To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the "William T. Trant Post Office Building".

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 491, I call up the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are four important facts everyone should know about the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act:

First, it will strengthen our economy and help get Americans back to work by lowering the tax burden for middle class families and job providers alike;

Second, it prevents massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program to protect America's seniors and those with disabilities-- providing more stability in the doctor payment schedule than there has been in a decade;

Third, it adopts a number of the President's legislative initiatives, which represents the bipartisan cooperation Americans are demanding; and

Fourth, it's fully paid for with spending cuts, not job-killing tax hikes. The CBO tables show the bill is fully offset and saves about $1 billion. And when you add in the flood insurance provisions, the savings are closer to $6 billion.

So it will help families struggling in this economy; it will help the unemployed get and keep a job; it helps seniors; it's bipartisan; and it is paid for.

The House should--and I expect it will--overwhelmingly pass this measure, and the Senate should quickly pass it so Americans can get what they truly want this holiday season--something that helps create jobs while helping those most in need.

While this bill includes the priorities of a number of committees, many of the provisions in H.R. 3630 are within the purview of the Ways and Means Committee.

This bill will extend for 1 year the payroll tax holiday to help middle class families struggling in this economy, while fully protecting the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Social Security Chief Actuary confirming this fact that I would like to place in the Record.

Social Security Administration,

Office of the Chief Actuary,

Baltimore, MD, December 12, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We have reviewed the language in the

``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011''

(H.R. 3630), which you introduced on December 9, 2011. We

estimate that the enactment of this bill would reduce

(improve) the long range actuarial deficit of the Old Age and

Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program

by about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. All estimates are

based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2011 Trustees

Report. Sections 2001 and 5101 would have a direct effect on

the OASDI program, as described below.

Section 2001 of the bill, ``Extension of Temporary Employee

Payroll Tax Reduction through End of 2012'' would extend

through 2012 the provisions of subsection (c) of section 601

of the ``Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,

and Job Creation Act of 2010.'' Enactment of section 2001

would have a negligible effect on the financial status of the

program in both the near term and the long term. We estimate

that the projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would

be unaffected by enactment of this provision.

Specifically, this provision would make the following

changes for payroll tax rates and OASDI financing in 2012:

(1) for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2012 and

self-employment earnings in calendar year 2012, reduce the

OASDI payroll tax rate by 2.0 percentage points, (2) transfer

revenue from the General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and

DI Trust Funds so that total revenue for the trust funds

would be unaffected by this provision, and (3) credit

earnings to the records of workers for the purpose of

determining future benefits payable from the trust funds so

that such benefits would be unaffected by this provision. For

wage and salary earnings, the 2.0-percent rate reduction

would apply to the employee share of the payroll tax rate.

For self-employment earnings, the personal income tax

deduction for the OASDI payroll tax would be 59.6 percent of

the portion of such taxes attributable to self-employment

earnings for 2012.

Section 5101 of the bill, ``Information for Administration

of Social Security Provisions Related to Noncovered

Employment,'' would require that all State and local

governments report to the Secretary of the Treasury all

distributions from any employer deferred compensation plan

made after December 31, 2012. This requirement would make

available to the Treasury and the Social Security

Administration any amount of such distributions that is based

on earnings from employment with State and local governments

that was not covered under the OASDI program. This required

reporting by State and local governments would effectively

eliminate most noncompliance with individual reporting of

distributions from deferred compensation plans that results

in the application of the windfall elimination provision and

the government pension offset provision for OASDI benefits.

Enactment of section 5101 of the bill would reduce (improve)

the long-range OASDI actuarial deficit by about 0.01 percent

of payroll.

We estimate that other sections of the bill would have no

direct effects on the OASDI program. Please let me know if we

may be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Stephen C. Goss,

Chief Actuary.

Without an extension, a worker earning $50,000 would see his or her take-home pay decline by a $1,000 in 2012, as compared to 2011.

Employers are helped too. Through an extension of 100 percent expensing, job creators down the supply chain will see more demand for their products. This will help boost economic activity and job creation. The President has endorsed both of these tax policies.

The bill will also extend unemployment benefits that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but does so while permanently reforming the program and adopting the President's plan to wind down recent expansions of the program.

Since 2008 extensions of unemployment benefits have added $180 billion to the debt. We're putting an end to that deficit spending. This program is fully paid for, and it contains significant reforms, such as allowing States to screen and test unemployment insurance recipients for drug abuse, overturning a 1960s-era Labor Department directive; requiring all unemployed recipients to search for work; be in a GED program if they have not finished high school, with reasonable exceptions; and participate in re-employment services.

It also implements program integrity measures such as new data standardization to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. And just as we did in connection with welfare reform, we're giving the States flexibility to design their own re-employment programs similar to the sorts of programs the President has touted, like Georgia Works and wage subsidies.

Why are we making these reforms instead of just passing a straight extension? Because we know that a paycheck is better than an unemployment check. These bipartisan reforms will help get Americans back to work while providing them with assistance during hard times, and that should truly be the focus of unemployment programs, getting people back to work.

In addition to reforming UI, we extend Federal benefits but reduce the maximum number of weeks of all benefits from 99 weeks to 59 weeks in most States by mid-2012. This reflects a more normal level typically available following recessions.

I should point out that phasing out 20 of those weeks is the President's policy. As a result of this extension, an estimated 5 million out-of-work Americans will receive an average of about $7,000 in assistance they need in this tough economy. A ``no'' vote today is a

vote to deny those Americans who are out of work those benefits.

We also end UI for millionaires. The bill simply says if you earn $1 million you have to pay back your unemployment benefits. Though not in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, the bill applies a similar policy to food stamps. Together, these policies save taxpayers $20 million.

Additional savings are found by freezing the pay of Members of Congress and other civilian government workers for 1 year.

Next, the legislation prevents a 27 percent cut to doctors serving Medicare patients and replaces it with a 1 percent payment update in 2012 and 2013. The 2-year update is the longest that Congress has provided since 2004, which will give us time to develop a permanent solution.

In addition to the Medicare doc fix, the legislation reforms and extends temporary Medicare payment programs. Since 2002, Congress has blindly extended as many as a dozen of these programs. Given that we're running a $1 trillion deficit and borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, the American taxpayer simply cannot afford to have Congress skip out on doing proper oversight. That's why we're extending only four of these provisions, and we're making reforms to some and requiring additional studies from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Government Accountability Office to get better data on how they're working.

These programs are the therapy caps exceptions process, premium assistance for low-income seniors, ambulance payment add-ons, and geographic payment adjustments for physician office visits, sometimes called GPCI.

In the health care field, the legislation also adopts a recommendation from President Obama that reduces subsidies to high- income seniors by requiring them to pay a greater share of their part B and D premiums. This single change reduces spending by $31 billion in the next decade.

It saves $13.4 billion in wasteful overpayments of exchange subsidies, similar to previous good government changes enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed into law by the President, and repeals provisions in current law that hurt physician- owned hospitals.

With regard to the Nation's primary welfare program, the legislation extends through September 30, 2012, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, which is set to expire on December 31st of this year. The TANF extension includes bipartisan, bicameral reforms to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from abuse. Those reforms include improvements to program integrity, and closing the current strip club loophole so that welfare funds cannot be accessed at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos.

In California alone, nearly $4 million in State-issued cash benefits was withdrawn from ATMs in casinos between January 2007 and May 2010. Another $20,000 in benefits was withdrawn from ATMs in adult entertainment establishments. I think we can all agree that this reform makes sense for taxpayers and for those on welfare.

Finally, the legislation takes two additional steps to better protect taxpayer dollars. First, it makes necessary changes to the additional child tax credit program by requiring the individual, or at least one spouse, to include a Social Security number on their tax return to claim the credit, just as you would have to do when filing for the earned income tax credit. This will reduce Federal spending by $10 billion in the next decade alone.

Second, this legislation reduces Social Security overpayments by improving coordination with States and local governments, incorporating another recommendation from President Obama.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act incorporates more than a dozen proposals that the President has either offered, supported, or has signed into law in one variation other another. In fact, more than 90 percent of the bill is paid for with such policies.

The list of job-creating provisions and those that help families is almost too long to list, but let me highlight just a few. A bipartisan payroll tax cut for every working American that also protects Social Security; a bipartisan energy project, Keystone XL, that will create more than 100,000 jobs and is supported by both employers and unions; a bipartisan tax cut for small and large businesses to invest now in new machinery and equipment to grow their businesses and create jobs; bipartisan reforms to make sense of Federal regulations like boiler MACT, which will protect as many as 20,000 jobs; bipartisan health care reforms that will help ensure a strong health care industry; a bipartisan push for spectrum auctions that will unleash new growth and create new jobs in the technology sector; bipartisan reforms that help Americans find work faster, instead of just giving them an unemployment check.

The list goes on and on but, in short, this bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs, creating jobs and helping Americans find a job. It's paid for, it is bipartisan, and it will help get our economy back on track. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would note that the Ways and Means Committee has held 16 different hearings or markups on provisions contained in this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who is an author of the reform to the refundable child tax credit.

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this legislation incorporates more than a dozen proposals that the President has either offered, supported, or signed into law. In fact, more than 90 percent of the bill is paid for with such policies.

With that, I would yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

That is correct. The language in the bill provides States with the option to screen and test UI program applicants for illegal drug use.

That is a helpful reminder, especially to those States that look to take advantage of how this legislation removes current bureaucratic barriers preventing them from doing that sort of screening and testing, if they so choose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We think it is important to extend unemployment benefits, and that's what this bill does; but we do it with commonsense reforms, reforms that will help those who are unemployed get not just a paycheck from the government, but get a job and get a paycheck from the private sector.

These commonsense reforms are things like requiring unemployment insurance recipients to search for work and, if they don't have a GED, to get a GED. But we have a commonsense exception provision so that if you're an older worker and you've been a pipe fitter for 30 years, well, obviously, a GED isn't going to help you in your job search. But for those who are younger and who don't have the skills they need, it's clear that if you have that certificate, your chances of losing your job are much less.

And, third, we think they should participate in services to get them reemployed. Those are important. States need more flexibility in this area to get waivers from the Federal Government so they can enter in reemployment programs. There are many ideas in the States out there. We aren't mandating this from Washington. We want the States to be the laboratories of invention here.

We also think it's important to allow States to screen applicants for drugs. There's been a 1960s Department of Labor ruling that says States can't even look at this area. But with screening, you can get workers the proper help so they're not bounced from a job because they fail a drug test or don't get hired because they fail a drug test. These are all important, commonsense reforms, and they will help reduce our unemployment rates. They will help people get jobs.

And let me just say, in terms of job search, it is important that there be requirements in legislation to do that. Florida, for example, now requires those claiming benefits to report online each week five jobs they've applied for or to meet with a jobs counselor. The result? In the first 3 months of the new law, 65 percent of the claimants did not meet that obligation. Well,

they need to be out there assisting in finding jobs that they need.

Now, those are then keeping those resources for those who truly are unemployed and who truly can't find a job. In this era of limited resources, we need to make sure that they're used in the best, most effective and most efficient possible way. And these commonsense reforms give States the flexibility to design programs that meet the needs of their State, whether it be in drug screening, whether it be in searching for work, whether it be in employment services, or even States designing programs that allow the employers to receive part of the unemployment check so the workers get hired.

Those are the kinds of innovations that don't happen in Washington because they're saying, Extend the 99 weeks as is. Well, we can't afford to continue to deficit spend, as the other party did, $180 billion worth, since 2008, of unpaid-for unemployment benefits.

This is an important program. It's an important program that must be extended. It should be extended, and it will be extended if my colleagues vote for this legislation. And I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for Mr. Upton to control 15 minutes of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

If the distinguished minority leader had read the next paragraph of the letter to me by the Congressional Budget Office, she would have read that the bill in its entirety reduces the deficit by $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the entirety of the letter to me from the Congressional Budget Office into the Record.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have

reviewed H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job

Creation Act of 2011, as introduced on December 9, 2011. The

attached tables provide CBO's and JCT's estimates of the

legislation's budgetary effects.

Table 1 presents a summary of the expected impact on

deficits from changes in revenues and direct spending, along

with estimated changes from reductions in existing caps on

discretionary funding (those effects are subject to future

appropriation actions).

According to CBO's and JCT's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630

would change revenues and direct spending to produce

increases in the deficit of $166.8 billion in fiscal year

2012 and $25.3 billion over the 2012-2021 period.

Relative to discretionary spending projected under current

law and assuming compliance with the current-law caps on

discretionary appropriations for the next 10 years, CBO

estimates that the proposed changes in discretionary funding

caps under H.R. 3630 would lead to a reduction in projected

discretionary spending of $26.2 billion over the 2012-2021

period (as shown in the bottom panel of Table 1).

Table 2 provides detail on the changes in revenues and

direct spending for the major provisions of the legislation.

Enacting the bill would reduce revenues by $88.3 billion over

the 2012-2021 period and reduce direct spending by $63.1

billion over that period, according to CBO's and JCT's

estimates. Those changes are the budgetary effects that would

be expected to occur directly from enactment of H.R. 3630,

while proposed changes in spending subject to appropriation

are contingent upon enactment of future legislation.

Table 3 shows the estimated impact of H.R. 3630 under the

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO Act). Under that

act, budget-reporting and enforcement procedures apply to

changes in the on-budget deficit from changes in revenues and

direct spending. Those procedures call for automatic

reductions in certain direct spending programs if there are

positive balances in either the 5-year or 10-year

compilations of pay-as-you-go budgetary effects.

Following the specifications in the S-PAYGO Act, which

allows for an adjustment to reflect the continuation of

current rates on the payments to physicians under Medicare,

CBO estimates that on-budget changes in direct spending and

revenues subject to the pay-as-you-go considerations would

increase deficits by $136.6 billion over the 2012-2016 period

and would reduce deficits by $4.0 billion over the 2012-2021

period.

H.R. 3630 would direct the Office of Management and Budget

to exclude from its scorecard of balances under the S-PAYGO

Act any estimated deficit reduction for the 10-year period

spanning fiscal years 2012 through 2021. The bill also

specifies that the estimate submitted for printing in the

Congressional Record should reflect three types of effects

that are not included under the S-PAYGO Act: off-budget

effects, projected changes in discretionary spending from

changes in the caps on new appropriations, and estimated

changes in net income of the National Flood Insurance Program

(but those adjustments are not included in Table 3 because

the provision has not been enacted into law).

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sunshine

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director).

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This bill will strengthen our economy and help get Americans back to work by lowering the tax burden for middle class families and job providers.

It prevents massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program to protect American seniors and those with disabilities, providing more stability in the doctor payment schedule than there has been in a decade.

It adopts 12 of the President's legislative initiatives, which represents the bipartisan cooperation Americans are demanding, and includes an increase in Medicare premiums for the wealthy, as the President requested.

It will extend Federal unemployment programs to 5 million Americans, those still struggling after the President's failed stimulus program. I'm still waiting for the 3.5 million jobs that were promised and the 6 percent unemployment rate. But we ensure in this bill that they get the assistance they need.

And under this bill, more than 1 year of benefits will be available. It's fully paid for with spending reductions, spending cuts, not job- killing tax hikes.

Commonsense reforms and savings in this bill include things like actually requiring those who receive an unemployment check to look for work and get a GED if they don't have a high school diploma, require undocumented workers who are seeking refundable--that's cash--tax credits to actually have a valid Social Security number, just like is required in the earned income tax credit.

And the bill freezes pay for Members of Congress and other nonmilitary government personnel. This legislation also protects critical programs by reducing the Federal tax subsidies that go to wealthier Americans. We put an end to millionaires and billionaires receiving unemployment benefits and food stamps, saving over $20 million.

We also adopt the President's plan to reduce subsidies to high-income seniors by requiring them to pay a greater share of their Medicare premium. That reduces Federal spending by $31 billion.

All told, this bill incorporates more than a dozen proposals the President has either offered, supported, or has signed into law in one variation or another. In fact, 90 percent of this bill is paid for with those policies.

I urge support of this legislation. This bill is about strengthening our economy, helping Americans find a job. It doesn't add one dime to the debt. It is bipartisan, and it will help get our economy back on track. Please vote ``yes'' for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation and seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a further illustration of the glaring differences in priorities between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have brought a plan to the floor today that is about protecting taxpayers and creating American jobs. And instead of joining us in that important task, my Democratic friends are offering yet another politically motivated motion.

In fact, one senior Democratic aide recently said to the press, and I quote, ``MTRs are all political.'' You can read it right here.

My colleagues and the American people should not be fooled. They should not be distracted by these political games.

Make no mistake. Our bill extends the payroll tax cut for every employee in this country. And if my friends on the other side of the aisle choose to vote against it, they are supporting a tax increase on every American who collects a paycheck.

This motion contains a massive 10-year tax increase. It increases taxes on employers, on small businesses, on investors, the very people we need paying more paychecks, not more taxes. In fact, this exact provision has been defeated multiple times in the U.S. Senate by Republicans and Democrats alike in a bipartisan effort.

Our bill is about strengthening our economy, getting Americans back to work through commonsense reforms to the unemployment insurance program. It will ensure American seniors and the disabled are protected by preventing massive cuts to doctors working in the Medicare program. And it will be paid for with fiscally responsible reforms, not job- killing tax hikes.

I urge my colleagues, vote against this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while I support comprehensive tax reform, I do not support the flawed legislation presently before us. I have repeatedly said it is long past time to close tax loopholes, end the practice of tax earmarks and lower tax rates on American families and employers. I support a long-term ``doc fix'' to ensure that doctors continue to accept Medicare patients. I support the Keystone XL pipeline and efforts to reform unemployment insurance, all of which are included in this bill. However, these are not the central issues of the legislation we are considering today.

The issue today, as defined by both political parties and the president, is whether or not a temporary--and costly--one-year payroll tax ``holiday'' should expire at the end of the month. The real issue is whether it is responsible for Washington to further shortchange the Social Security Trust Fund at a time when it is already on an unsustainable path.

This ``holiday'' is a raid on Social Security, which is already going broke. Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future retiree will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties.

Raw facts demonstrate that Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone?

I recently asked a group of McLean High School students and a group of young James Madison University alumni whether they believed that they would receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Not one hand was raised. Not a single one.

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. When this time is reached, everyone

will receive an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

Let me repeat. Under our current path, within 15 years all Social Security benefits will be cut by 22 percent.

Granting another tax holiday is unwise. It puts the existing benefits of those 55 million Americans who currently receive Social Security at risk to continue a failed ``stimulus'' policy.

Last December, when unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, the president touted the ``holiday'' as a one-year measure that would help cure our economic ills and would spur economic growth.

Yet here we are again. After spending most of the year above 9 percent, unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. But that belies the primary driver of this change: 315,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work. Nobody can say with a straight face that the payroll tax ``holiday'' has had a meaningful impact on the unemployment rate, nor would it if extended for another year.

Does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, who is also head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?

I opposed the legislation creating the Social Security tax ``holiday'' last year for similar reasons. I just cannot support an extension that further compromises the stability of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Real structural reforms are needed to stabilize Social Security. Past experience shows that Congress will spend the next 10 years figuring out how to spend the money designated as offsets for today's bill on other projects. It won't be used to pay for the bill. Knowing this, I cannot in good faith support a measure to raid the trust fund without comprehensive reform to the system.

The expiring payroll tax ``holiday'' is costing Americans $112 billion. To pay for it, we are borrowing money from nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Our national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion.

We all know what needs to be done and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles- Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act.

I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure that the Federal Government lives within its means. In addition, since 2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times.

While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Because the extension of the payroll tax ``holiday'' is not part of a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform package, it ignores the bigger picture: everything must be on the table to enact sweeping reforms to right our fiscal ship of state.

Does anyone really think that this will only be a one-year extension? I suspect that at this time next year Congress will once again be considering another costly extension. And what will happen the year after that?

If past precedent holds, the 10-year price tag of this ``holiday'' will come to about $1.2 trillion. The supercommittee was unable to agree to any deficit reduction plan, let alone their $1.2 trillion goal. The consequences of this failure will be severe.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said that the coming across-the-board cuts to our defense capabilities, as a result of the supercommittee's failure, are akin to having major surgery performed by a plumber. The Commonwealth of Virginia will feel particular pain from these defense cuts. Bloomberg Government reported that Virginia is the number one recipient of defense spending.

How will the Congress pay for this extended tax cut and still make the needed cuts to our deficit and debt?

I feel as if Washington exists in a parallel universe. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the debt, the president and Congress are now using all the ``easy'' and ``quick'' offsets to extend a one-year temporary tax break that's barely, if at all, improved the economic indicators.

Senator Tom Coburn recently said that ``the question the American people ought to ask is where is the backbone in Washington to actually pay for these extensions in the year the money's spent.'' I think it's clear that the backbone doesn't exist.

Leadership starts at the top, and the president has repeatedly failed to address our Nation's deficit. Earlier this month, the president drew a line in the sand and said Congress shouldn't go home until the payroll holiday is extended.

He has not drawn that line for the doc fix, which is necessary to ensure that doctors will accept Medicare patients.

He has not done that for unemployment benefits.

He has done the opposite on the Keystone XL pipeline, postponing the decision for yet another year, until after the next election.

Above all, he has not drawn a line in the sand for a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. In fact, he has spent most of the year running from serious deficit reduction efforts, including the one proposed by his own fiscal commission. He has not proposed significant changes to entitlement programs or embraced comprehensive tax reform.

We need look no further than the riots in Europe to see the destructive impact that results from the crushing reality of a government unable to deliver promised entitlements to its citizens. There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, Latvia, and Greece. And yet we are considering a proposal that moves us closer to Europe's instability.

Instead of using these bipartisan offsets to pay down our deficit, we're increasing spending and using these offsets to maintain our unacceptable levels of debt. The American people should be deeply troubled that Congress and the president cannot find any bipartisan agreement to save our country, but they can still come together to increase spending and shortchange Social Security. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

Compounding my belief that the tax ``holiday'' will not be fully paid for, I do not agree with some of the offset measures that have been included, absent comprehensive reform.

Some would have the one-year tax ``holiday'' financed through a long- term, structural attack on federal employees. Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our military personnel fighting the Global War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives at risk daily to defend our national interests.

The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders.

The medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all dedicated federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee.

The National Weather Service meteorologist, who tracks hurricanes, and the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. The ATF agents who were in Blacksburg immediately following last week's shooting are federal employees. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees.

We can't balance the budget through discretionary cuts alone. We have to address the spiraling costs of entitlements, because, to paraphrase the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton, that's where the money is. If you care about cancer research, if you care about national defense, if you care about road improvements or if you care about the poor, you should care about entitlement reform. We must reform these programs to preserve them for future generations. Otherwise, they will be made unrecognizable through forced, significant cuts or eliminated altogether.

Last December, the leaders of the president's bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of Congress, ``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this nation's future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in Washington to do the same.''

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this measure and will vote ``no'' as I did last December.

Let's put these offsets towards real deficit reduction and move forward with serious efforts to deal with our unsustainable spending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3630, ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.'' This legislation sends the wrong message at the worst time for Americans. As we approach a new year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have once again targeted millions of seniors and middle class families for cuts without asking essentially anything of millionaires and billionaires.

They have singled out Medicare premium increases that permanently increase seniors' costs by $31 billion. The bill also, when you look at it carefully, spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals.

Republicans have targeted the unemployed, slashing 40 weeks of unemployment insurance, impacting millions of families still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Twenty-two jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates would be hit the hardest: Alabama, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. The result would be that in the state that Mr. Camp and I come from--Michigan--the bill would cut unemployment insurance to 46 weeks.

Essentially the sacrifice will be borne by middle class and low income Americans, as the wealthiest among us have not been asked to join in this shared sacrifice. Not even after the wealthiest 1 percent saw their incomes nearly triple in the last three decades while salaries for middle class families barely budged.

There are more than four unemployed Americans for every job opening. Never on record in our Nation's history have there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans are clearly out of touch with the needs of American families.

I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. Every American deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful business and I know we are all committed to that right and will not rest until all Americans have access to economic opportunity.

According to a report released by the Department of Labor late this afternoon, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a result of the GOP bill compared to a continuation of current law. In the State of Texas alone 227,381 people will lose their sole source of income by the end of January.

This bill stands as a shining example of not keeping a pledge given to the American people. A little over a year ago, Republican leadership released to the public their Pledge to America in which they told the American people that they would ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. [Further] Instead, [Republicans] will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' This is what my colleagues stated less than one year ago. But before this body today they have presented us with a package that is the exact opposite of that pledge. This bill is riddled with provisions that I cannot support. I will not support needlessly adding to the burdens already being borne by hard working Americans. This is an inconsistent message being given to the American people. The Republicans need to honor their pledge to the American people.

This bill will reduce the current Payroll Tax Cut by 2 percent and addresses the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) for two years, providing a 1 percent update for both 2012 and 2013 and resulting in a scheduled 37 percent cut in 2014. It extends the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program until January, 2013 but lowers the amount of time benefits are provided from 99 weeks currently to 59 weeks.

It also includes permanent provisions allowing drug testing of applicants and would allow states to require a high school diploma or being enrolled in classes for a GED to be eligible for benefits. The bill offsets the costs of these extensions by significantly increasing both the amount of Medicare premiums paid by high-income beneficiaries and the number of beneficiaries required to pay these higher premiums, and by cutting Medicare provider rates.

In addition, it prohibits immigrants without social security numbers from receiving the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. It further offsets the bill by freezing federal employee pay for an additional year through 2013, and increases fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lenders. It also includes frequency Spectrum sales to help offset the cost of the bill, but with provisions related to net neutrality included in the language.

H.R. 3630 is a direct assault on the jobless. This legislation sends the wrong message at the worst time for Americans who are looking for employment, who are concerned about losing their homes and who are doing everything in their power to feed themselves and their families, and their neighbors.

If we allow these unemployment insurance benefits to expire in the next 17 days--there will be millions of people who will not be able to pay their mortgage or their rent in January and could find themselves homeless by February.

We are throwing millions of Americans out of their life boats, into an ocean without a life preserver. This is senseless. If those benefits run out, millions of people who've lost their jobs could see their sole source of income end in January. And this could have an effect on the larger economy.

While the bill extends the payroll tax deduction, it limits the availability of federally funded unemployment assistance, and includes punitive provisions for the least skilled jobless workers.

If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this Nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the state of Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in the country with a total of 253,200 jobs. However, there are still thousands of Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a job.

The bill being brought to the Floor by my Republican Colleagues does not adequately address the needs of the unemployed.

The plan put forth by my Republican colleagues has provisions to slash the duration of federal unemployment benefits by 40 weeks. Since 2008, federal programs expiring in January have provided up to 73 weeks of compensation for workers who use up 26 weeks of state benefits.

In addition, the version heading to the House Floor would slash an additional 20 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and it would let states reduce benefits even further. It would also impose a uniform federal work search requirement and disqualify high school dropouts not actively pursuing GEDs and millionaires from receiving benefits. The unemployment reforms, sweeping as they are, may be lost amid other features of the Republican package.

A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing element as the ``most disturbing'' part of the Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work.''

The requirement to insist that to qualify for benefits that a person has earned should require a GED or a high school diploma will have a negative impact on minorities.

The labor force participation rate for persons without a high school diploma is 20 percentage points lower than the labor force participation rate for high school graduates.

Nationally, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate from high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55 percent or less chance of graduating from high school.

Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 60 percent average for urban districts across the Nation.

What is needed is job training programs that are funded rather than penalties for those who for a multitude of reasons have not attained a high school diploma or GED.

Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to afford.

Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401Ks have been tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national tragedy. In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.

Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents who are unemployed that there will be no further extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means to survive.

Currently, individuals who are seeking work find it to be like hunting for a needle in a hay stack. For every job available today, there are four people who are currently unemployed. You can not fit a square peg in a round hole and point fingers at the three other people who when that jobs is filled is left unemployed. Lets be realistic there are currently 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when this recession began.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

There are fewer than 3 weeks until the new year, and yet, here they go again. Republicans are seeking a path of confrontation instead of collaboration. If Republicans were serious, truly serious about trying to come together on behalf of American families, they would have reached out to Democrats in this House. They've done nothing of the sort. They've made a sham out of bipartisanship.

Instead, they, once again, targeted millions of seniors and middle class families for cuts without asking essentially anything of millionaires and billionaires. They've singled out Medicare premium increases that permanently increase seniors' costs by $31 billion.

The bill also, when you look at it carefully, spends $300 million on a special interest provision that helps a handful of specialty hospitals while cutting billions from community hospitals.

They've targeted the unemployed, slashing 40 weeks of unemployment insurance, impacting millions of families still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Twenty-two jurisdictions, 22, with the highest unemployment rates would be hit the hardest: Alabama, California, Connecticut, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

The result would be in the State that Mr. Camp and I come from, Michigan, a maximum of 46 weeks of unemployment insurance.

And what do they ask of the wealthiest Americans? Basically nothing. Not even after the wealthiest 1 percent saw their incomes nearly triple in the last three decades while salaries for middle class families barely budged.

On average, there are more than four unemployed Americans for every job opening. Never, on official records in our Nation's history, have there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There is nothing normal about this recession. Nothing normal.

One gentleman from my district, Phil of Clinton Township, put it this way, ``I am by no means unintelligent. I am by no means lazy. And I am by no means giving up.''

The unemployed are not people who can ante up $10,000 bets or spend lavishly on jewelry at Tiffany. These are families scraping by, on average, on less than $300 a week trying to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs and the backs of their children as they look for work.

Republicans are out of touch with the families of America. I hope after today's exercise that is going nowhere in the Senate and which the President opposes, House Republicans will get serious about addressing very pressing end-of-year issues on behalf of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

It is now my special privilege to yield 2 minutes to a leader in our party, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I must say, to talk about a man on the Moon and to essentially disregard the needs of millions of people who are on the ground unemployed in this country is, I think, unconscionable.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the whip an additional 1 minute.

It is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is the lead sponsor on our unemployment insurance bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Camp, we've just received information from the Department of Labor that the Republican bill would cut unemployment benefits for 3.3 million Americans next year compared to an extension of current law. In the name of reform, don't cut the rug out from the unemployed of this country who are looking for work. That is, in one word, inexcusable-- inexcusable.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, a distinguished, active member indeed, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from California, Lynn Woolsey.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) control 10 minutes of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to start by reading one of the 400-plus communications we received. This is from Jackie of Amherst, New Hampshire: ``Unemployment benefits helped me make ends meet while I was using my savings and 401(k) to keep up with everything. Now they are gone. My savings are long gone. My 401(k) is almost gone. I am watching everything I worked so hard for, for my entire adult life, slip away from me. I am 50.''

In the name of reform, what the House Republicans are doing is to retreat, to retreat from assisting the unemployed through no fault of their own. According to the data received from the Department of Labor, 3.3 million Americans would lose weeks of unemployment benefits under this bill compared to an extension of current law.

The President has made his position clear. The Statement of Administration Policy says: ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking American, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle class families.

``Instead of working together to find a balanced approach that will actually pass both Houses of Congress, H.R. 3630 instead represents a choice to refight old political battles over health care and introduce ideological issues into what should be a simple debate about cutting taxes for the middle class.

``If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would veto the bill.''

In good conscience, we should not support this bill. Remembering the 3.3 million who would have their benefits cut under this bill, there should be a resounding ``no.'' A resounding ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's working families. He has demonstrated a long-term, consistent dedication to their well- being.

Mr. Speaker, I return to the floor. I spoke on the rule earlier. But I listened attentively to the debate, and I think a few points need to be made, and I will do that very briefly.

It is clear that the Republicans, in using the pipeline, are trying to change the subject. The subject at hand is, we have a proposal from the President of the United States which has within it proposals that have had bipartisan support over a period of time on how to have a payroll tax cut that benefits many middle-income families in our country, that respects that some people are out of work through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance, and that our seniors want to have the doctor of their choice, and that issue has to be addressed here. The fact is is that because of the way the rules were set up--not to go into process--but the Republicans said, You are not even going to be able to bring the President's and the Democratic proposals to the floor. Instead, we are going to bring ours to the floor. But so that the public doesn't really understand the difference between the two, we are going to have a smokescreen go out there, a smokescreen of confusion by talking about the pipeline. And this is very interesting because this isn't about the pipeline.

We, as other speakers have said, could have a vote on the pipeline at any time, to vote it up or vote it down, consider what it means for jobs and the impact on the environment. And it doesn't reduce dependence on foreign oil. But nonetheless, that is a subject for debate at another time. I, myself, have not made a public statement one way or another. But many of our colleagues have. They are either supporting it or they are not, but that is not the point of the legislation. Many who support the pipeline are opposing this bill because they know it is being used. It is being used. And some of our friends in labor want this pipeline built. But I assure you that they want unemployment insurance for workers who, again, through no fault of their own, are out of work.

So let's just take a few points here. The proponents of this bill who are using the pipeline as a smokescreen and as an excuse say that it will create 20,000 jobs. Let's hope that that is correct. But what it's doing is standing in the way of the President's proposal, which will create 600,000 jobs, which will make an impact of 600,000 jobs on our economy. That's from the macroeconomic advisers. It will make the difference of 600,000 jobs. So while they are professing these 20,000 jobs, which may be a legitimate number--and let's say it's the highest number they could come up with, let's have that debate on another day. You may see a very big, strong vote on the floor for the pipeline, or you may not. So the point is, 20,000 jobs--if that's the argument-- versus 600,000 jobs.

The other point is that the President's proposal affects 160 million Americans; 160 million Americans will have a payroll tax cut, according to his proposal, in a substantial way. This is not, as the Republicans want to do, to throw a bone to the middle class. This is about a thriving middle class. It's about a payroll tax cut that does what it sets out to do, puts $1,500 in the pockets of America's families who need it and spend it and, in doing so, injects demand, demand, demand into our economy, which further creates jobs. And how that is paid for is by a surtax on those making over $1 million a year.

So 160 million people affected; a surcharge on 300,000 of the wealthiest people in America. We don't begrudge them their wealth, their success. That's important. I don't think that any one of those 300,000 people would begrudge the 160 million Americans their payroll tax cut. But I do think it is the extremists on the Republican side in the House of Representatives who have an ideological point of view, and that is what is at work here. It isn't about those 300,000 begrudging the 160 million, and it isn't about the 160 million begrudging the 300,000. So let's understand the numbers here.

I want to reference the chairman's bill. Who sacrifices under the Republican bill? Seniors suffer $31 billion. Instead of a surcharge on the 300,000 wealthiest people in our country making over $1 million a year, the Republicans pay for the payroll tax by taking $31 billion from seniors. Federal workers sacrifice $40 billion. Unemployed Americans sacrifice $11 billion. Billionaires sacrifice zero. I think all Americans are willing to do their fair share. We all have to do our part, take responsibility, zero. So again, 20,000 jobs, 600,000 jobs; 160 million Americans, 300,000 Americans; $31 billion from Medicare.

The President's proposal and the Democratic plan that mirror each other reduce the deficit by $300 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office--and I will read from a Congressional Budget Office letter to Mr. Camp. The independent, nonpartisan Budget Office of the House, writing to Mr. Camp said, ``According to Congressional Budget Office's and Joint Tax Committee's estimates, enacting H.R. 3630''--the bill before us--``would change revenues and direct spending to produce increases in the deficit of $166.8 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $25.3 billion over the 2012-2021 period.''

So let's just take the lower number, $25 billion in the life of the bill. That's what the CBO says about the bill before us. That's why earlier today, there was a motion to say that this was not in keeping with being revenue-neutral, as the Republicans espouse and we agree.

So again, the numbers: 20,000 jobs with the pipeline--and that may be a good thing, but this is not the place. This is a smokescreen. This is a distraction. This is a change of subject. This is the masters of confusion so you don't know what really is at stake here.

You couldn't possibly be sincere about a payroll tax cut that makes the middle class thrive if you put an obstacle like that in front of it and call it a jobs bill to create 600,000 jobs. One hundred sixty million Americans benefit from this. Please don't tax 300,000; instead, take $31 billion from our seniors. Reduce the deficit by $300 billion; increase the deficit by $25 billion. The numbers are clear. They speak for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I hope that we can come to the table and

share a view that this middle-income tax cut is worth doing without obstacles to its being signed into law, and that we can do it soon. I say it over and over again: Christmas is coming. For some, the goose is getting fat; for others, there are very slim prospects. Let's change that. Let's do the people's work. Let's get this done. I urge a ``no'' vote.