Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Scott from South Carolina, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

A lot of verbiage is going on here this morning, but Mr. and Ms. America, let me tell you what we're doing here--nothing. We were promised that we could have a vote to concur in what the Senate did, 89-10, give it to the President and make sure that the payroll tax continues, but that's not what we're doing here today.

What they changed that to is to reject what the Senate did and ask for a conference, which the other side, the leader of the Senate says he is not going to do. We could have done all of this last week, but instead, 435 of us have been flown back here this week to do absolutely nothing.

At the end of the day here, we will not have accomplished a thing. There will be no payroll tax; there will be no unemployment insurance; there will be no doc fix. It just simply says we reject what they did, 89-10, which is a miracle in itself, but we're not going to do anything here. We're just going to kick it over to the other side.

In addition to this, the President has not signed the omnibus bill. I think he was going to wait for this one, which means that come Friday the government could shut down. We have once again this brinksmanship of hanging by our thumbs.

So if I can make any point today for America: Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain here. We are not doing anything. We could have but we are not.

And after that great expense of shuttling us all back and forth last weekend, we come here today, and we really had a rare opportunity to truly come together and provide the vital assistance to Americans in need. The Senate certainly answered the call in a bipartisan bill, which was really quite wonderful. It made us all feel really good about the Congress. It may have even made us go up from 9 to 10 points for all I know.

But they passed a bill with support of 89 Senators, and 80 percent of the Republican Senators, and I'm very proud of them. Not only did they vote for that, but they are signaling their great displeasure that the House can't do the same. And until Saturday night, this bill had the blessings of the Speaker of this House.

After a year of bitter battles in Washington, we stood on the brink of a bipartisan agreement to lower taxes and provide much-needed assistance to those who are struggling to get through the holiday season through no fault of their own, having lost their employment, that is, until a small army of ideologues said ``no'' and demanded that a truly bipartisan bill be tossed out in the cold. What a shame.

So we meet today at the height of the Christmas season as the timeworn tales of Tiny Tim and Mr. Scrooge are playing out in theaters across the country and here in the House. Will we come together to provide a gift for the American people or will a small group of ideologues let taxes rise and the unemployed go without housing and food as we ring in the new year?

It is my belief, and certainly borne out, I think, by not a shortage of media this morning, that one of the reasons that the vote today is to reject the Senate bill was had we had a vote to concur in it instead and say that we agreed with what the Senate had done, then it would have passed.

Now, I spoke about this game of brinksmanship last week, and certainly, you know, we've gone the whole year hoping that there would be no payroll tax on the other side. They didn't believe in that and certainly did not believe in the extension of unemployment. Now, suddenly today, we can't just have two months; we've got to have a year.

The reason they couldn't get a year in the Senate was the difference of opinion on how to pay for it. It was decided that, with the 2-month extension, we would keep it, that we would not lose it after 2 months. During those 2 months, the House and Senate, we would hope, would be working out ways we could continue it for a year. There is not going to be that great hardship of bookkeeping that everybody is talking about. We were going to take our time to fix it during those 2 months, but the 2 months is basically an emergency measure which is being turned down by the House of Representatives.

We'd love to live in a world where every single principle we believe in could be made true, where those who disagree with us would bend to our wishes and support our views, but quite simply, we don't live in that world. After the majority spent the entire year ignoring the need for an extended tax break and renewed insurance for the unemployed, I've heard frequent refrain in the last 24 hours that the policies we are considering today should not be implemented for 2 months but, rather, for a year. That is pretty recent.

The majority should be heartened to know that hardly a soul in the body disagrees with it. We all wanted a year, as did the President of the United States. As I've said before, we know that we will get that year and that we will have the 2 months to work on getting that extension. However, after weeks of negotiation, 435 legislators can't agree on an equally important point: how to pay for the tax cuts for a year.

The Democrats have said that millionaires and those who have benefited the most in the past decade should pay for this tax break. The majority has said that seniors receiving Medicare should pay instead, which was, indeed, in the bill passed here last week. This simple but profound disagreement is part of what has led us here today.

The other part of the equation is that the majority needed to design a vote by which, no matter the vote totals, they would never lose. Isn't that clever? If we had another month to work on resolving our disagreement, we could continue to debate without pause. However, the clock is about to hit midnight, and the taxes of millions of Americans and the unemployment insurance of millions more are about to be harmed because we won't strike a deal.

By now, it should be obvious why we must pass this Senate agreement. It's time that all of us accept the world as

it is. It's time that we came to a compromise, a compromise to benefit millions of Americans in this time of holiday cheer for some. There will be many more debates in the months to come about how to help the American people, but now we must seize our opportunity and provide for the millions of Americans who sent us here in order to make sure the season can be a little better than the last.

So I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question when we get to that point, but I want to reiterate again that nothing is happening here today. When we leave here, the tax cut will not be extended; unemployment will not be extended. We will simply go back home to await the consequences of what we're doing here today. I deeply regret that because I would have liked nothing better than the bipartisanship that the Senate showed in this time of need to have been on display here as well in the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts and a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to include in the Record the comments of Republican Senators begging the House to take their bill.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): ``The House Republicans' plan to

scuttle the deal to help middle families is irresponsible and

wrong. I appreciate their effort to extend these measures for

a full year, but a two-month extension is a good deal when it

means we avoid jeopardizing the livelihoods of millions of

American families. The refusal to compromise now threatens to

increase taxes on hard-working Americans and stop

unemployment benefits for those out of work. During this time

of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and

come to the negotiating table in good faith. We cannot allow

rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand

in the way of working together for the good of the American

people.''

Sen. Scott Brown, Press Release: ``Sen. Brown Blasts House

For Jeopardizing Tax Relief, Unemployment Benefits'', Dec 19,

2011.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): ``I spoke out against this

unprecedented two-month policymaking experiment on Saturday.

That said, there wasn't an indication that the House would be

in disagreement with the Senate's action. Nonetheless, what

is paramount at this point is that this tax benefit

for hardworking Americans not be allowed to lapse.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.): ``there is no reason to hold up

the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is

being worked out.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): ``at this point, we must act,

as the Senate has done, to prevent a tax increase that will

otherwise occur on Jan. 1.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.): ``I'm hopeful there are a

majority of Republicans and Democrats 4 today who will

proceed, because it seems to me this is best for the country,

as well as for all the individuals who are affected.''

Daniel Strauss, ``GOP's Lugar: House should pass tax bill

for the good of the country'', The Hill, 12/19/11.

I want to put into the Record the key dates in the Boehner payroll tax cut debacle:

Last Wednesday, Speaker Boehner sat at a meeting in Senator McConnell's office with Reid and McConnell. Speaker Boehner said the two Senate leaders should negotiate a deal and that Senator McConnell has his proxy.

Thursday, Speaker Boehner made public comments promising to live by whatever agreement the Senate reached. He said: ``If the Senate acts, I'm committed to bringing the House back--we can do it within 24 hours--to deal with whatever the Senate does.''

On Friday, Speaker Boehner reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a 2-month extension by saying if the Senate passed that, he would take it, add the Keystone pipeline provision to it, and send it back to the Senate. So we added the pipeline into the deal in the Senate because that's what Speaker Boehner said he needed to get the measure through the House.

Friday night after Senator McConnell presents the payroll tax deal to his caucus, he's captured in a video leaving the caucus high-fiving Senator Barrasso. Later, Senator McConnell tells reporters: ``Obviously, I keep the Speaker informed as to what I'm doing.''

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Saturday, McConnell calls the payroll tax cut compromise a bill designed to pass. McConnell said: ``I thank my friend, the majority leader, for the opportunity to work together with him on something that could actually pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''

Saturday, Speaker Boehner called the deal a ``good deal'' and a ``victory,'' and according to reports, urged his caucus to declare victory and pass it, on a conference call.

Saturday afternoon, Senator McConnell gave his consent to allow the Senate to adjourn for the year.

On Sunday, once the Tea Party Republicans in the caucus rebelled, Speaker Boehner reversed course and is now disowning the deal he supported 24 hours earlier.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ms. DeGette.

Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and my colleague from New York, Mr. Engel.

If my colleague is prepared to close, I have one more speaker.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.

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

I want to reiterate the way I started today that what we're doing here today is killing the tax cut by not voting anything here except that we do not concur with the Senate and that we will hope some conference will come from someplace. That means there will be no tax cut; that means there will be no extension of unemployment benefits.

Now, last night at 7 o'clock when the Rules Committee was supposed to meet, the agenda called for a vote to concur in the Senate bill. But after the stormy 2-hour Tea Party conference, they reversed their course. And now we have a process where no tax cut can pass today, no matter who wins what vote.

If every Member of the House supported the bipartisan proposal, it still does not go to the President, and it does not become law. We have one chance, Mr. Speaker, of being able to vote on the Senate bill and one chance of winning that, and that will be on the previous question.

If we are able to defeat the previous question, we can have what I will construe as an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, but we want an up-or-down vote on the previous question.

Let me repeat that because it's terribly important. I urge all of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle, if you wish an up- or-down vote on what the Senate has done so that we can actually get some legislation done here and get it sent to and signed by the President of the United States, you must vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will have that opportunity, which we have absolutely been denied.

Let me repeat, again, what we're doing here is absolutely nothing. It's simply a stalling tactic, I believe, to kill the tax cut and to kill the unemployment benefits.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question so we can do the compromise today. I urge a ``no'' vote also on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 502 provides for a motion to go to conference on H.R. 3630 and for a closed ruled on H. Res. 501.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

To be honest, Mr. Speaker, being here today is almost ridiculous because last week the House passed a very good bill, and the three major components of it are very simple:

Payroll tax extension, a holiday--not a 60-day holiday, but a 1-year payroll tax extension that is paid for;

Unemployment insurance; we addressed unemployment insurance in a very compassionate way, working as the President has suggested. We need to cut it by 20 weeks over time. So our House, in a bipartisan fashion, is working to take it from 99 weeks to 59 weeks, holding in truth the spirit of our President;

Finally, the doc fix. If we're going to keep Medicare and the recipients of Medicare whole, we have to address the reimbursement rates of the doctors. This doc fix stops an almost 30 percent cut in the reimbursement rate.

But beyond that, we decided that it is time to create American jobs. So the Keystone pipeline that creates more than 20,000 jobs is in this bill. But not only do we want to create jobs, we want to save jobs, and so you think of the Boiler MACT that saves more jobs than the pipeline creates. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left want to continue to hold the middle class hostage because they have a plan to continue to raise taxes as they have over the last year.

As a matter of fact, in 2010, in one bill only, Mr. Speaker, they raised taxes on the middle class, and this year, because we're moving into an election year, they decided it's time to remember the American middle class. Last year, they were taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class.

Let me give you a few examples:

A new $123 billion of taxes on the middle class in investment income; a hike in Medicare payroll taxes with $86 billion passed through to the middle class.

I don't know why this year all of a sudden they want to talk about tax breaks for the middle class and only give them 60 days, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the middle class deserves certainty, and our bill gives them certainty. We say for 1 year we need to extend to the middle class, people who are struggling every day to make their ends meet.

Our friends on the left are getting ready for campaign season, so what they're really concerned about is themselves. But what we've said is, when you take into consideration that a person who needs a medical device must now pay a pass-through tax upwards of $20 billion, that's not compassionate. That's not fair, Mr. Speaker.

When you think about tanning services, a $2.7 billion pass-through tax to the middle class on tanning services. Now, I'm not quite sure what tanning services has to do with health care, but we find ourselves in the midst, sir, of another backdoor tax increase on the middle class.

Or if we need drugs in the future, let's go ahead and tax the innovating companies $22 billion and pass it to the middle class.

Or if you don't like those taxes, we've got another one on health insurers. Let's take $60 billion out of the pockets of the middle class by making the insurers pay more, which they know they will pass it through to the middle class.

But since that may not be enough, they decided that they would actually tax the health plans of the middle class, $32 billion on the plans of the middle class.

I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We must not only extend this tax cut for the middle class; we must also pay for it.

As I was talking to one of my constituents, a 57-year-old who makes $650 every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks she brings home $650, and she needs her $600 tax cut. But she's very close to Social Security so she says to me: Tim, please, as you provide an extension of the tax cut, please don't raid the Social Security funds.

So we on the right have decided, in a bipartisan way, to work with the President. Our offsets include 90 percent offsets that the President, himself, has agreed to. In a bipartisan way, we address the payroll tax extension. We keep Social Security as solvent as it can be today, and we continue to make sure that senior citizens have doctors who will see them because we fixed the problem of reimbursement rates. And unemployment is now a greater incentive for work than it has been in more than 2 years or so because we're taking 99 weeks and we're working in a bipartisan fashion with the President and taking it down to 59 weeks for some States.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm not quite sure if I heard the gentlelady from New York correctly, but she seemed to allude, or to suggest, that the President might not pass the omnibus bill because of this bill, which sounds like a reaffirmation of the fact that they are playing politics on the left while we on the right consistently look for ways to help the middle class.

In addition, when Republican Senator Jim DeMint and President Obama and Speaker Boehner and Democrat Senator Manchin are on the same page on the 1-year extension, we ought to act as a sounding board for those four, who are typically in opposite corners.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Dr. Rob Woodall.

Mr. Speaker, I will just simply say that if you are looking for a bipartisan approach to legislation, if you are looking for someone who wants to work with the White House, 90 percent of our offsets have been agreed to by the President.

And I will simply say that when the President is right--and I don't agree with him very often--he is right. The President said that Congress should not go home for vacation until it finds a way to avoid hitting 160 million Americans with a tax hike on January 1. It would be inexcusable for Congress not to extend this tax holiday for an entire year.

I think a bipartisan approach has been taken. I am assured by that fact because the President and I are on the same page, and that doesn't happen but once every year. It must be Christmas.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my friends on the left talk about how they need to get on our side and stop the tax increases. But the funny problem is that the American people may like what they say, but they don't like what they do. I would only suggest and ask people to check the voting record on the tax increases.

I would also say that our bill, our payroll tax extension bill, reduces the

deficit, the debt by $953 million, a $953 million reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, my cousin, Austin Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tom Reed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Jeff Landry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, the great chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the American people are afraid. They're afraid of the party on the left. They're afraid because the party on the left raided $500 billion out of Medicare to pay for a national health care Ponzi scheme. They're afraid because that same party who talks about tax cuts for the middle class raised taxes by a half a trillion dollars on the middle class.

After being held hostage, the middle class now hears from the party on the left, Trust me with a 60-day extension. No planning time, no time to figure it out. Trust me after I raised taxes on you in the last 12 months by more than a half a trillion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, regular order suggests for the last 200 years that when the House and the Senate don't agree, they go to conference so that the folks on the left and those fighting for freedom on the right have an opportunity to come together in a conference. So to Mr. Waxman and Mr. Levin and others on the left who want a seat at the table, conference is the way you get a seat at the table. What we're asking for is common sense, something America has not seen from Congress in the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 502, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 501) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Clearly, the economy and jobs is the number one issue for the American people all across this land; and if you were to ask the folks who create jobs what is the greatest impediment to job creation, they would say it's uncertainty.

Businesses don't know what taxes are going to be. Job creators don't know what the rules and regulations are going to be. Employees and workers don't know if their jobs will be lost. Doctors don't know whether or not they're going to be able to see Medicare patients. Patients don't know whether or not they're going to be able to see their doctors.

Therefore, the House believes what the American people already know: that more certainty, greater certainty, is imperative if we're going to get this economy rolling again. Consequently, we, the House, passed a bill that provides that certainty.

Our bill provides for a 1-year extension of the payroll contribution to Social Security, offset so that Social Security resources are not depleted;

Our bill provides for a 13-month extension of Federal unemployment benefits with real reform, including job training and helping folks get GEDs and allowing drug screening by States for those receiving benefits should they so desire;

Our bill provides a 2-year extension of payments to doctors caring for seniors--for Medicare patients--so that our parents and our grandparents can continue to see their doctors.

So the House passed a 1-year extension of the payroll tax reduction and paid for it with reduced spending elsewhere. Yet the Senate, Mr. Speaker, wants 60 days and more uncertainty. The House passed a 13- month extension of Federal unemployment benefits. The Senate wants 60 days and more uncertainty. The House passed a 2-year continuation of funding for doctors to see Medicare patients. The Senate--that's right, Mr. Speaker--wants 60 days and more uncertainty.

Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate agree that we ought to extend these items. There

is no debate about that. The differences lie in whether or not we get our job done now or whether we punt the fulfilling of our responsibilities for another 2 months. The Senate's action is unworkable and unacceptable. Various organizations representing job creators have already said that a 2-month punt is unworkable and costly--therefore harming more job creation.

Now we're ready to sit down with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the Capitol to get a 1-year extension put in place before the end of this year. That's what you do when there are differences in the House and the Senate. Both sides have passed legislation, but we have disagreements. So now we ought to sit down, like Congresses have done for over 200 years, and work out those differences. We ought to do that today, not 2 months from now.

This resolution makes it clear that the House supports taking care of middle class families, seniors, and job creators. It makes it clear that the House stands ready and willing to work with the Senate to get this done. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support providing relief and certainty for middle class families and for seniors and for job creators, then they ought to support this resolution. There is bipartisan support for the proposals within this resolution, and there is bipartisan support for a 1-year extension.

I call on my colleagues to support this resolution and support the efforts under way to work out our differences with the Democrat-led Senate and to put in place a set of solutions that will create certainty for families, job creators, and seniors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to my friend from South Carolina that the best way to provide certainty for families and job creators and for seniors is to have a House-Senate conference committee work together before the end of the year.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a productive and excellent member of our conference, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a dear friend and a wonderful member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to our Republican chair of our conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my physician colleague from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a freshman Member from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, another physician colleague and a colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a physician colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that it was President Obama who said:

This Congress cannot and should not leave for vacation

until that--until they have made sure that that tax increase

doesn't happen. Let me repeat that: Congress should not and

cannot go on vacation before they have made sure that working

families aren't seeing their taxes go up by a thousand

dollars.

Mr. Speaker, in order for their taxes not to go up by $1,000, the length of time of the payroll tax reduction has to be 1 year, not 60 days.

I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague as to how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my physician colleague from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Harris).

I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my colleague from the great State of Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 501.

Mr. Speaker, somebody once said that whether you say you can or you can't, you're right. The other side says they can't. The other side says we can't. We believe we can.

Mr. Speaker, we have two different versions of H.R. 3630. There is a House version and a Senate version. Everybody who knows about the United States Government knows that when you have two different versions you come together in a conference committee. You come to common ground, work out the differences, and move the bill back to both Chambers.

What are the differences?

In the House bill, we protect seniors' access to their doctors for 24 months. How about in the Senate bill? It's 2 months;

In the House bill, the Federal unemployment benefits extension goes for 13 months. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months;

As for the payroll tax cut extension, in the House bill, it's 12 months. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months;

As for the payroll tax cut for workers earning $50,000 a year, in the House bill, it's $1,000. In the Senate bill, it's $167.

There is a pay freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers included in the House bill, not in the Senate bill. There is the ending of unemployment and food stamp benefits for millionaires in the House bill, not in the Senate bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is about two different bills. It's about certainty. It's about certainty for families and for job creators and for seniors. It's also about real jobs for real people. Our bill provides certainty and 20,000 jobs with the Keystone pipeline construction and another 120,000 new jobs in the supply chain for the pipeline: positive policy.

Why wait? Why wait, Mr. Speaker? Why not make a decision in the next few days on these tax and health care and unemployment extensions? What's the economic or the policy argument for putting this off for another 2 months? The truth is that there is none, and there are strong arguments against delay. We ought to be working on alleviating the uncertainty that that would bring about, not adding to it.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution and to move forward positively for families, for job creators, and for seniors.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank her for her leadership and fighting the good fight at the Rules Committee. I commend her for her patience and also for her great knowledge that she brings to this debate.

But this is a pretty simple matter. The fact is what we're debating here today is of the utmost importance to the American people, to America's working families, and they know it. So much of what we debate on the floor may appear irrelevant to meeting their needs. This has a direct connection.

The debate that we have around our table of discussion here relates directly to discussions that are happening at kitchen tables across the country, as people prepare for the holidays, to see if they're going to be able to have a holiday and if they're going to be able to pay the bills come January.

Last night, the leadership of the Republican Party announced that the procedure today would be that we would be able to vote up or down on the Senate bill. In a matter of minutes, by the time it went to the Rules Committee, they changed that and said we wouldn't have a chance to vote up or down on the Senate bill.

This isn't, though, about process. It's about why is this happening, and why can't we get the job done for the American people.

What is at stake is the following: Given the chance to have an up-or- down vote on the Senate bill will probably attract some Republican support. When passed, it could go directly to the President, be signed into law today, removing all doubt in the minds of the American people as to whether the following will occur:

They will get up to a $1,500 tax cut, middle income families; 160 million American workers will get the tax cut. It will mean 48 million seniors will have access to their doctors under Medicare. It will mean up to 2 million people will be receiving unemployment insurance in the next 2 months. For some of those people, losing that unemployment insurance cuts off any means of support for them.

Is that what we are here to do?

I thought we were here to do what the American people want us to do. What they have said they want us to do is to work together to get the job done. Why can't we work together, A.

B, they want jobs, and they want this tax cut. Democrats, Independents, Republicans want this tax cut. In fact, Republicans, at 50-something to 30-something support the payroll tax cut. That is Republicans across the country. Republicans in the Senate voted for this tax cut, 39 of them did. Ninety percent of the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for this tax cut. It is just the extreme Tea Party element of the Republicans in the House of Representatives who are standing in the way of a tax cut for 160 million Americans, unemployment benefits for millions of Americans, and Medicare opportunity for 48 million seniors.

Republicans say this is too short. It reminds me of a Yogi Berra story. He said: I don't like the food at that restaurant. Besides, the servings are too small.

Well, that's just what they're saying here. They've never wanted a tax cut, and now they're saying the tax cut for middle income people is too small. So what is it?

The record shows that, in the beginning of the summer, Speaker Boehner said that the tax cut, even the 1-year tax cut, was a short- term gimmick and he opposed it. It wasn't until President Obama went across the country with the American Jobs Act to persuade the American people to support the job creation that he was advocating, one part of that was a payroll tax cut. The American people overwhelmingly support that. They want us to get that job done.

So the only reason the Republicans are using the subterfuge, these excuses, is because they never wanted the tax cut to begin with. Our distinguished Mr. Hoyer said it very well. The bill they put forth is designed to fail, designed to fail because they didn't want it to begin with.

But this is deadly serious to the American people. The Senate Republicans opposed bringing up the House bill, the Republican House bill, in the Senate because they knew it would fail. The Republicans in the House--let's repeat that. The Republicans in the Senate refused to allow a vote on the House Republican bill because they knew it would fail. The Republicans in the House refused to bring up the Senate bill here because they are afraid it will pass, and it will pass and give the tax cut, take us down a path where we can go forward to make plans for how we extend it for one solid year.

But how do you explain this to the American people? Ninety percent of the Senate has voted in a bipartisan way--that's what the American people want us to do, to work together--for a tax cut that the American people want in overwhelming numbers and that we have the opportunity to do right here and now today.

President Thomas Jefferson said very wisely that every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. And so let's see what this is today. Is this a difference of opinion of the path we can go down to have tax relief for the American people which, economists say, this tax cut will create jobs? If we don't pass it, as many as 600,000 jobs can be affected, either lost or not continued or not added, 600,000 jobs because of the demand injected into the economy by putting money into the pockets of the American people, by providing unemployment benefits, which are spent immediately and inject demand into the economy, therefore creating jobs.

This is dangerous business not only for how it impacts individual families and their survival. It's about the success of our economy, and not passing this bill today can hurt our economic recovery.

So let's really be clear. Republicans said we were going to have a vote on the Senate bill. They were afraid it would win; they pulled that. So now we have to be engaged in these process maneuvers. That's only an excuse. It's not a reason to reject the tax cut. It's an excuse because they never wanted the tax cut from the beginning.

So let's understand what we're here about.

Getting back to President Jefferson, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. But maybe here it is. Maybe the principle at stake here is the anti-government, ideological warfare that the Tea Party Republicans in the extreme have taken us to. They, alone, are standing in the way of a tax cut for the middle class. Republicans across the country support it, Republicans in the Senate support it, some Republicans in the House support it. That's why we're not getting a chance to vote on it.

So let's understand that this is a pattern of House Republicans isolating themselves from the mainstream of even their own party across the country and their colleagues in the Senate who may or may not like this bill. It isn't the bill most of us would write, but that's what a compromise is. So it's not as if this is a mad, wild embrace of this. It's facing the reality of a two-party system of needing 60 votes in the Senate and the Republican majority in the House.

I thought the Speaker said that this was a victory after it passed in the Senate. He was the one who instructed Harry Reid--insisted that Senator Reid have a discussion with Mitch McConnell. Was that just a farce, too?

Is this all just a delaying, stalling tactic that says we were never going to do it before? Remember Yogi Berra: I don't like the food at that restaurant, and the servings are too small. They don't like the tax cut, and now they're claiming that it is too small. Yet when it was a 1-year tax cut, it was called a gimmick by the Speaker of the House.

So I urge my colleagues to certainly vote ``no'' on the rule. The Speaker is

proud of saying, The House will work its will. Well, it won't if we don't have the opportunity under the rules of the House that are put on this floor in opposition to the wishes of the American people to take a simple vote on a bill that comes in with the strength of a 90 percent bipartisan vote in the Senate of the United States.

So it's clear: they never wanted a tax cut. Anything they put forth is designed to fail because that is what they want to do.

I tell my caucus--and they may be tired of hearing it from me--that it is like a gentleman who is wooing his potential fiancee and keeps asking her to marry him. And she says, Of course I'll marry you. I can only do it on February 30. Well, that day is never coming. Nor is the day coming when the Republicans will wholeheartedly support a tax cut for the middle class. Their focus has been on tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country, and those wealthy people want a tax cut for the middle class.

Let's see what the American people want.

Let's vote ``no'' on this rule so that we have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' on the Senate bill that can be sent to the President this very day so that we can truly wish people a happy holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unemployment rates, according to a recent report this morning, fell in 43 States during the month of November--the most States to decline since 2003. The media are reporting that the economy has generated 100,000 or more jobs 5 months in a row--the first time that has happened since 2006, which was before the Great Recession.

Mr. Speaker, 89 Senators--50 Democrats and 39 Republicans--have passed a bipartisan agreement to extend the current payroll tax, unemployment insurance benefits, and Medicare doctors' payments for another 60 days so that we can continue to seek common ground for a full 12-month extension and keep these great numbers in front of us.

Let there be no mistake. The only way for the Members of this body to prevent a tax increase on 160 million working Americans is to pass the Senate's bipartisan agreement. The only way to prevent cutting off unemployment insurance for 2.2 million Americans who are currently unemployed and looking for work is to pass the Senate's bipartisan agreement. Let me be crystal clear. The only way to prevent cutting funds to pay doctors who care for Medicare patients is to pass the Senate's bipartisan agreement.

The Senate Democratic leader and the Senate Republican leader demonstrated to the American people that Democrats and Republicans can work together. They passed a bipartisan compromise to get this done.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents continue to ask time and time again: Why can't you guys work together to get something done for the American people? It is a good question. It is a fair question. And the Senate has answered that we can.

It is my fervent hope that we in this body join them today and do the right thing for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my good friend from South Carolina that the Keystone pipeline is in the Senate bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Susan Davis.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlelady from Tennessee that that is exactly what this bill is designed to do, put into the pockets of 160 million Americans an extended tax cut.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Texas that according to all reports, last month 43 States registered a decrease in unemployment, the first time that's happened since the year 2003.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is now remaining?

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cleaver.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I have two speakers left.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side that there is much more to legislation than a time line--2 months of certainty or we could go with the bill that this House passed.

It was a year. It was their year. What did they do in that year's time? They cut 40 weeks off of unemployment. Now, that might be good for them, but it's not good for the people in my State where, in spite of all of the great numbers that I spoke about here earlier this afternoon, 100,000 more private-sector jobs created over the last 5 months, the biggest number since 2006.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Now, the only way for us to really instill certainty in the unemployed and in those 160,000 million Americans who would like to continue to have their tax cut is for us to pass the Senate compromise and for us to really say to those people that we want you to have a pleasant holiday season and we'll all come back here the first of the year and give you an additional 10 months.

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

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close as I opened.

I said at the outset that we've been getting some tremendous, what I would call tremendously positive numbers for our economy in the past several months, and I believe the American people are beginning to create more certainty in their lives.

I would hate to see us disrupt that by continuing to debate this issue when we know full well that our failure to pass this bill will almost guarantee that 160 million working Americans will see their taxes go up and their paychecks go down.

There are 2.2 million people who are currently unemployed through no fault of their own, who are looking for work and who would like to contribute to the deficit reduction that we are trying to gain, but we will see them continuing in the unemployment status, without their benefit, if we fail to pass this bill.

Also, the 48 million seniors who have developed relationships with their doctors, who during this time of year depend upon the medical profession for their quality of life, could very well see their doctors experience a 27 percent decrease in their reimbursements if we fail to pass this bill. We know what will happen. These doctors will walk off the field and will refuse to treat Medicare patients.

I would hope that my friends would come to their senses and pass the Senate-passed compromise.

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

General Leave

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