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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 502, I call up the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

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

The differences between the bipartisan, House-passed Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act and what the Senate did so it could go on vacation could not be clearer. The House bill puts the American people first. It provided certainty for middle class families struggling to make ends meet by extending the middle class holiday; it provided certainty for those left behind in this economy by extending not only unemployment benefits for 1 year but also the Nation's welfare program; it provided certainty to seniors by ensuring their doctors would not see reimbursement rates slashed by nearly 30 percent; and it provided incentives for job creators looking for ways to hire more workers by extending tax relief.

The Senate decided not to do any of this. Worse yet, in a rush to get home for the holidays, the Senate passed something that is totally unworkable. Yesterday, the Congress received a letter from the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, a nonprofit trading association whose members cover more than one-third of the private-sector workforce. Their letter says the Senate bill ``could create substantial problems, confusion, and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''

The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business advocacy group in the Nation, representing 350,000 small business owners nationwide and in every State, has issued a statement on the Senate bill. They say:

``The 2-month payroll tax holiday would present a number of complications and costs that would disproportionately affect small businesses. In addition, many small employers do payroll processing in- house by hand, and this would require them to spend time to make these changes.''

With more than 5 million people working in the construction industry, this is what the Associated General Contractors have said about the Senate bill:

``This legislation will extend the payroll tax holiday in the most complex way possible, at the busiest time possible, provide little benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member companies of the Associated General Contractors of America the hardest.''

As the Associated General Contractors say, this legislation will provide little benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member companies of the

organization the hardest. This legislation will add more uncertainty, more confusion for employers and employees, and more complexity, especially for small employers.

``Any economic benefit derived from the law would likely be eaten up by the inefficiency and confusion surrounding the bill's implementation.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that these letters, along with letters in opposition to the Senate bill from the National Roofing Contractors Association, which has over 4,000 members and is represented in every State; the Associated Builders and Contractors, which represent over 2 million American workers; and the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council, with over 100,000 members, be entered into the Record.

Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman from New York for withdrawing.

These letters, many of them were written to both parties, both leaders. I think Mr. Levin and I both received these letters. They were written to the Congress. It's routine that we do these. And on his own time the gentleman may do as he wishes.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, our economy is too weak and the American people have been struggling for far too long for Congress not to work out our differences. America is not on vacation, nor should the Senate be. We have 2 weeks to find a solution and send something to the President for his signature. That is what House Republicans are proposing today.

Let's look at the differences between the House and the Senate.

The House extended unemployment for 13 months. The Senate bill extended unemployment benefits for only 2 months, meaning an estimated 4 million Americans could lose the extended unemployment benefits next year they would get under the House bill.

The House reformed the unemployment program to focus it more on getting people the training and education they need to get back to work, not just handing out checks. The Senate did not.

The House protected seniors' health care for the next 2 years by ensuring doctors in the Medicare program don't have their reimbursements cut by more than 27 percent. The Senate did this for only 2 months.

The House provided a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, ensuring a worker earning $50,000 next year has $1,000 more in their pocket. The Senate did this for only 2 months, meaning that same worker would have less than $200 in their pocket, or $800 less in take-home pay than under the House-passed bill.

The House included a pay freeze for Members of Congress and civilian Federal workers. The Senate did not.

The House put an end to welfare benefits being accessed at ATMs located in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. The Senate did not.

The House protected Social Security by reducing overpayments. The Senate did not.

The House included a provision that saves taxpayers $9 billion by cracking down on fraud and abuse that is known to exist in a refundable tax credit program. The Senate did not.

The House provided for economic growth and job creation in the high- tech industry through spectrum auctions. The Senate did not.

The House cut taxes to promote business investment and hiring. The Senate did not.

Mr. Speaker, while it may sound like there are great differences between the House and Senate bill, it's not a difference over policy. It's simply a difference between the House deciding to act and the Senate deciding not to act on so many items.

The House bill includes commonsense reforms the American people want, and it adopts a number of the President's legislative initiatives which represent the bipartisan cooperation the American people are demanding. All told, 90 percent of the House bill is paid for with policies the President has endorsed in one form or another.

So what's really standing in our way? I've heard the President's people say that this breaks the agreement over the discretionary caps in the Budget Control Act, but look at that talking point. Those caps are adjusted only because we are proposing, as the President has before, to freeze the pay of Members of Congress and other Federal workers. Do the President and the Senate really want to risk unemployment benefits, a middle class tax cut, and reimbursement to doctors treating seniors and those with disabilities because they don't want to freeze the pay for Members of Congress and Federal workers?

Mr. Speaker, it's not too late. I urge all of my colleagues to support a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, 1 year of unemployment benefits with critical reforms, and a 2-year extension of reimbursements for Medicare doctors.

I urge my Democrat colleagues to name conference committee members to resolve the differences between the two bills. Conference committees are a Jeffersonian concept, and we would be wise to follow the model laid out by our Founding Fathers. If the Senate agrees to work together, we will help get the American people back to work and get those struggling in this economy the help they need.

Associated Builders

and Contractors, Inc.,

Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Leaders: On behalf of Associated Builders and

Contractors (ABC), a national association with 75 chapters

representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and

construction-related firms with nearly two million employees,

I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3630 as

amended by the Senate last week.

Whether Congress ultimately chooses to extend these various

provisions, the proposed two month stop-gap measure merely

serves to delay the inevitable tough decisions, compounding

the climate of uncertainty that continues to impact small

businesses. This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress'

uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more

harm than good for America's job creators.

Moreover, a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday

creates an untenable administrative burden for employers in

the construction industry and beyond. In a letter sent today

to leaders of the tax writing committees, the National

Payroll Reporting

Consortium warned of ``substantial problems, confusion and

costs'' associated with the extension's implementation.

America's small businesses should not be punished for

Congress' inability to do its job. Instead of passing the

buck for another two months, the House and Senate must work

together to determine their policies for the full year and

provide some semblance of certainty for the companies driving

our economy.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Burr,

Vice President, Federal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Conference chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I would ask if the gentleman from Michigan would like to yield again so that we can even up the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

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

I would just say that if Minority Leader Pelosi and Senator Reid appoint conferees, there's no reason for taxes to go up.

With that, I would yield----

I can see why the gentleman is a little bit defensive about that.

With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further speakers and am prepared to close.

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

What we're voting on today is to disagree with what the Senate did to our bill. We're voting to disagree to the Senate amendments. Once that's adopted, the House message on this bill goes back to the Senate, and the Senate then is the only body in possession of the bill. And we cannot move forward to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate until Leader Reid and Representative Pelosi appoint conferees. So we're voting to disagree with the Senate.

And let me just say, 2 months isn't long enough. You've heard a lot of people talk today in this debate. It's embarrassing that we're doing tax policy for 2 months. But it's not just House Republicans who think we need a longer term extension, it's supporters, including many of our Nation's Democratic Governors.

I received a letter, a letter that actually went to our leaders last week, from 16 of the Nation's Governors, Democratic Governors, after we approved H.R. 3630. They called for a swift passage of a 1-year extension--not 2 months, 1 year. That's what the House bill does. And what's more, that's what the Senate bill specifically rejects.

I urge that we vote to disagree with the Senate amendments and let's get on to a conference. Let's resolve this this year so we can make certainty in our Code, certainty for all of those people who are out of work, and certainty for those seniors who need to see a physician--for more than 2 months, but for 2 years.

December 15, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and

Representative Pelosi: We write to urge you to swiftly pass a

one-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation

Program (``EUC'') and 100% federal funding of the Extended

Benefits (``EB'') Program before they expire on December 31.

We are extremely concerned about the potential impact of

the expiration of these programs on families and our economic

recovery as a whole. Unless Congress extends these programs

before adjourning for the holidays, nearly 2 million

unemployed workers will lose this critical support in January

2012 alone. Now is not the time to turn our backs on hard-

working Americans. Individuals who are laid off through no

fault of their own rely on these funds to support their

families.

Extending unemployment insurance is a critical part of our

ability to speed up the economic recovery process.

Unemployment insurance benefits are immediately injected back

into the economy. According to the Congressional Budget

Office, federally extended unemployment insurance benefits

provide one of the best bangs for the buck in terms of

stimulating economic growth.

Congress has never failed to act on extending federal

unemployment insurance benefits when the unemployment rate

has exceeded 7.2%, and we must not fail our citizens now.

We urge immediate action to extend Emergency Unemployment

Compensation and 100% federal funds for the Extended Benefits

program through the end of 2012.

Sincerely,

Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois; Governor John Hickenlooper,

Colorado; Governor Jack Markell, Delaware; Governor

Steven L. Beshear, Kentucky; Governor Deval Patrick,

Massachusetts; Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York;

Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, California; Governor

Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut; Governor Neil

Abercrombie, Hawaii; Governor Martin O'Malley,

Maryland; Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota; Governor Bev

Perdue, North Carolina; Governor John A. Kitzhaber,

M.D., Oregon; Governor John deJongh, Jr., Virgin

Islands; Governor Peter Shumlin, Vermont; Governor

Chris Gregoire, Washington.

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

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

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Let me put this very simply: this is a dishonest procedure. This is a ruse to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate bill and the 2-month extension.

Why not hold a straight vote, as indeed called for under regular order? That's the regular order. Because the Republican majority is afraid of a straight vote. They're afraid some Republicans would vote ``yes,'' and the Senate bill would pass and the President would sign it, and it would become law today. And they don't want other Republicans on record voting against a payroll tax cut. That is the epitome of a ruse.

Thirty-nine Republican Senators--39, all but a handful--voted for the bill before us. But what has happened since Saturday's bipartisan Senate bill that Speaker Boehner said was a good deal? Well, the sailors staged a mutiny and the captain decided to surrender. He decided to join the mutiny to keep the ship from coming to port. But the problem is that on board are millions of passengers waiting to dock.

This chart shows the number of passengers: 160 million Americans would see their taxes increased; 2.3 million Americans on board looking for work would lose their critical unemployment benefits; and 48 million seniors--Americans on Medicare--will have access to their doctors they know and they trust jeopardized.

So I want it clear for these people, all of these people: the Republican vote today is a vote to nowhere. Dick Lugar said that. I'm hopeful that there are a majority of Republicans and Democrats today who will proceed because it seems to me it is the best for the country, as well as for all the individuals who are affected.

Another Republican Senator from Massachusetts: ``The House Republicans' plan to scuttle''--that's the correct word--``the deal to help middle class families is irresponsible and wrong. The refusal to compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hardworking Americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work. We cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of working together for the good of the American people.''

And a third Republican Senator, Senator Heller, a former colleague here of Nevada: ``There's no reason to hold up the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is worked out.''

And I want to quote a statement from Treasury about the notion that the 2-month extension cannot be implemented:

``While any short-term extension is bound to create some administrative complexities, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan Senate bill''--this is Treasury that is in charge of implementation of this--``and the Treasury Department will work with employers to ensure the smoothest possible implementation. In the current economic situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans starting on January 1.''

I would like to place the entire statement in the Record.

Statement from Jenni LeCompte, Assistant Secretary for

Public Affairs, United States Treasury Department: ``Everyone

agrees that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut

would have been preferable, which is why the Administration

has long advocated an extension for the entirety of 2012.

Unfortunately, in the waning days of this session of

Congress, Members were unable to reach agreement on the

details of a year-long extension that could generate strong

bipartisan support. The best they could do was the two-month

extension passed by a vote of 89-10 in the Senate on

Saturday.

``While any short-term extension is bound to create some

administative complications, it is feasible to implement the

bipartisan Senate bill, and the Treasury Department will work

with employers to ensure the smoothest possible

implementation. In the current economic situation, any such

complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of

ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans

starting on January 1st.''

I want to close with what Harry Reid said. Take it seriously. This is on what 39 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted for, the bill you will not let us vote on:

``I have always sought a yearlong extension. I've been trying to forge one for weeks.'' He could have said for months. ``And I'm happy to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle class families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1. So, before we reopen negotiations on a yearlong extension, the House of Representatives must protect middle class families by passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that Republicans negotiated and was approved by 90 percent of the Senate.''

You are snubbing a bipartisan compromise. You are jeopardizing the lives of millions of taxpayers, millions of the unemployed, and millions of seniors. To keep harmony within your ranks, you are creating the possibility of immense discord within the United States of America. We're not going to let you do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a very senior member of our committee, the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a very distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished Member, the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Could the Speaker please verify how much time each side has.

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I remember when I was doing arguments before a court and the judge would ask me a very salient question that would get to the heart of the matter. And that's where we are today. There's this question to the Republican majority: If you're so sure of your arguments, why not allow a vote on the Senate bill? Otherwise, everything you've said is a smoke screen. It's because you're afraid you'd lose it, or you don't want some people voting ``no'' on the Record. That's really what this is about.

And there's a second question: If you believe in bipartisanship, why not allow a vote on a bipartisan bill in the Senate? I quoted three Senators, and three more now have spoken out, Senators Snowe, Wicker and Grassley. Senator Grassley says, if it doesn't pass the House today, there's a chance the payroll tax holiday will be lost. And Senator Wicker says, I'm surprised the House isn't willing to take a 2- month time-out to do something more lasting.

So I think the answer is, again, your talk about bipartisanship is totally shallow. The previous speaker said that the Senate said, it's my way or the highway. No, that isn't accurate. The Speaker of the House said to the Senate, get on the road and pass a bill. He never said don't do it. He said do it.

No, the problem is that many people in the House never wanted to extend the payroll tax in the first place. And you sent over a bill that deleted 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for the millions who are looking for work and can't find a job. So today we have no choice but to vote ``no'' and insist that this obligation be met in this House of Representatives.

Vote. Vote. Vote on the bill that the Senate passed. Your denial of allowing us a vote is a denial to the people of this country who are uninsured as of December 1 for unemployment, who need Medicare, and also those who need the continuation of the payroll tax cut. That's what all of this is about. And anything else is a pure smoke screen that all the American people will see through.

I yield back the balance of my time.