Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how many Democrats have cosponsored H.R. 3630?

I raised the issue, Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman said this was a bipartisan bill and I don't know of any Democrats that are cosponsors of the bill.

First of all, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. This bill and this process is so lousy, I barely know where to begin today.

Let's start with the process. The bill, the way this bill was conceived, drafted and brought up may be the worst yet under this Republican-controlled Congress. Simply, this process is shameful. It's an embarrassment. This 369-page monstrosity was presented on Friday afternoon.

The gentleman says that this was reported by the Ways and Means Committee. It was presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. It was not reported out of that committee. I use the word presented because it was introduced on a day when no committees met and we had no votes in the House.

It was referred to 12 committees, 12 different committees. That's more than half the committees in the House of Representatives. But not a single committee held a hearing or a markup on this bill. It never saw the light of day in any of these committees.

There are 348 Members who sit on the committees that have jurisdiction over this bill. That's 348 Members of the House who should have had an opportunity to offer amendments and question witnesses about this bill in committee hearings or markups. Not one of these Members had an opportunity.

And last night in the Rules Committee, Members came up, 12 amendments were offered. Every single one of them was rejected.

Mr. Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, asked for a Democratic substitute to be made in order. That was rejected too.

The gentleman from California says that it's traditional, when Ways and Means bills are presented, that they be done so under a closed rule. That's when it's a tax bill. This is a tax bill plus 1,000 other things that have nothing to do with tax issues.

And this lousy process, I will say to my colleagues, leads to bad legislating. Just look at this bill. It's long, and it's sloppy. The Republicans who rushed to put this bill together have already found an error which we're trying to correct in the rule. Who knows how many other errors there are?

Last year Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy and other members of the Republican leadership rolled out their Pledge to America, their campaign pledge to run this House in a more open way. Yet all year long they have been chipping away at their pledge, and now we have this bill that flat out breaks their pledge.

In their pledge, the House Republicans promised to, and I quote, ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' That's what they said.

Yet we have three provisions--extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of unemployment insurance, and SGR, or doc fix--that are must pass by the end of this year. And do we have a clean bill that is free from unrelated provisions? Of course not. That would be logical and make too much sense.

No, Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is loaded up with goodies to mollify the extreme right wing that is in charge of this House. Along with the extension of the payroll tax cut and doc fix, this bill includes the following: Requires the approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline; requires millions of seniors to pay more for health care; increases taxes on working families by forcing large, end-of-the- year health care payments; slashes prevention funding that actually reduces Medicare and Medicaid costs; undermines air quality, endangering the health of children and families by blocking mercury pollution reduction; cuts retirement programs for Federal workers; and extends the pay freeze for Federal workers.

Each of these provisions are different. They have nothing to do with one another. Why are they all bunched together in this one bill?

And these policies are bad for America. They are bad for the American people. Yet the Republican leadership continues to push these extreme and harmful policies.

And even though the unemployment insurance program needs to be extended, this bill actually erodes the support program by cutting unemployment insurance benefits for 1 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And it imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting benefits employees have paid for.

Why is it so difficult for this Republican-controlled House to help the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class? Why do they throw roadblock after roadblock in front of middle class Americans who are trying to make their lives better? Why do they continue to make it virtually impossible for us to help average people, while at the same time they do everything in their power to protect subsidies for big oil companies and tax cuts for the Donald Trumps of the world?

Extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of the unemployment insurance program, and the doc fix should not be controversial. And these extensions should have been done a long, long time ago.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are playing a very risky game. We know this failure to extend the payroll tax cut will mean a $1,500 tax increase on middle class Americans. We know that 160 million Americans will see their taxes go up if we don't act before the end of the year. So why are Republicans bringing a bill to the floor that we know will not pass the Senate?

We know, by the way, the President will not sign it. I have a Statement of Administration Policy, which I would like to place in the Record, which basically makes it very clear that the President would veto this bill.

Executive Office of the President Office of Management,

and Budget,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3630--Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011

(Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 5 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only

days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking

Americans, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle-

class families. H.R. 3630 breaks the bipartisan agreement on

spending cuts that was reached just a few months ago and

would inevitably lead to pressure to cut investments in areas

like education and clean energy. Furthermore, H.R. 3630 seeks

to put the burden of paying for the bill on working families,

while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big

corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies.

Instead of working together to find a balanced approach

that will actually pass both Houses of the 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.

This debate should not be about scoring political points.

This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle

class.

If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would

veto the bill.

So why are we wasting precious time?

The Republican leadership insists on playing chicken with the American people just to score cheap political points. This is not a time for political theater. This is the time for responsible leadership. It's time to do the right thing for the American people and drop these controversial provisions from this bill.

This is not the time to increase taxes on middle class Americans. It's time to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and the doc fix.

Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get back to doing the people's business, and the people's business is jobs. It would be nice if my Republican friends would allow the President's jobs bill to come to the floor for a vote rather than bills that reaffirm our national motto or make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one State to another.

I say to my Republican friends, the American people are outraged. They're outraged at Republican indifference to the middle class. They're outraged by Republicans' callous attitude to the most vulnerable in this country. They're outraged that Republicans are playing politics with their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing, to pass a clean extension of the payroll tax cut, properly extend unemployment insurance and the doc fix. Do the right thing, and do it the right way. That's all the American people are asking for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee who was denied his right to have a substitute when he was at the Rules Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a letter from William Samuel, the director of the government affairs department at the AFL-CIO, in strong opposition to H.R. 3630.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing

to urge you to oppose the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job

Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630), which would replace a

modest surtax on income over $1 million with drastic benefit

reductions for jobless workers, pay cuts for public

employees, reduced premium assistance for low- and middle-

income individuals buying health insurance, cutbacks in

preventive health services, and higher premiums for many

Medicare beneficiaries.

H.R. 3630 would cut the federal unemployment insurance (UI)

program by more than half in 2012, reducing benefit

eligibility by 14 weeks in every state and by 40 weeks in

states with the highest unemployment rates. These benefit

cuts would reduce economic activity by $22 billion and cost

140,000 jobs.

Even more troubling, H.R. 3630 would fundamentally change

the nature of unemployment insurance and erode the

unemployment safety net for the future. Unemployment

insurance (UI) is a social insurance program, to which

workers make contributions in the form of reduced wages. H.R.

3630 would change the nature of UI by allowing states to

require jobless workers to ``work off'' their benefits, in

effect allowing UI to be transformed into a workfare program.

H.R. 3630 would further undermine social insurance by

introducing means testing, which would surely be used to

restrict UI eligibility to fewer and fewer workers over time.

The authors of this legislation do not seem to understand

that America faces a continuing jobs crisis, and they seem to

think that jobless workers--rather than Wall Street--are to

blame for high unemployment and the lack of jobs. In addition

to cutting unemployment benefits, H.R. 3630 would allow drug

testing of all workers before they can receive benefits;

require workers without a high school degree to be enrolled

in classes before they can receive benefits; and make jobless

workers pay out of their own pockets for reemployment

services offered by the government.

In order to spare millionaires from having to pay one more

penny in taxes, H.R. 3630 would also require federal

employees to sacrifice even more than they have already. Not

only would H.R. 3630 extend the current pay freeze for

federal employees, but it would also raise $37 billion in

revenues by increasing federal employee pension contributions

and reducing their retirement income.

H.R. 3630 would also have a substantial negative impact on

the health care of working families. It would impose daunting

subsidy repayment requirements on families whose economic

circumstances improve, which would deter 170,000 people from

accepting premium assistance under the Affordable Care Act,

according to the Joint Tax Committee. As a result, thousands

of middle- and lower-income families would be unable to

afford health insurance. In addition, H.R. 3630 would

increase Medicare premiums for at least 25 percent of all

beneficiaries, requiring many in the middle class to pay

substantially more, and would reduce federal support for new

preventive services.

H.R. 3630 would protect the most privileged one percent of

all Americans from having to pay one more penny in taxes, and

it would do so by demanding still more sacrifice and pain

from jobless workers, federal employees, and low- and middle-

income families. The authors of H.R. 3630 obviously have more

sympathy for millionaires than for the victims of the

economic crisis caused by Wall Street. We urge you to vote

against this cruel and selfish piece of legislation.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Department.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, again, the AFL-CIO still opposes this bill.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I have at least two more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

I advise the gentleman from California that I am the last speaker.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``GOP takes packaging path,'' talking about how my Republican friends have broken their Pledge to America.

[From Politico, Dec. 11, 2011]

GOP Takes Packaging Path

(By Jake Sherman)

The year-end rush to extend the payroll tax holiday has

House Republicans struggling to keep up with a key promise

from last year's election as they bundle together a

hodgepodge of issues before skipping town for Christmas.

In the Pledge to America, released by GOP leadership under

much fanfare in September 2010, Republicans said they would

``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-

pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American

people. Instead, we will

advance major legislation one issue at a time,'' they said.

They'll be doing the exact opposite this week.

The year-end legislative package centered on extending the

payroll tax has turned into a holiday tree filled with

legislative ornaments ranging from the Keystone XL oil

pipeline, the sale of broadband spectrum, an extension of

jobless benefits, changes to Medicare and easing of certain

environmental standards. On top of that, the House will also

try to clear a nearly $1 trillion catch-all year-end spending

bill--the type of appropriations package that Speaker John

Boehner (R-Ohio) himself has decried as inadequate.

Republicans bristle at the comparison, insisting they're in

full compliance with their election-season promises, but the

manner with which they're passing the legislation underscores

larger issues Congress has to contend with as a winter chill

settles on Washington: Republicans want to score political

points from Democrats; the Senate is split; President Barack

Obama is in reelection mode; and tax provisions are slated to

expire as the Christmas recess looms.

A GOP leadership aide said the comparison is ``a half-assed

attempt at a `gotcha' story--and it's weak even for POLITICO

on a quiet Friday afternoon.''

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said the extension

bill ``does not fit the definition of `must-pass'

legislation--which generally refers to funding bills, or an

increase in the debt limit--nor does it contain any

`unpopular' provisions. Therefore, it is entirely consistent

with the Pledge to America.''

Any number of Republicans, though, have said that the tax

holiday must be extended, saying its expiration would amount

a tax increase when it's least needed.

Whether it's a ``must pass'' or not, the package of bills

is seen as critical for both parties: If Congress doesn't

act, taxes will go up on more than 100 million families,

jobless benefits will expire and doctors who treat Medicare

patients will have their fees slashed.

Over the past week, the narrative has shifted

significantly. Both Republicans and Democrats now say they

want to extend the provisions, recognizing both the political

and economic peril that would come from allowing the measures

to run out.

The argument is now over how the government will pay for it

and what will ride alongside it for Republicans to say they

tried to create jobs.

It's all pretty familiar to Capitol Hill onlookers and

could help explain Congress's 9 percent approval rating. The

year-end dash--Boehner says he wants the House to be done by

Friday--mirrors Congress's work during the previous 10

months. There's political posturing on both sides and

panicked legislating, all set against the backdrop of a

looming holiday deadline.

Here's where things stand: Top GOP aides say the

Republicans' Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act

represents their last offer. The legislation extends the

payroll tax holiday, jobless benefits and the ``doc fix,'' in

addition to other sweeteners. To blunt conservative angst

about the bill and to offset its cost, GOP leaders tacked on

language to force President Barack Obama to restart the

Keystone XL pipeline project, in addition to easing

environmental standards on boilers and slashing money from

the Democrats' health care law.

It will hit the House floor this week. Senate Republican

leaders say it has enough steam to sail through the upper

chamber. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said

on ``Fox News Sunday'' that Democrats such as Sens. Barbara

Milkulski of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon support rolling

back the boiler regulation. Some Democrats, including

lawmakers from labor-friendly districts, support the pipeline

construction.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said flatly

that the House bill with the pipeline won't pass--and

Democrats are weighing what bill to put on the floor this

week.

``It's the highest priority of the president and the

Democrats in Congress,'' Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of

Illinois said of the payroll tax extension on NBC's ``Meet

the Press.''

But there's still blowback on the pipeline issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also appearing on NBC, said

flatly that the ``pipeline is probably not gonna sell.''

``At the end of the day, the payroll tax will get extended

as it is now,'' Graham said. ``It won't get expanded; it'll

get extended. And we'll find a way to pay for it in a

bipartisan fashion.''

Senate Democrats say that's what they're trying to do.

Democratic sources suggest the party might abandon its plan

to institute a surtax on millionaires, eyeing instead a

package with more palatable spending cuts to attract

Republican support.

There are a few question marks on the House side. When the

package was rolled out, the conference rallied behind

Boehner. But should it fray, so might its support. Boehner

told members in a closed meeting he wants all 242 House

Republicans to support the bill.

If the Republican support does not stay intact, House

Democrats will again be necessary for passage. It's an open

question what they would support to offset the cost of the

bill.

On Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

was cool on changes to Medicare--including means testing for

millionaires--and cutting unemployment benefits from 99 to 59

weeks.

``Some things [that] might be acceptable in terms of a big,

bold and balanced plan are unacceptable if we're not only not

going to the place where President Obama wants to go on the

payroll tax cut, have a more modest proposal and on top of

that, have consumers of Medicare pay the price,'' Pelosi

said.

She minced no words when talking about the Keystone

pipeline.

``This is not about the Keystone pipeline,'' she said.

``The Keystone pipeline is a completely separate issue.

People on both sides of the issue agree that this shouldn't

be on this package. It's just not polite; it's a poison pill

designed to sink the payroll tax cut.''

Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have designed a bill to fail, and it contains poison pills which will result in tax hikes for 160 million workers and the loss of hundreds of thousands of existing jobs. They say they're for extending the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans, they say they want to help the unemployed, but yet they demand a ransom in order for us to get this passed. And the ransom that they are demanding is quite high.

You've heard from Members on our side of all the poison pills that are in this bill. I have introduced into the Record the statement from the administration saying that they would veto this bill, because it is so awful, if it comes to the desk of the President. We know that the United States Senate will not move on this bill.

So why are we wasting our time with precious few days left in the session? Why aren't we doing what most Americans want us to do, and that is to extend the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and extend unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because it's the right thing to do?

My friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem with bailing out big banks on Wall Street, but when it comes to helping middle class families and working people, they squawk.

You've heard over and over that this is the Christmas season; we're supposed to be generous in our hearts. I don't feel the generosity on the other side. I don't feel the compassion. I'm not sure if my colleagues understand how Americans are struggling, what it feels like to be out of work. People who are in their 50s and 60s who have lost their job and can't find another job, and my colleagues are trying to make it more difficult for them to be able to get benefits so they can keep their homes and put food on the table.

My friend from California talks about, well, Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, didn't submit a substitute, he only asked for one. Well, this bill, I will again remind everybody, was presented to us on Friday when Members were home. And we had an emergency Rules Committee--which bypasses the normal procedures and the normal time given for Members to be able to offer amendments. So, I mean, everything was stacked against anybody offering an amendment in advance.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Levin's amendment in the nature of a substitute, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the doc fix the right way.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close again by urging my colleagues to stand with working people in this country, to stand with those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I mean, it's so easy for the other side to stand with big oil companies and protect tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country. Let's have a little justice in our tax system, a little fairness.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can amend this bill and make it actually address these urgent issues in a thoughtful and reasonable way, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am going to be claiming time in opposition to the point of order that my friend has raised, and I'm not going to consume the entire amount of time. So, when I do that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend in the spirit of the season and in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I would just like to state that for the record.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I will just remind her that when I claim my time, I will be yielding an additional minute to my friend. So she certainly can feel free to yield any of that time once I do that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in support of proceeding with the resolution.

With that, as I said, in the spirit of bipartisanship, which is the basis of the underlying legislation and the spirit of the Christmas season, I am happy to yield not just a minute, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to yield a minute and a half to my good friend from Milwaukee, with whom I share an affection for our great, fine music.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, as I have said, to speak in opposition to the point of order and in support of our moving ahead with the resolution.

My friend is a very, very thoughtful poet herself, and I've been the beneficiary of much of her fine work. She and I share an affection for R&B music. She quoted Cameo and ``Talkin' Out The Side Of Your Neck.'' I don't really know that song, I have to admit, Mr. Speaker; but I'll have to check it out.

But what I would like to do is, since we've heard of the eloquence of Cameo and the eloquence of Gwen Moore, the great poet, I would like to quote William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare said, ``In such business, action is eloquence.''

Now we have before us a measure that is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to focus on getting our economy growing and generating job opportunities for the American people. The American people are hurting. We know that. There are people across this country hurting. And as my friends have just outlined, there are individuals who have suffered greatly. It is absolutely imperative that we do everything that we can to ensure that they have job opportunities and that those who are unable to find job opportunities have the assistance that they and their families need to proceed, especially during this time of year. Any action that my colleagues are proposing on the other side will simply delay our effort that will ensure that we extend the payroll tax holiday for an additional year, and it will prevent us from providing those benefits to people who are unable to find work today.

So I will be discussing the underlying legislation when we proceed with consideration of this rule, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this point of order and allow us to proceed with consideration of the resolution so that we can put into place a legislative package that will get the American people back to work and ensure opportunity for all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time will be yielded for debate purposes only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

House Resolution 491 is a closed rule, which, as we all know, is customary under both Democrats and Republicans for a measure that has emerged from the Ways and Means Committee. But we have chosen in this rule to expand the debate time so that both Democrats and Republicans will have an opportunity to be heard. So we have expanded the debate from 60 to 90 minutes, a 50 percent increase in the amount of time, because of the gravity of this measure, because there are Members who want to be heard. We will have this hour debate on the rule itself, which clearly will get at the substance of the legislation, and then we will have an additional hour and a half, so a total of 2\1/2\ hours.

Mr. Speaker, we all know what our job is here. Right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. We have a responsibility to put into place policies which will encourage job creation and economic growth, and that's exactly what this legislation is designed to do.

Our fellow Americans across this country are hurting. Part of the area that I represent in southern California has a 14 percent unemployment rate, substantially larger than the national average. We have people in my State of California and across this Nation who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses.

We, today, are dealing, very sadly, with a chronic unemployment rate. It has been sustained for a longer period of time than has been the case since the Great Depression. And it seems to me that, as we look at where we're going on this, we have to recognize what it is that gave us this positive number of a reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. It was because, very sadly, hundreds of thousands of Americans decided to give up looking for work, and that's what allowed the unemployment rate to drop. But we know that it is not acceptable; and especially as we go into this holiday season, Mr. Speaker, to have so many Americans who are suffering is not acceptable.

And that's why we are here today, to take steps to ensure that we, first and foremost, put into place job opportunities and, second, address the needs of middle-income working Americans and those who are struggling to make ends meet and don't have jobs. And that's why we have chosen to not only extend unemployment benefits--and we're doing so, I'm happy to say, with very important reforms, very important reforms that deal with things ranging

from drug testing to encouraging people to qualify for their GEDs. It doesn't mandate it. It gives States an opportunity to in fact waive it if they choose, but it encourages people to move in the direction of seeking opportunities. Our goal, as we extend unemployment benefits, is to encourage reemployment of our fellow Americans who are having a difficult time trying to make ends meet.

This measure also, as we know, Mr. Speaker, puts into place a policy that will allow for the extension of the so-called holiday for the payroll tax. Now, I will admit that I am a supply-side, growth-oriented guy. I came here over three decades ago with Ronald Reagan, believing very strongly that we need to put into place pro-growth economic policies. The extension of the payroll tax holiday, based on analyses from economists from both the left and the right, is that it's not necessarily a pro-growth measure. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we're headed today, during difficult times, it's important for us to realize that anyone who opposes what we are doing here today is standing in the way and preventing us from moving ahead with providing that payroll tax holiday for our fellow Americans.

I know that there are a lot of people who will say--and as I look at my friend from Worcester, I recall last night in the Rules Committee when he said we've been doing everything under the sun here except for focusing on job creation and economic growth.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone knows, Democrats and Republicans alike, our fellow Americans know, there are 27 pieces of legislation that have passed the House of Representatives, which happens to be for the Republican majority. And at this moment, all 27 of those measures sit in the United States Senate, and they have not passed. And the Senate, of course, has a Democratic majority.

Bipartisanship is what we want. That's what the American people want, and I'm happy to say that this measure is a bipartisan bill. One of the things that makes it a bipartisan measure, beyond extending unemployment benefits, beyond extending the payroll tax holiday, is this thrust towards creating jobs by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there has been some controversy around this earlier, but while we look at the imperative of expanding the payroll tax holiday and ensuring that the American people, who are struggling, have the benefits that they desperately need, we need to get at the root cause of the problem. And the root cause of the problem is that we have not put into place policies, we've not been able to pass out of both houses of Congress and get to the President's desk policies that can immediately jump-start and get our economy growing.

I'm looking at my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) over here. He and I have talked on numerous occasions over the past several years about our shared goal of putting into place tax reform, reducing the top rate on job creators from 35 to 25 percent, while closing loopholes.

I know my friend from Worcester regularly talks about subsidies and loopholes that exist for the oil industry and a wide range of other areas. We want to do this in the context of overall tax reform, and I hope very much that we can get to the point where, in a bipartisan way, we can do that. That's a policy that both President Obama and former President Clinton have talked about, this dealing, as Mr. Andrews and I have discussed in the past, with this tax issue. These are the kinds of policies that can enjoy bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working together to ensure that we can get this economy growing.

And I will say that this Keystone XL pipeline is one of those items, as we all know, that enjoys bipartisan support. It would immediately create jobs based on the projection of that construction. And while we look at our quest, I don't think we're going to gain total energy self- sufficiency in this global economy, but we would have greater energy self-sufficiency working very closely with one of our closest allies, our ally to the north, Canada, in ensuring that we can proceed with this. We know that the question mark over whether or not we're going to proceed with the pipeline has raised an understandable quest of the Canadians to deal with the Chinese.

And so, Mr. Speaker, as we look at these challenges, this is a bipartisan measure. Let anyone stand up and start pointing the finger of blame at Republicans. But I will tell you that we have--90 percent of the items in this measure have enjoyed bipartisan support. Many of these are proposals that President Obama has made within his jobs package. So that's why we've got an opportunity to do this. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do it.

Unfortunately, we can't simply legislate full employment in the United States. Legislating full employment is not an option. I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle might like to figure that we could legislate full employment. If we could do that, we wouldn't be faced with the difficulty that we have today.

What we can do is we can encourage America's innovators and entrepreneurs with pro-growth policies, and that's what we have repeatedly sent to the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the other body will report those out.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to support this very, very important, bipartisan legislation, get it to the other body so that our Senate colleagues can consider this, and get it to the President's desk so that the American people, who want to have a degree of confidence that they're not going to see a tax increase take place, and that they're going to, in fact, if they're struggling and don't have a job opportunity, have their benefits continue, and to ensure that we get at the root cause of the problem by putting into place opportunities for private sector jobs to be created. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my colleague that he has performed just as I had expected, pointing the finger of blame when we're trying to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get this done. We want the doc fix. We want to ensure that people who can't make ends meet and are looking for work have access to those benefits. We want to extend the payroll tax holiday.

We also feel it imperative that we get at the root cause of exactly what my friend just said, Mr. Speaker, and that is creating jobs. And everyone knows, Democrat and Republican alike, many leaders in organized labor focus on the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator and can go a long way towards doing exactly what my friend and I share in common as a goal.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new member of your class, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Lawrence, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I just wanted to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I'd be happy to yield to my dear California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, if she would want to respond to anything I'm about to say here as I was looking forward to getting to debate.

First of all, my colleague from California began by saying that there was no opportunity for Democrats to have a proposal that is considered. Members of the minority, the Democrats, are entitled to a motion to recommit. That is provided in this measure, although we often were denied that when we were in the minority.

Second, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) did, in fact, propose that we have a substitute made in order; but, Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, when this bill was made available, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the committee, never came forward with a substitute for us in the Rules Committee. We only received one just a few minutes ago.

Then to the important point about the so-called ``poison pills'' that my California colleague mentioned, the distinguished minority leader: The idea of saying that we want to encourage those who are unemployed to move towards GED qualification does not seem to me to be a poison pill.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of saying that we should have drug testing--and that's, again, optional drug testing--so that people who are receiving these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase drugs is obviously not a poison pill. Then the idea of having millionaires benefit from the program, which we eliminate in this proposal, should not be a poison pill.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking member of the freshman class, the gentleman from Bryan, Texas (Mr. Flores).

Will the gentlelady yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would be happy to engage my friend if he'd like to. Let me make a couple of comments.

First, I think that as we look at the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline, the notion of saying that somehow we're trying to appeal to our base when we

know the most outspoken and enthusiastic supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline happen to be the labor unions, organized labor in this country. We know because they want to create jobs, and they are supportive of this so that we can create jobs.

People throw around terms like ``poison pill,'' why are we using this issue. Because as we extend unemployment benefits to people who are unable to find jobs, and as we extend the payroll tax holiday, we feel that it's absolutely essential that we get at the root cause of the problem. We have protracted unemployment in this country. Very, very sadly. We know it has gone on for an extended period of time--the end of the last administration into this administration. We all know that we were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Now it's at 8.6 percent. I'm gratified that it went from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. But why did it do that?

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Because hundreds of thousands of Americans have chosen to give up even looking for work. And so we're saying, yes, we will agree to extend unemployment benefits; yes, we will agree to extending for another year the payroll tax holiday. But let's get at the root cause of the problem. So that's why we see these as being very closely intertwined.

It's true the President did say that he would reject this; but I believe if we can pass it through this House with bipartisan support, pass it through the United States Senate and get it to the President's desk, that extending unemployment benefits at this time of year especially, and that payroll tax holiday, with a measure that the President has indicated support for, dealing with the XL pipeline, that the President will, in fact, sign it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has on his side?

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman does.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

There is a way to ensure that President Obama will sign this legislation. There is a way to ensure that he will sign this legislation, and that way is if we have Democrats join with Republicans in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Now, the message that we've gotten is that they're poison pills-- ``hostage'' is the term that both the President and my colleague have just used in trying to move forward the important provisions of expanding the payroll tax so that working Americans can keep more of their own money, and the doc fix to ensure that doctors are reimbursed and that Medicare beneficiaries are able to have access to the health care that they need. And of course for those at this time of year who are struggling and need their unemployment benefits expanded, there is a way to get that done. Our goal is to get at the root cause of the problem.

As I said in the opening, Mr. Speaker, right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. Tragically, tragically we are dealing with a protracted unemployment problem in this country. You know it's been going on for an extended period of time. The only reason that we saw the unemployment rate drop from 9 percent to 8.6 percent is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given up looking for work.

Now, as we listen to people say that at this time of year we need to make sure that we create jobs, we have to make sure that there are opportunities out there. My friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was talking about the fact that there are four people looking for one job. Let's put into place the kinds of policies that will allow us to see the private sector create jobs. We cannot legislate full employment. We cannot legislate full employment, but what we can do is we can pass legislation that will lay the groundwork for America's entrepreneurs, for America's innovators to have success by creating job opportunities.

There are 27 pieces of legislation that we have passed from this House that is in the Republican majority that are now sitting in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Those measures--increasing access to capital for small business men and women to create opportunities, making sure that we decrease the regulatory burden, which we all know has undermined job creation and economic growth in this country--these are the kinds of measures that are out there that we hope very much will be considered in the Senate.

Now, as we look at the issue of so-called ``poison pills,'' which my California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, the distinguished minority leader, talked about--and I tried to engage in a discussion with her on the House floor. I yielded to her and she chose to walk off the floor rather than engaging in a discussion. I guess the reason is that it's sort of hard to claim that encouraging an individual to move towards GED qualification is a poison pill. Isn't it kind of hard to claim that saying that we should allow States to engage in drug testing for people who are on unemployment is a poison pill? Making sure we reimburse for overpayments to recapture those hard-earned tax dollars, how can that be a poison pill? These are commonsense proposals to deal with the fact that we have a $15 trillion national debt.

And the American people know that Big Government is a problem. Just this morning I read the Gallup poll which shows that we are at near- record levels with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents being suspicious of Big Government. What we need to do is we need to unleash this potential that is out there, and this measure will do that.

Now, we keep hearing that politics is being played with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've gotten the word today that the majority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has chosen to prevent Members from signing the conference report for the absolutely essential spending bill that is out there, the minibus spending bill, because of this issue that's before us right now. If that isn't playing politics, I don't know what is.

Right now we're faced with the threat of a government shutdown on Friday. If the Democrats don't sign that appropriations conference report--which has been negotiated in good faith again between both Democrats and Republicans with the House and the Senate--we're going to be faced with a government shutdown that Leader Reid will in fact have created by preventing Members from signing that conference report.

We need to come together and do that, sign that conference report, get that work done. This measure, this measure, once again, Mr. Speaker, will get at the core problem that we face, and that is the lack of jobs that exist.

The Keystone XL pipeline will create, as has been said, 20,000 to 25,000 jobs, if not more, immediately--immediately--and it will allow us to decrease our dependence on overseas oil. And it will allow us to work closely, as my friend Mr. Royce said, with our close ally to the north, Canada, rather than see them--understandably--engage in a stronger relationship with China.

There are so many benefits to this, so many benefits all the way across the board that I believe that, since roughly 80 to 90 percent of the provisions in here have been proposed by President Obama--many of which were discussed in his jobs bill that 98 days ago he proposed here in his address to the Joint Session of Congress. We are bringing these items up. We keep being told, bring up the jobs bill, bring up the jobs bill. This measure does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with Republican colleagues so that we can do what the American people want us to do, especially at this time of year. As we go into the holiday season dealing with these issues, it would be a very important message to send around the United States of America and throughout the world.

I began, as we were debating the point of order, by raising the famous quote of William Shakespeare, and I'll close with that, Mr. Speaker: ``In such business, action is eloquence.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his presentation on why we are here today and why the rule that is being brought to the floor is not the right one, because it does not allow for us to have options for the American people to be considered.

One of those options I want to talk about has been described by the President.

President Obama last week in Kansas made a glorious speech harking back to President Roosevelt's speech about the middle class and its importance to America's democracy, how it is the backbone of our democracy. President Obama said last week we are greater together when everyone engages in fair play, where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share. This isn't about one percentage and another percentage. It's about all Americans working together.

President Obama put those words into legislative action with his proposal for a payroll tax cut for middle income families, as well as unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Democrats have a proposal today which we cannot take up on the floor because the Republican rule is perhaps afraid of the vote we might get because it does so much for America's working families.

I want to remind our colleagues that for a long time the Republican leadership did not support a payroll tax cut at all. Rhetoric coming from the Republicans was, We don't believe in extending the payroll tax cut; however, we do want to make permanent the tax cut for the wealthiest people in America--those making over $1 million a year.

So the President taking this to the public and the reinforcement of that message by our Democratic colleagues in the House and in the Senate has made the payroll tax cut an issue too hot for the Republicans to handle.

So they're bringing a bill to the floor today which says they're for a payroll tax cut, but has within it the seeds of its own destruction because it has poison pills, which they know are not acceptable to the President and do not do the best effort for the American people.

You have plenty of time, Mr. Chairman. You're the chairman of the committee; I'm not.

I'm not going to yield to you because you make your points all day. I'm making mine now.

And one of the points I would like to make is about the Democratic substitute which the chairman of the committee said we could not bring to the floor. But it's important for the American people to know that it mirrors what the President has proposed.

The bill would cut taxes by $1,500 for the typical American family. It would secure a critical lifeline for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It would ensure that seniors still get to see the doctor of their choice with a permanent doc fix that is contained in the bill. Our proposal would protect and extend the tax cut for 160 million Americans while asking 300,000 people, those making over a million dollars a year, to pay their fair share.

The Republicans not only said no to the bill; they said, no, your substitute cannot even be considered on the floor.

The President has said--and the Democrats in Congress agree with him--that we cannot go home unless we pass a tax cut for the middle class, that we cannot go home unless we pass the unemployment benefits for America's working families.

Across the country, families are sitting at their tables. Christmas is coming. I say it over and over that Christmas is coming. For some, the goose is getting fat, and for others, it's very slim pickings. Families are sitting around their tables, having to make difficult choices: Can we put gas in the car and still afford to put food on the table? As the holiday season comes upon us, can we buy toys for our children during the holidays and be able to pay the bills when they come due in January?

As families gather around those tables, making those decisions, Democrats have put our ideas on the table. We are willing and ready to reach across the aisle in order to complete our work and give 160 million Americans the gift of greater opportunity and security, of hope and optimism during the holiday season and the New Year. You cannot do this by saying, We're going to put something in the bill that the President says he will not sign.

It's hard to understand how you can say you're for something except you're going to put up obstacles to its passage. The macroeconomic advisers have said that the proposal the President has put forward will make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy. If we fail to do this, we are, again, risking those jobs and we're missing the opportunity. As the previous speaker said, let's put the money in the pockets of America's workers.

Welcome to the payroll tax cut, I say to our Republican colleagues-- what you have long resisted but what the President has demonstrated there is public support for.

Let's reject this rule so that we can have a fair debate on the President's proposal, which is fair to America's workers and stronger in terms of the macroeconomic impact it will have to inject demand into the economy, which will create more jobs and make the holiday season a brighter one for many more Americans.

Let us put the Republican proposal on the table and the President's proposal on the table, which has the full support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, as opposed to the Republican proposal they put forth in the Senate, which didn't even win the support of a majority of the Republicans. Let's come together; let's find our common ground; let's get the job done; but let's understand that we cannot leave Congress--that we cannot go home--until we meet the needs of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to fully support the best possible payroll tax cut for the middle class, unemployment benefits for our workers, as well as for our seniors to have the ability to have the doctors of their choice.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 491 because the resolution violates Section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Sadly, we're here once again with my Republican colleagues who are trying to ram through this fat-cat tax extenders legislation, providing mere crumbs from the master's table for working people that will neither help the American people weather this economic malaise nor create a single job.

To add insult to injury, the Rules Committee has rejected all attempts to allow any amendments to this horrible piece of legislation. I proposed four amendments, which were not considered, and in fact, the Republican majority rejected a Democratic substitute.

There is a song by the group Cameo--and I know Mr. Dreier will appreciate this--called ``Talkin' Out the Side of Your Neck.'' The lyrics are:

So you can see we're back into this same old mess.

Seems like every time we get out of one situation we're

back into it all over again.

All you people that watch you talk, you better get it

together or we won't get it done.

We sit down while you cuss and fuss. But guess who's

suffering. Nobody but us.

That's exactly what the Republicans are doing--talking out of both sides of their necks. They talk and talk and talk, making false claims to the middle class, false promises, when they're really trying to protect the interests of the 1 percent; and like the song suggests, those in the middle class are the ones who are suffering.

Once again, through this sham piece of legislation, the Republicans claim to be creating jobs when the cruel thing is that, when 160 million workers are given a small payroll tax holiday, the cost is they are held hostage with the tax breaks for the fat cats. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reports that this legislation adds over $25 billion to our Nation's deficit.

But those grinches don't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to steal the holiday spirit from hardworking Americans. How? With this legislation.

Our overall unemployment rate did drop recently from 9.1 percent to 8.6 percent, and I am happy to be joined this afternoon by some of my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus who will talk to you a little bit more about how this pertains to black unemployment.

Briefly, though, while unemployment dropped for white men from 7.9 to 7.3 percent, black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent. Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic group within the white community but increased for every demographic group within the African American community. Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts the Federal unemployment program by more than half in 2012, eliminating 40 weeks of benefits, cutting benefits so drastically for those workers and communities that have been most hurt by this recession.

One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is that it promotes State drug testing for workers in order for them to qualify for unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, did the authors of this provision know about the Constitution of the United States? This bill also imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting the benefits that employees have paid for.

This is just outrageous. It is time to stop the doublespeak and to give them real talk, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to one of my good friends from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Marcia Fudge.

(Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time on this side.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is very kind of you, Mr. Dreier.

I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Oakland, California, Representative Barbara Lee.

I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I would yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

That is quite generous of the gentleman. And so I will yield a minute and a half to my very eloquent colleague, the gentlelady from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing our side to have some voice in this matter. He yielded me time in the name of the season; so I will frame my remaining remarks in that frame.

The season is the reason;

'Tis almost treason to extend full benefits to corporations, who are people,

And leave those who are unemployed feeble.

The season is the reason to extend full benefits to the unemployed. It is almost a ploy to provide tax breaks to corporations and to leave the people with no resources.

I ask my colleagues to support my point of order. It would be egregious if we were to move forward on this bill, on this resolution, without considering the plight that we would put the unemployed in.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.