[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16959-16967]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

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

                              H. Res. 827

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

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I rise today in support of this rule, which will 
provide this body the ability to consider legislation under suspension 
of the rules for the remainder of this Congress. However, I would 
prefer not really to be here today talking about this resolution. I was 
speaking with the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, a few minutes ago, and we 
concluded that it sounds a lot like Christmas, and that's why we're all 
here. It must be Christmastime, and so we're going to work all the way 
through. But I'd like to be home with my constituents, I'd like to be 
home with the family, I'd like to be doing things. But the reality is 
that Congress will have to remain in session for the holiday season 
because we're the ones that said we would help solve the problems of 
this country, that we would step up to the plate on behalf of the 
American people and make sure we did what we said we'd do, and that is 
to make life better for people. We set the dates, we set the timing, 
and that's why we're here.
  So while families all across the country are with their loved ones, 
we will be here working. We said we would, and what we're going to wait 
for is our two sides, our leaders, the President of the United States, 
Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, certainly Senate Majority Leader 
Harry Reid, to lead those efforts to find a legislative deal that is 
designed to avoid America and this country, including our government, 
from going off the fiscal cliff. We have heard a lot about that. We are 
speaking about it. We've had discussions on the floor today about it. 
That's why we're here. And we're trying to make sure that we, as 
Members of Congress from both parties, are here trying to help resolve 
that so we can still do work in between that period of time.
  So, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans proposed this solution of trying 
to make sure that we would have an answer. The President has come back 
with a solution, and we now know where to point where. Our friends, the 
Democrats, are insisting upon a tax increase to move forward, and 
Republicans are saying, hold on, hold on; we need new revenue, but we 
don't need new taxes, especially taxes on small business owners that 
are the creators of jobs in our economy. And so Republicans are saying, 
we're not going to fall victim for being for the President's ideas and 
the Democrats' ideas that destroy 700,000 American jobs.
  So, here we are. We're here. We're going to stay here in town. 
Republicans have resolved to stay here. We said we'd sit at the table, 
we said we would do the American workers' and the American people's 
bidding at the table to make sure that we have a bipartisan answer, and 
that's what we are going to do.
  So we all remember that following the election in November that our 
Speaker, John Boehner, committed that this body would continue working 
with the President to reach a compromise that averts the fiscal cliff. 
Avoiding the fiscal cliff is what we should continue to do, and we 
should work very diligently. So for my friends that wonder why we're 
here, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, our families, we're here. We're going to 
keep working. We're going to work day in and day out, and we're going 
to hope that our leadership, including the President, is able to make 
counteroffers until we reach that exact point where a deal can be done.
  This is not just about negotiating. It is about finding an answer for 
the American people. By the way, for people that think this is all 
about politics and the things that are going on, perhaps it is, but 
it's going to take both sides--two sides, two willing partners--to want 
to come to an agreement. That's why we're still in town.
  To date, I know we've not seen a lot of progress, and I know we are 
worried about it. But I would remind us, and I believe this is true, 
that the President said he is going to stay at the table, he is going 
to work with Republicans, he is going to get a deal that's good for the 
American people, and the President said this during the election, and 
so I think we're here to make sure that is what happens.
  Mr. Speaker, in less than 20 days, in addition to the beginning of 
the New Year, we're going to find out that we also have a new set of 
taxes that have already been agreed to by the Congress. Ms. Pelosi, 
when she was Speaker, and the President ran through something that the 
President likes to call ObamaCare. But there are massive taxes already 
ahead in law for the American people, many of which we're just now 
becoming aware of. I guess that's what happens when you don't read the 
bill before you pass it. But every single American will see their 
personal taxes already go up, and that's before we get to whatever 
happens with the fiscal cliff.

                              {time}  1240

  This is an arbitrary across-the-board tax increase, the combination 
of which will mean that if we are unable to resolve the fiscal cliff 
without raising taxes, we'll already see a lot of new taxes as a result 
of the health care law on financial transactions, on insurance 
programs, on every single working American. That's why we have Speaker 
John Boehner trying to present President Obama with an alternative that 
says rather than raising taxes, which is already going to happen on 
January 1 from this massive new tax increase that was in the health 
care bill, why don't we find a way to understand and have the economy 
take that in hand first.
  I know the President stood here at the State of the Union address and 
said we're not going to spend one dime of taxpayer money. I know the 
President stood here and said every single American can keep their own 
insurance plan. I know the President has made these promises to the 
American people, and these are the things that we're going to have to 
understand about January 1 of next year. I believe that's why we need 
to have John Boehner be successful, and the President, to make sure we 
avoid further tax increases because we already have a massive tax 
increase that's going to take place. This would, in essence, be a 
double whammy on not just a fragile economy, but an economy that is in 
far worse shape with a country that is far more in debt and much more 
at risk today.
  So you and I understand, the CBO has estimated some 2 million 
American jobs would be at risk because of the ObamaCare implementation 
and its

[[Page 16960]]

massive impact on the free-enterprise system and taxation, combined 
with what would be this new--if the President gets his way--tax 
increase on working Americans and, in particular, small business.
  While much has been made about the debates surrounding tax rates, 
there is, I think, a larger picture that we need to consider. We should 
focus on employment and jobs. Instead of trying to necessarily aim for 
fairness just by using this weapon against small business, we should 
focus, I think, on job creation.
  We understand that if the President's bill passes, we will lose 
700,000 jobs. That means 700,000 Americans and their families would 
then qualify, I presume, for unemployment, and it would mean that we 
begin the new year once again on a negative pathway. That's why we are 
here today talking and trying to have our leaders of this great Nation 
make sure that we avoid this.
  This country is in desperate need of an economic kick-start. Lower 
taxes, we believe, through stimulating job creation and job investment 
and by stimulating the economy, will allow all Americans not only to 
keep their jobs but also to keep more of their own hard-earned pay. In 
fact, President John F. Kennedy, I think, agreed with us when he said:

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

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

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a number of good points. We did 
pass in the House the Violence Against Women Act. It passed on May 16 
of this year, 222-205. The House has passed, by the way--256 of our 
colleagues to 171--what's called the Job Protection and Recession 
Prevention Act. It was passed on August 1.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield in just a second.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would have extended all current rates and 
would have compelled Congress to enact meaningful tax reform in 2013. 
We passed this. We've said we ought to do

[[Page 16961]]

what we should do, and that was back in August.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you, Mr. Sessions, because I know you, and I 
know that you understand that I've already talked about this. That bill 
that passed this House excluded a large number of women. Basically, 
what this House said with that vote was to go ahead and beat them up, 
that we don't want them covered.
  After the election, after what everybody has been through, after what 
the American public thinks about what a large number of our cohorts 
believe here, surely to goodness, you would not recommend that that 
bill become the law of the land. The simple thing we're asking for is 
to take up the Senate bill, which covers everybody in domestic 
violence.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentlewoman 
in that we will be engaged in many of these debates. We have been in 
the past, and we will be in the future. I think the gentlewoman makes a 
good point.
  We offered this bill. We debated it. We passed it. We are waiting for 
the Senate to get to a point at which they can get to conference. I 
mean, this is how this thing works. We're not going to take the Senate 
bill and pass it. We passed our bill. Now, if we could get to 
conference, where the Senate and the House get together and they 
resolve their differences, then we can bring it back, and we'll have a 
bill. That's supposed to be how this place works. It's not where we 
pass our bill and then, all of a sudden, we decide we're just going to 
take the Senate bill and repass it and negotiate with ourselves. I 
think what we need to do is to stick to what we understand, and that is 
that we are waiting for the Senate to come and do business with us.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to a young, new member 
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. He will 
be our chairman next year, and I'm looking forward to his leadership.
  We are kind of setting the tone for what's going to happen next year. 
I said all through the fall, Mr. Speaker, that this was going to be 
that opportunity, that we were going to have to kind of define where 
this Congress was going to go for the next 2 years.
  I'd say to my friend from New York, for whom I have great respect and 
with whom I've enjoyed working on the Rules Committee for 2 years, Mr. 
Speaker, that this rule today does exactly what my constituents back 
home have asked me to come back to Washington to do. The gentlelady 
cited bill after bill after bill that I have been proud to support to 
try to rip the President's health care bill out by its roots. We 
absolutely worked hard at that. Of course, the Senate hasn't cooperated 
with us and the President hasn't cooperated with us, so we weren't able 
to get that done.
  What this rule does is to say let's move beyond those controversial 
topics, and let's move beyond those topics that we know we could jam 
through. For Pete's sake, there's a Republican majority in this House. 
We could jam through absolutely any piece of legislation we wanted to 
jam through. But what this rule says is that that's not the way to 
finish out the year. The way to finish out this year is to make sure 
that we're grabbing each piece of legislation out there that has 
bipartisan support. Let's grab each piece of legislation out there that 
folks have been laboring on for 2 years, that folks have brought 
together a consensus around and brought together a majority behind, and 
let's pass those things.
  I think that's fantastic. I think that's fantastic that every single 
bill that Members have been investing their energy in they'll now have 
a chance to move to the floor. My frustration is, what about the bills 
that we've already worked on here in a bipartisan way that have yet to 
be taken up on the Senate side?
  I heard from my constituents in a town hall meeting last night, and 
somebody said, Rob, why do you always put everything off until the last 
minute? Why didn't you deal with this sequester earlier?
  I said, Do you mean like back in May when the U.S. House passed the 
only sequester replacement bill to have been passed in this town? It 
was back in May.
  He said, Okay. Maybe that takes care of the sequester problem, but 
why didn't you fix these tax rates?
  I said, Well, we did. As my friend from Texas just pointed out, what 
about back in August? In a bipartisan way, we passed a bill in this 
House to extend current tax rates for everyone in order to prevent tax 
rates from going up.
  Then I took another question from one of the folks who said, But what 
about that Senate bill people keep talking about? What about the Senate 
bill? Why won't that get a vote in the House?
  I said, Well, actually, it's quite unusual in the Rules Committee. 
You don't see it very often when a tax bill is coming to the floor. The 
Rules Committee back in August, when we were voting on taxes in 
general, waived all the points of order, took all the roadblocks out of 
the way, in kind of an unprecedented way, to allow what we call the 
Levin amendment, which was, basically, exactly the plan the President 
has been pushing, which is to raise taxes on family-owned businesses, 
to punish those job creators.
  We took that vote here on the House floor, and I'm proud to say that, 
again, in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats came together, 
rejected class warfare, and said let's get behind a program that 
expands the economy for everyone. We passed that tax bill back in 
August, then again in September. Again, in being worried about this 
defense sequester that's coming up, we took up the bill from the 
gentleman from Florida to say, how could we deal with these defense 
sequestrations in a responsible way?
  So I go back to May when this House did its work. I go back to August 
when this House did its work. I go back to September when this House 
did its work. There is proposal after proposal after proposal that, as 
the gentleman from Texas said, we could take to conference tomorrow.
  If I could ask the gentleman from Texas, because you know better than 
I: I know this rule allows for suspensions to come to the floor, but 
what about that? What about when the Senate decides to get to work and 
takes up the companion legislation to some of these bills that we've 
passed in the House? Will we be able to move to go to conference?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's engaging me. I would say 
to you there is nothing in this rule that will preclude our taking a 
conference report or any business on what we might call ``regular 
order'' that would require a rule to come forth.
  Mr. WOODALL. So, as the gentlelady from New York was talking about 
some of these important pieces of legislation coming to the floor, 
you're saying, if the House appoints conferees and if the Senate 
appoints conferees, we can get together and bring legislation back to 
the House for every piece of legislation that she has on her agenda?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman would be correct, and we do expect those.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  This is exactly the kind of deliberative House that I came to be a 
part of just 2 short years ago. We have the ability to get these things 
done in the next few days. I reject the idea that I read over and over 
and over again, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been delaying action. 
This House got it right. We got it right in our budget in April of 
2011. We got it right in our budget in 2012. We got it right when we 
passed a sequester replacement. We got it right when we passed a tax 
replacement--and we're getting it right with this rule today, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our 
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member.
  Mr. Speaker, why did I sort of smell smoke when I heard this debate? 
It's

[[Page 16962]]

reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The American people are 
waiting for us to get the job done here, not to make a myriad of 
excuses about why stuff hasn't been done.
  You're bringing up a rule that says we should have a suspension 
authority? Let's bring the middle-income tax cut up under suspension. I 
believe--and I am willing to take the chance--that this House would 
give over two-thirds of a vote to the middle-income tax cut.
  Do I detect your smirk to mean that you don't think Republicans will 
vote for a middle-income tax cut, Mr. Sessions? Should I take it to 
mean that you will continue to hold middle-income tax cuts hostage, 
giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country?
  The unfairness of it is appalling. The fact that it increases the 
deficit is disgraceful, and that it does not create jobs is a big 
mistake for us to make.
  What we are asking for in this rule is to say ``no'' to the previous 
question so that we can take up a rule that says that we cannot leave 
here until we and unless we pass the middle-income tax cut, whatever 
else happens on a whole myriad of other issues that relate to the 
cliff. This matters, what happens here. It matters that we get the job 
done. It is relevant to the lives of the American people.

                              {time}  1300

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

[[Page 16963]]

of what the President, what the minority leader is down arguing for, of 
increasing taxes.

                              {time}  1310

  So it's obvious to Republicans that what we believe we stand for is 
creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in 
the economy continues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democrat 
leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the so-called supercommittee failed last year to 
overcome the obstruction of the Tea Party Republicans and their leader, 
Grover Norquist, to achieve a fair and balanced plan for deficit 
reduction, economic growth, and job creation, I said it would take a 
decisive national election in order to settle the matter. I believe 
President Obama's victory on November 6 was very decisive and pretty 
definitive.
  During the campaign, President Obama very clearly laid out his 
vision, and the American people strongly affirmed his position. The 
President won all but one of the swing States, 62 percent of the 
Electoral College, and carried the popular vote by more than 4\1/2\ 
million votes. Democrats added to our numbers in the House and Senate 
and captured a House popular vote by more than a million votes.
  In February 2010, President Obama began the process to reduce our 
deficit by establishing the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Since that time, 
many bipartisan groups have made recommendations on how to reduce the 
deficit, and they have all been in agreement: We need a balanced deal 
that requires shared sacrifice from all Americans, including the 
wealthy.
  In 2011, we began to reduce the deficit, but we did it entirely 
through spending cuts, over $1.5 trillion, and have asked nothing of 
the most fortunate.
  In 2012, the American people spoke. It is time for balance and shared 
sacrifice, and the first step is to allow the Bush tax cuts for income 
over $250,000 to expire. But that is a debate for another day. Now we 
must do what we agreed on, extend the tax cuts for everyone on their 
first $250,000 of income.
  The proposals put forth by the Republicans since the election and 
their refusal to extend the middle class tax cuts, which we all agree 
should be extended, are just more of the same obstructionism.
  The time for posturing is over. It's time for our House Republicans 
to accept the express will of the American people and get beyond their 
pledge to a special interest lobbyist here in Washington, D.C.; 
although, frankly, I fail to see how voting to cut taxes violates a 
pledge to never raise taxes.
  We need to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the gentleman that 
Republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut 
on August 1 of this year, and it passed 256-171. We're now waiting for 
the Senate to act on that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the vice chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  If you're in the middle class, shouldn't it feel like you're in the 
middle of America? Yet the politics of extremism is pushing the middle 
class to the very edge--the very edge.
  Our House Republican colleagues continue to ignore the calls from the 
American people to extend middle class tax cuts now. That politics of 
extremism is threatening to raise taxes on the middle class by the 
amount of about $2,200 starting January 1.
  Republicans should, once and for all, join with Democrats and the 
American public to bring the bipartisan, Senate-passed middle class tax 
cut bill to a vote on the House floor. Passage of the bipartisan middle 
class tax cut bill ensures that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent 
of small businesses don't see a single tax increase next year.
  Democrats and two-thirds of the American people agree with a growing 
number of Republicans who are telling their Republican colleagues, Take 
the 98 percent deal; take the 98 percent deal.
  My friends, this is not the time to put a foot on the brake of our 
economic recovery that we're beginning to experience. It's time to get 
our work done.
  Remember, colleagues, where we were 4 years ago. Four years ago, 
November 2008, our country was hemorrhaging 800,000 American jobs. This 
November, we got the news, 146,000 new jobs. It's time to continue that 
progress.
  Let's stop abiding by these pledges to special interests and start 
abiding by our pledge to the United States of America and to the people 
who elected us to serve the interest of all Americans, not those of 
special interests. Let's pass this middle class tax cut bill now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make sure that the 
speaker that was up here, Mr. Becerra, understands that on August 1 of 
this year we passed a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class, 
256-171. We've already done that, and it's now awaiting Senate 
approval.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to 
thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his efforts as well.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we talked a lot about, correctly, 
creating certainty, alleviating uncertainty, alleviating angst among 
our people and among our economy.
  We have an opportunity to bring certainty to a large segment of the 
America that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. We have 
that ability because the United States Senate has acted on a bill which 
will allow us to do that.
  Even if we don't take their bill up, we could take a bill that Tim 
Walz has introduced. Congressman Walz has introduced a bill which will 
say to the 98 percent that we've talked about, You won't get a tax 
increase. I think that we have agreement on that. As the gentleman from 
Texas indicated, we have agreement on that.
  I think there's not anybody here--or very, very few at least, on 
either side of the aisle--who doesn't say that those who are making 
$250,000 or less as families or $200,000 as individuals, or less, 
shouldn't get a tax increase.
  Now, there are some who say that those above should not get a tax 
increase either. I understand that. But we have disagreement on that.
  The American people are frustrated by the fact that even that on 
which we have agreement we can't move. That's their frustration. They 
understand that we have policy differences, but they are hopeful that 
when, at least, we have agreement on an issue that we can move it. And 
if we did so, think of the confidence.
  Mr. Cole, former--had your job as the chairman of the Campaign 
Committee, said let's pass this. Let's give the middle class, the 
working people of America, a Christmas present, a sense of certainty, a 
sense of self-confidence, a sense of well-being. That will be good for 
our economy, but certainly good for them individually and as families 
as well.
  So I would urge my colleagues on the Republican side and my 
colleagues on the Democratic side, vote against the previous question.

                              {time}  1320

  Now that's somewhat esoteric, Mr. Speaker. Those watching us say, 
What does that mean, voting against the previous question? What's the 
previous question? That's some sort of political jargon that they use 
in Washington.
  What it means is, if we vote against the previous question, we will 
then be empowered to bring forward the middle class tax cut bill and 
we'll put it on the floor, and Mr. Walz will be our leader

[[Page 16964]]

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

              [From the House Committee on Small Business]

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

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT--PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE IN 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Provision  Law, Section                           Consequences for
        (Effective date)              Description      small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare Tax Increase...........  The Medicare Part   Small businesses
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9015        A tax rate on       structured as
(January 1, 2013)                  wages increases     pass-through
                                   from 1.45% to       entities that
                                   2.35% for those     earn over the
                                   single filers       threshold amount
                                   earning over        will pay a
                                   $200,000            significantly
                                   ($250,000 for       higher Medicare
                                   married joint       Part A tax rate.
                                   filers). A new      Small businesses
                                   and additional      relying on
                                   3.8% tax will be    unearned income
                                   assessed on         will be taxed an
                                   unearned income     additional 3.8%.
                                   such as taxable
                                   capital gains,
                                   dividends, rents,
                                   royalties, and
                                   interest for
                                   taxpayers with
                                   modified adjusted
                                   gross income
                                   (MAGI) over
                                   $200,000 single
                                   and $250,000
                                   married joint
                                   filers.
New Medical Device Tax..........  A 2.3% excise tax   Higher costs for
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9009        will be levied on   the manufacturers
(January 1, 2013)                  manufacturers,      of medical
                                   producers, or       devices are
                                   importers on the    likely to be
                                   sale of most        passed on to
                                   medical devices     health care
                                   that are not        entities (often
                                   directly marketed   small and solo
                                   to consumers.       practice
                                                       physicians and
                                                       hospitals) and
                                                       patients who rely
                                                       on them. Several
                                                       device
                                                       manufacturers
                                                       have already
                                                       announced job
                                                       cuts in
                                                       anticipation of
                                                       this tax.
Decrease in Deductions for        The threshold for   Given the
 Medical Expenses.                 claiming an         increased
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9013        itemized            qualifying
(January 1, 2013)                  deduction on        threshold, fewer
                                   medical expenses    small business
                                   rises from 7.5%     owners and
                                   to 10% of           workers may be
                                   adjusted gross      permitted to
                                   income for those    claim itemized
                                   under age 65        deductions for
                                   effective in        medical expenses.
                                   2013; for those
                                   65 or older, the
                                   10% threshold
                                   will be effective
                                   after 2016.
Limit on Flexible Spending        Caps FSA            The new limit
 Account (FSA) Contributions.      contributions at    increases the tax
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9005        $2,500 per year.    burden for small
(January 1, 2013)                                      business owners
                                                       and employees
                                                       with FSAs.
Elimination of Deduction for      Prior to ACA,       The number of
 Employer Part D Subsidy.          employers were      employers
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 9012        able to deduct      offering
(January 1, 2013)                  the cost of         prescription drug
                                   providing           plans for
                                   Medicare Part D     Medicare-eligible
                                   to retirees and     retirees is
                                   also were not       likely to
                                   taxed on the        decrease, as
                                   subsidy they        there will be a
                                   received for        reduced incentive
                                   providing this      to sponsor such
                                   coverage. ACA       plans.
                                   eliminated the
                                   additional
                                   deduction
                                   employers receive
                                   for providing
                                   Part D coverage.
Reduced Medicare                  Medicare DSH        Small hospitals
 Disproportionate Share Hospital   payments, paid to   that currently
 (DSH) Payments.                   qualifying          receive Medicare
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 3133        hospitals that      DSH payments may
(October 1, 2013)                  serve low-income    find their DSH
                                   patients, will be   payments reduced.
                                   reduced by 75%
                                   starting October
                                   1, 2013. A
                                   hospital will
                                   receive an
                                   additional
                                   payment based on
                                   three factors: 1)
                                   the remaining
                                   pool of DSH
                                   payments that
                                   would have been
                                   paid absent these
                                   changes; 2)
                                   current estimates
                                   of the uninsured
                                   compared to the
                                   estimate for
                                   2013, the last
                                   year before the
                                   expansion of
                                   coverage; and 3)
                                   the hospital-
                                   specific share of
                                   uncompensated
                                   care. The
                                   estimate of the
                                   percentage of
                                   individuals who
                                   are uninsured
                                   will be decreased
                                   by 0.1 percentage
                                   points for FY2014
                                   and by 0.2
                                   percentage points
                                   for each year
                                   from FY2015-
                                   FY2019.
Reduced Medicaid                  In FY2012,          Small hospitals
 Disproportionate Share Hospital   Medicaid DSH        that currently
 Payments.                         allotments to       receive Medicaid
P.L. No. 111-148, Sec. 2551 as     states (i.e., the   DSH payments may
 modified by Sec. 10201(e);        maximum amount of   find their DSH
P.L. 111-152: Sec. 1203 (October   federal matching    payments reduced.
 1, 2013)                          funds that each
                                   state is
                                   permitted to
                                   claim for
                                   Medicaid DSH
                                   payments) totaled
                                   $11.3 billion.
                                   Medicaid DSH
                                   allotments to
                                   states will be
                                   reduced by $500
                                   million in
                                   FY2014, $600
                                   million in
                                   FY2015, $600
                                   million in
                                   FY2016, $1.8
                                   billion in
                                   FY2017, $5.0
                                   billion in
                                   FY2018, $5.6
                                   billion in
                                   FY2019, and $4.0
                                   billion in
                                   FY2020. The
                                   Secretary of
                                   Health and Human
                                   Services is
                                   responsible for
                                   determining how
                                   to distribute the
                                   aggregate DSH
                                   reductions among
                                   the states using
                                   some broad
                                   statutory
                                   guidelines.
Increase in Medicaid Payments     Medicaid payments   Small and solo
 for Primary Care.                 for primary care    practices with
P.L. No. 111-418, Sec. 1202        services            physicians
(January 1, 2013)                  furnished by        specializing in
                                   physicians with a   family medicine,
                                   specialty           general internal
                                   designation of      medicine, or
                                   family medicine,    pediatric
                                   general internal    medicine will
                                   medicine, or        receive larger
                                   pediatric           Medicaid
                                   medicine will       reimbursements
                                   increase to 100%    (equal to 100% of
                                   of Medicare         Medicare
                                   payment rates for   payments) for
                                   CY2013 and CY2014   primary care
                                   (i.e., January 1,   services for a 2-
                                   2013 and December   year period
                                   31, 2014).          beginning in
                                                       January 2013.
State Notification Regarding      States will have    Small businesses
 Exchanges.                        indicated to the    with 100 or fewer
P.L. 111-148, Sec. 1321            Department of       employees (or 50
December 14, 2012, February 15,    Health and Human    or fewer
 2013)                             Services by         employees, at
                                   December 14, 2012   state option) may
                                   whether they will   be able to
                                   be creating a       purchase
                                   state-based         insurance through
                                   American Health     these exchanges.
                                   Benefit Exchanges   All non-
                                   and Small           grandfathered
                                   Business Health     plans offered in
                                   Options (SHOP)      the individual
                                   Exchanges. A        and small group
                                   state must          markets (both
                                   declare its         inside and
                                   intention to        outside an
                                   create a            exchange) must
                                   partnership         cover certain
                                   exchange by         minimum benefits
                                   February 15, 2013.  (the essential
                                                       health benefits).
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by Small Business Committee Republican staff.
Sources:
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform Source,
  Implementation Timeline, 2012.
The Commonwealth Fund, Health Reform Resource Center, Find Health Reform
  Provisions Tool, 2012.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Timeline of
  Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package, 2010.



[[Page 16965]]

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman from New York, a very dear friend of 
mine, really, I think, got something wrong. What we're trying to extend 
is the law that President Obama signed into law as a result of 
bipartisan action 2 years ago, and the economy was better then than it 
is now. We were trying to extend the tax cuts that President Obama was 
asking us to do, and that's what we simply did in August again. So it 
is a President Obama last-signed bill that we're trying to offer an 
extension of.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, my discharge petition at the desk is really an approach 
that the American people spoke loudly in. Every single one of us just 
came through an election, and the message was abundantly clear to me: 
Why do you continue to bicker? Why do you continue to stand on the 
floor and make these ridiculous Kabuki-dance statements with one 
another when it shouldn't be that difficult? We came out of a 
Constitutional Convention, and when they asked James Madison what the 
secret to this new government was: compromise, compromise, compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, to sit here and do what we're doing--not bringing this 
forward and releasing the tension on the middle class, making sure the 
economy knows there's stability amongst taxes--is holding our economy 
back. And to be very honest, it's insulting to the American people. 
This is a Nation that won two world wars. This is a Nation that split 
the atom. This is a Nation that put a man on the Moon. This is a Nation 
sending pictures back from Mars from Curiosity.
  Sign the discharge petition, bring it to the floor, get 435 votes, 
put it online for 24 hours, send it to the President, and by 3 o'clock 
tomorrow, the big chunk of the fiscal cliff is done. Don't insult the 
people with things that aren't true. Don't tell them that it's not 
about compromise, and don't sit here and pretend like we're working 
when we're not. They know better. They're smarter. They deserve better.

                              {time}  1330

  Bring the discharge petition to the floor, allow Members to vote for 
it, give the American people what they want--stability and a Congress 
that works--and let's move on to other pressing issues.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of disagreement about the 
future of our country. There's disagreement over how to handle 
spending--what should be cut, what should be reduced, what should be 
increased. There's disagreement over how much and when to raise the 
debt ceiling. These are very important questions.
  There's a disagreement over whether taxes should or should not go up 
on income over $250,000 a year. Our friends on the other side in good 
faith believe that's a bad idea. We know the economic history tells us 
that the last time the rates were at the level of 39.6 percent, 600,000 
new businesses were formed and 23 million new jobs were created, so we 
think it works.
  But there's something that everyone says they agree on, and that is 
that income up to $250,000 a year should not have a tax increase. 
Everyone on both sides says that when January 1 shows up on the 
calendar there shouldn't be a tax increase on the middle class people 
of this country, that their first paycheck on the first Friday of the 
New Year should not have more taken out of it so as not to hurt our 
economy or hurt those families. Now, we all say we agree on this. It 
seems to me the right course is to put a bill on the floor that says 
exactly that, that says that for income of less than $250,000 a year, 
the tax rates for every American should stay where they are now and 
there should not be a tax increase.
  My friend from Texas says that the majority did that in July. That's 
not quite right. What the majority did in July was to keep the rates 
low for people making less than $250,000, but also keep them low for 
people making more than $250,000. We just don't agree with that. Why 
don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on and vote on it right now?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
  If we don't do this, 19 days from today 98 percent of the American 
people--really 100 percent of the American people--get a tax increase. 
They have more taken out of their checks. It will hurt shoppers in the 
stores, diners in the restaurants, it will hurt jobs across the 
country. So why don't we take the 98 percent that we agree on right now 
and put it on the floor right now. By voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, that's what we can do and should do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that my Republican friends are turning this 
House of

[[Page 16966]]

Representatives into a place where trivial issues get debated 
passionately and important ones not at all.
  The bill that we are talking about right now on the House floor 
basically gives the majority who run this House the authority to bring 
up suspension bills from now until December 28. Suspension bills, for 
those who don't know, are bills really of not much consequence, by and 
large. They are bills that most of the time could pass by a voice vote.
  Last night in the Rules Committee the distinguished ranking member, 
Ms. Slaughter, suggested that instead of doing suspension bills we 
ought to be doing bills of some consequence, like reauthorizing the 
Violence Against Women Act, doing postal reform, doing a farm bill, or 
what we're talking about right now--passing a middle class tax cut 
extension. Those are real things that mean real things to real people 
in this country, and yet we're not talking about any of those things. 
We're talking today about basically doing not much of anything between 
now and December 28.
  Last night in the Rules Committee we were told, well, we're trying to 
negotiate a deal on this fiscal cliff. Well, the reality is that there 
are a few Members of this House who are probably in discussions with 
the White House about trying to work out a deal, but the vast majority 
here, Democrats and Republicans, are being asked to do nothing. Last 
night we came back and we voted on one bill, to approve the Journal. 
That's all we had to do last night, to approve the Journal. We haven't 
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. We haven't extended the 
middle class tax cut. We haven't reauthorized the farm bill--I can go 
on and on and on--but we had to come back and have a Journal vote last 
night.
  The time has come for us to get back to work. The election was clear: 
the views advocated by Governor Romney and the Republican majority were 
rejected. The President won comfortably. Democrats won more seats in 
the Senate, we won more seats here in the House. I think it's a pretty 
clear message that the American people think that we ought to do what's 
right in terms of balancing the budget, and that is ask the Donald 
Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more.
  We have already cut, I should say to the gentleman, $1.5 trillion in 
discretionary spending. A lot of those cuts are in programs that I 
think help people. So, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending we've 
already cut, and my friends on the Republican side are saying that 
Donald Trump can't pay one penny more. Give me a break. Give me a 
break.
  This is about fairness. This is about justice. This is about doing 
the right thing. At the very minimum, we should be debating now not 
suspension bills, but we should be debating the extension of the middle 
class tax cut. That is why we need to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, to allow us to bring this bill to the floor.
  If my Republican friends say they agree with us on a middle class tax 
cut, fine, let's vote it, vote overwhelmingly for it. You don't have to 
agree on everything to agree on something. Let's give the middle class 
certainty. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who 
formerly was the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. I would like to 
remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost 
half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th and 
111th Congress were for post offices and Federal building namings, or 
resolutions, or things just like National Pollinators Week.
  What we're trying to talk about is, at the end of the year, since 
we're going to be here waiting for the ``big deal,'' that we're going 
to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and reside on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to say when we were in charge, we were able 
to walk and chew gum at the same time. We passed some pretty important 
and substantive legislation that I'm proud of. We should be talking 
about real things that matter to real people right now instead of just 
extending the suspension authority.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  The message from my constituents and from the American people is loud 
and clear, and that's to extend the middle class tax cuts now. 
Republicans are simply holding hostage tax cuts for 98 percent of 
Americans and 97 percent of small businesses to give more tax breaks to 
the wealthiest Americans.
  Now, Democrats have a commonsense solution, and we can't wait around 
any longer as real proposals languish while the House GOP gets its act 
together. Spearheaded by Congressman Walz, Democrats last week filed 
the Walz discharge petition to automatically bring to the floor the 
Senate-passed middle class tax cuts--which the President has said that 
he will sign immediately--and overwhelmingly Members have signed this 
discharge petition.
  My point is we don't have any time to waste. We can pass this 
extension of the middle class tax cuts now as we find a bold and 
balanced and fair agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. There is a 
consensus that we do this. So why are the Republicans holding this 
hostage?
  Once again, let us vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's bring 
this middle class tax cut up now. It is the solution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further requests for time, Mr. Speaker, and 
I wondered if my colleague is prepared to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I have no further 
speakers and will allow her that opportunity, and then I will close.

                              {time}  1340

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be doing one thing today, and that's passing 
the continuation of tax cuts for the middle class. The American people 
couldn't be more united in their support for a tax cut, and there's no 
reason for delay. The Senate has already passed the bill that we could 
take up now. It's here at the desk. Members across our aisle agree, 
quite intelligently, that we must not let middle class taxes go up.
  With such common ground, why would the majority waste another minute 
before ensuring that the taxes will not go up on the middle class? The 
answer isn't clear to me. I simply cannot fathom it. But if the 
majority won't take action, we will.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer 
an amendment to the rule that says two things. One is first that we 
will pass a bill to extend the middle class tax cut, and second that we 
will pass legislation that will avoid the fiscal cliff and the chaos 
that would ensue.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the 
rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to 
defeat the previous question so that we may put our rule on the floor. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule if we are unsuccessful, and yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman 
from New York, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, top to bottom, the leadership of the Democratic Party 
has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes 
on small business. They want to increase taxes on family-owned 
businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people 
and work harder. Small

[[Page 16967]]

business is the engine of our economy, and our friends, the Democrats, 
want to punish them through taxes for fairness issues.
  Well, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got a bunch of problems in 
this country, and that's why we're at the fiscal cliff. This thing is 
not as a result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many 
people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes, but 
to be able to sustain our economy.
  So we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing 
unemployment compensation. We're seeing disabilities rise at a rate of 
16 percent every year. One thing which we note is that just before 
President Obama took effect, the White House figure showed the Federal 
budget was $2.9 trillion. Next year's estimate is going to be $3.8 
trillion. This is a 31 percent increase in spending in just 4 years.
  We have someone as President, our great President, who is hung up on 
taxing and spending. What we need is a House of Representatives that's 
hung up on jobs and job creation, the American product, 
entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition with the world. The next 
new great ideas will not come from this body but from the creativity of 
the American people.
  This is what Republicans are trying to keep alive in our country, the 
idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that 
are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood, your cities, 
our States, the vibrancy of our country. We are headed over the fiscal 
cliff after 4 years of leadership from this President who is running--
running--directly to the fiscal cliff, and he has even said, and his 
Secretary of the Treasury said, We don't mind jumping off this cliff.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. We should 
have the attitude that we're for everybody. We want to be for American 
entrepreneurship and especially small business, because it's small 
business such as family farms, small business such as electrical 
companies and people who put their name on the buildings, the creative 
people who get up to go to work every day. That is who we're going to 
hurt.
  We're not just going to hurt them, we're going to hurt their business 
families, the people they have had employed, small communities, large 
communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy. 
That's really who we're going to punish.
  Lastly, we should not do it at this time, just like we should not 
have 2 years ago, but I guess we were aiming for an election at that 
time, and now the President does not have one ahead of him.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

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

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

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________