senate proposal: This would impose an undue burden on employers in the 
form of logistical difficulties and costs.
  I appreciate my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle and 
their commitment to helping the unemployed through a check from the 
government. Unemployment insurance is a longtime facet of the American 
economy, something that folks pay into at least for those first 26 
weeks that businesses pay into. But in the name of providing checks 
from the government, what we're saying is you're going to get fewer 
checks from employers. Logistical difficulties and costs in creating 
new jobs, which I continue to say, Mr. Speaker, is the focus of this 
Congress, has been, and has made me proud.
  From the Associated Builders and Contractors: This sort of temporary 
fix underscores Congress' uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy. 
Who disagrees with that, Mr. Speaker? How many times have you had a 
constituent back home, how many times have you heard from one of our 
freshmen colleagues who said the reason I ran for Congress is because 
the guys in Congress are doing more harm than good.

[[Page 21448]]

  I'll say it again. Associated Builders and Contractors of the Senate 
solution: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' uneven ad 
hoc approach toward the economy and causes more harm than good for 
America's job creators.
  Mr. Speaker, have you heard my friends on the Democratic side of the 
aisle asking why it was so important for us to go to conference with 
the Senate to try to improve that Senate proposal? Have you heard 
speaker after speaker on the Democratic side of the aisle come to the 
floor and say, ``Why won't you just pass it? Why won't you just do what 
the Senate in its wisdom has suggested?''
  Let me repeat the answer for you, Mr. Speaker. Referring to the 
Senate solution: This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress' 
uneven, ad hoc approach towards the economy and causes more harm than 
good for America's job creators.
  I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were times during the debate 
today, I thought my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle were 
trying to shame me into voting a different direction. Shame on me for 
believing what I believe.
  Mr. Speaker, I say shame on me for not standing up for my 
constituents if I didn't stand up today. Shame on me for not standing 
up against a proposal that causes more harm than good for American job 
creators. This isn't a game. This isn't some sort of political academic 
exercise. This is about families. This is about our economy. This is 
about the future of our Republic. And the decisions we make here have 
consequences.
  Rush through it, Mr. Speaker? Put it off for 2 months because we'll 
come up with something better later, when that short-term fix causes 
more harm than good for America's job creators.
  Mr. Speaker, it's not just the business community that has these 
concerns, and it ought to tell you something about the debate that's 
going on here today.
  From the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker: It would be 
inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax 
cut for the rest of the year. The President knows. He has been pushing 
it all year. It was his idea last December. The President knows that a 
1-year extension provides more certainty, more dependability. And he's 
asked Congress to do that.
  Now, what does that tell you, Mr. Speaker? All of this talk down here 
today about partisan divides and games. What does it tell you when a 
hardcore conservative from Georgia is holding up a quote from a 
hardcore Democrat from Chicago about what we ought to do to move this 
country forward? What does it tell you, Mr. Speaker, when on both ends 
of the spectrum, we're feeling the same thing--that it would be 
inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax 
cut?

                              {time}  1740

  Folks say, Oh, you can't. There's not enough time.
  Folks, there are 10 days. We just finished the National Defense 
Authorization Act, Mr. Speaker--the biggest defense bill that this 
Congress will produce.
  And guess what we did?
  We did the same thing Thomas Jefferson suggested, the same thing that 
has been going on in this Congress for 200 years. We had disagreements 
with the Senate. We passed a House bill; they passed a Senate bill; and 
we went to conference. Then in 7 days, Mr. Speaker, they reconciled the 
largest defense bill we'll move in this Congress. They brought together 
the two differences. They brought something to the House floor and the 
Senate floor for consideration, and we got it done.
  It is inexcusable not to extend this.
  From House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:
  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.
  Now, in fairness to the minority leader, she is not talking about 
pushing the yearlong provision that this House passed. What she's 
talking about is producing the short-term solution and then calling 
everybody back to then come back and get it right later. Yet at the end 
of the day, we all agree that a year is the right length of time and 
that 60 days is not the right length of time. Everybody agrees it's a 
bad length of time. They're just doing it instead of zero. They're 
saying 60 is better than zero.
  Folks, why do we have to have zero? Why can't we have 360? We can. We 
don't have to have 60 as the Senate proposed. We can have 360 as the 
House proposed, and that's why we moved today to go to conference.
  From House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer:
  I'm disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer 
term extension of critical policies.
  He's talking about this so-called ``bipartisan agreement'' from the 
Senate.
  I'm disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer 
term extension of critical policies.
  I'm going to team up with the minority whip. Again, one end of the 
spectrum--my end of the spectrum--two opposite ends of the spectrum. I 
agree with Steny Hoyer in that I am disappointed that we did not see a 
longer term extension of critical policies come out of the Senate.
  But it's not too late. Oh, Mr. Speaker, that's what folks have been 
saying all day--oh, it's too late. It's too late. It is not too late. 
These policies do not expire until January 1, and the only thing 
standing between us and a conference committee to work out these 
differences is the will to make it happen.
  Do you know how painful it has been all day, Mr. Speaker, to have 
folks stand up speaker, after speaker, after speaker, talking about how 
it can't be done? You didn't run for Congress, Mr. Speaker, because it 
couldn't be done. I didn't run for Congress because it couldn't be 
done. I ran for Congress because they weren't getting it done, and it's 
time to get it done the right way.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we've been here 1 year. We have 10 days to get it 
right for the American people. We can and we should. Now, what are we 
talking about?
  You can't see this chart, Mr. Speaker, and it might not even show up 
in the cameras back in folks' offices, but I want to go through it 
because it talks about why this is so important. Again, this isn't an 
academic exercise. This is a country we're talking about.
  Folks have been saying all day long, Oh, why don't you just pass the 
Senate bill? Why don't you just move that 60-day extension? Why don't 
we just come back and do it later?
  Mr. Speaker, I hope you haven't had to put anything on your credit 
card during this Christmas season, but I've got a lot of friends and 
family who have. Money is tight. Here in the Christmas season, if you 
opened up your credit card account on the day that Jesus Christ was 
born and if you put $500 on that credit card and if you put $500 on it 
again the next day and the next day and the next day and the next day, 
7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day that Jesus Christ was born 
until today, you would have to continue to put $500 a day on that 
credit card every day, 7 days a week, for another 700 years to put on 
your credit card the kind of debt that the Senate bill puts on 
America's children's credit card next year alone.
  Hear that.
  Just do it. Just do it. We'll come back later and fix it. Just do it, 
they say.
  This isn't something small we're talking about, Mr. Speaker; $30 
billion on the credit card of America's children is what this bill did. 
Now, it raised taxes even more than that. It put the burden on the home 
mortgage industry; it put it on the construction industry, an industry 
that we desperately need to reinvigorate this country. It took it out 
of Fannie and Freddie, a group that we absolutely need to continue to 
build, but we need to put that money in the trust fund to make sure 
that they can pay their bills when it happens.
  But it's not a small decision. That's also not the only difference, 
Mr. Speaker. Let me just make a comparison for you.

[[Page 21449]]

  ``Protecting seniors' access to their doctors.''
  That's talking about this giant Medicare cut that is looming out 
there on January 1, and everyone is looking for a solution to it. It's 
a cut, Mr. Speaker, that was passed in 1997. Neither Democrats nor 
Republicans have had the good sense to fix it for 15 years, but at 
least we're trying this year in the House-passed bill to fix it for 2 
years, a 2-year fix to provide certainty to America's seniors.
  In the House bill, in protecting seniors' access to their doctors, 
it's a 24-month solution. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months.
  Don't worry, seniors. That's my mom and my dad. They just went on 
Medicare. Don't worry. Just let us go home and take some vacation time. 
Let's come back and listen to the state of the Union. Then miraculously 
all of our problems will be solved, and we'll be able to agree on 
something.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to agree on something today, and 
it's important that we do. It's 2 months in the Senate bill. It's 24 
months in the House bill. It's the right thing to do.
  ``Federal unemployment benefits extension.''
  There is a lot of controversy about Federal unemployment benefits. 
The first 26 weeks are actually paid for through unemployment taxes. 
The rest of this extension generally now is coming out of Federal 
general revenues, general taxpayer dollars. So there is a real 
oversight responsibility in determining how we deal with that.
  In the House bill, we say, Let's deal with it. Let's create more 
jobs. Let's make some reforms to help people get off unemployment and 
find working paychecks that they can receive. It's a 13-month 
extension. From our friends in the Senate, it's 2 months, Mr. Speaker.
  We heard speaker, after speaker, after speaker, after speaker come to 
the well of the House on the Democratic side of the aisle, wanting to 
know why Republicans aren't working hard for America's unemployed. They 
asked that question, Mr. Speaker, while bringing a 2-month extension. 
Republicans brought 13. By Republicans, I mean it was a bipartisan 
House-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, going through regular order.
  ``Number of long-term unemployed allowed to start collecting Federal 
benefits after February.''
  It's the long-term unemployed, the folks who have been looking, but 
who can't find work. We heard today about how unemployment numbers are 
dropping. We know that they're dropping because people are just 
quitting, and they're no longer looking. The Obama economy has so 
discouraged the American workforce that they just quit looking. Yet 
there are still some long-term unemployed folks out there. Not some--
lots.
  How many of them get helped under the House bill? Four million. How 
many get helped under the Senate bill? Zero.
  Is it worth fighting about, Mr. Speaker? Is it worth standing up and 
being counted when the solution that this House has proposed under 
regular order speaks to the needs of 4 million long-term unemployed 
Americans and when the Senate bill speaks to zero?
  ``Payroll tax cut extension.''
  This is an extra 2 percent. Ordinarily, folks are paying about 6 
percent in payroll taxes out of their paychecks. This is cutting that 
down to about four. It's a 2 percent reduction in the Social Security 
contributions of every American worker. Every American worker takes 
home 2 percent more in his paycheck.
  The House-passed solution is a 12-month extension of that 2 percent. 
The Senate-passed solution is 2 months.
  How many speakers have we heard today who have talked to us about how 
families are hurting? Member, after Member, after Member, after Member 
has come to the floor with stories of those they know from their 
constituencies who are hurting in this Obama economy.
  A 2-month extension was the best the Senate could do, and 12 months 
is what we got out of the House. We can do better and we will do 
better, Mr. Speaker, in conference.

                              {time}  1750

  What's that payroll tax cut worth, Mr. Speaker, for a worker earning 
about $50,000 a year? In the House-passed bill, it is worth $1,000. 
That is real money in the pockets of a $50,000-a-year worker. What does 
the Senate-passed bill do to help American families? $167.
  Take us back, Mr. Speaker, to when I told you if you put $500 on the 
credit card of your child and you started that credit card account on 
the day Jesus Christ was born, and you ran up that card $500 a day 
every day from the day Jesus was born through today, and you would have 
to continue to do it 7 days a week for another 700 years to run up a 
$30 billion credit card bill. That's what the Senate does to America in 
the name of a 2-month extension to put $167 in someone's pocket.
  Is $167 important to the American family? Sure, it is, Mr. Speaker. 
Every dollar counts. Every nickel counts in today's economy. But don't 
tell me that you are empathetic with the plight of middle class 
hardworking Americans and tell me your solution is to find $167 for 
them that you are borrowing from their children. Mr. Speaker, $1,000 is 
the first step in the right direction that the House-passed solution 
contains. It's worth fighting for.
  Reforming unemployment to focus on reemployment. Mr. Speaker, do you 
have any constituents that say to you that what they would rather have 
is an unemployment check instead of a paycheck? Because I don't. I 
don't. Folks in the Seventh Congressional District of Georgia want 
paychecks. Now, some of them have to accept unemployment checks while 
they're out there looking to feed their family, but they want a 
paycheck.
  So in the spirit of solving the real problems--not just putting a 
Band-Aid on it, but solving the real problems, the House-passed bill 
focuses on reemployment. What does the Senate bill do? Nothing.
  Regulatory reforms to protect American jobs. Mr. Speaker, you heard 
my colleague from Wisconsin who said, Businesses are closing, laying 
people off because of Boiler MACT, this EPA regulation. You have heard 
it from our friends from Arkansas, Mr. Speaker, who say that the folks 
in the pipe manufacturing business there in Arkansas are laying off 
jobs because of the delay in approving the XL pipeline. This is not 
about unemployment checks alone. It is about unemployment checks for 
those who can't find jobs, and jobs for those folks who are looking.
  What happens in the House-passed bill? Regulatory reforms to protect 
American jobs, yes. What happens in the Senate bill? Nothing. Tell me, 
Mr. Speaker, are these things worth fighting for? Are these things 
worth spending a few extra days between now and the end of the year to 
get right? President Obama says ``yes.'' A conservative House freshman 
from Georgia says ``yes.'' From extreme to extreme, folks are saying 
``yes.'' Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, Harry Reid is going to say ``yes'' 
too and bring the Senate back to get the American people's business 
done.
  A pay freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers. Mr. 
Speaker, I don't mind telling you that I think I work pretty hard. I 
try to give folks an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar. But 
do you think I can go home to a town hall meeting and look somebody in 
the eye and tell you that I'm doing such a good job, I deserve a raise? 
I'm just telling you how the Senate is going to run up your credit card 
bill by $30 billion on your children. I'm telling you how the House 
can't find enough votes to persuade the Senate to come to the table.
  Am I doing my best? You'd better believe it. Am I going to quit 
trying? No, I'm not. Am I going to accept a pay raise while American 
families are hurting? No, I am not. In the House-passed bill, a pay 
freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers, yes. In the Senate-
passed bill, no. I'll leave you with that bit of irony, Mr. Speaker. 
We're here begging our colleagues in the Senate to come back and work. 
The House freezes salaries for Members of Congress. The Senate said, 
We'll sort that out when we come back from vacation in February.

[[Page 21450]]

  I thank the Speaker for the time.

                          ____________________