Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

I rise today in support of this rule, which will provide this body the ability to consider legislation under suspension of the rules for

the remainder of this Congress. However, I would prefer not really to be here today talking about this resolution. I was speaking with the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, a few minutes ago, and we concluded that it sounds a lot like Christmas, and that's why we're all here. It must be Christmastime, and so we're going to work all the way through. But I'd like to be home with my constituents, I'd like to be home with the family, I'd like to be doing things. But the reality is that Congress will have to remain in session for the holiday season because we're the ones that said we would help solve the problems of this country, that we would step up to the plate on behalf of the American people and make sure we did what we said we'd do, and that is to make life better for people. We set the dates, we set the timing, and that's why we're here.

So while families all across the country are with their loved ones, we will be here working. We said we would, and what we're going to wait for is our two sides, our leaders, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, certainly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to lead those efforts to find a legislative deal that is designed to avoid America and this country, including our government, from going off the fiscal cliff. We have heard a lot about that. We are speaking about it. We've had discussions on the floor today about it. That's why we're here. And we're trying to make sure that we, as Members of Congress from both parties, are here trying to help resolve that so we can still do work in between that period of time.

So, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans proposed this solution of trying to make sure that we would have an answer. The President has come back with a solution, and we now know where to point where. Our friends, the Democrats, are insisting upon a tax increase to move forward, and Republicans are saying, hold on, hold on; we need new revenue, but we don't need new taxes, especially taxes on small business owners that are the creators of jobs in our economy. And so Republicans are saying, we're not going to fall victim for being for the President's ideas and the Democrats' ideas that destroy 700,000 American jobs.

So, here we are. We're here. We're going to stay here in town. Republicans have resolved to stay here. We said we'd sit at the table, we said we would do the American workers' and the American people's bidding at the table to make sure that we have a bipartisan answer, and that's what we are going to do.

So we all remember that following the election in November that our Speaker, John Boehner, committed that this body would continue working with the President to reach a compromise that averts the fiscal cliff. Avoiding the fiscal cliff is what we should continue to do, and we should work very diligently. So for my friends that wonder why we're here, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, our families, we're here. We're going to keep working. We're going to work day in and day out, and we're going to hope that our leadership, including the President, is able to make counteroffers until we reach that exact point where a deal can be done.

This is not just about negotiating. It is about finding an answer for the American people. By the way, for people that think this is all about politics and the things that are going on, perhaps it is, but it's going to take both sides--two sides, two willing partners--to want to come to an agreement. That's why we're still in town.

To date, I know we've not seen a lot of progress, and I know we are worried about it. But I would remind us, and I believe this is true, that the President said he is going to stay at the table, he is going to work with Republicans, he is going to get a deal that's good for the American people, and the President said this during the election, and so I think we're here to make sure that is what happens.

Mr. Speaker, in less than 20 days, in addition to the beginning of the New Year, we're going to find out that we also have a new set of taxes that have already been agreed to by the Congress. Ms. Pelosi, when she was Speaker, and the President ran through something that the President likes to call ObamaCare. But there are massive taxes already ahead in law for the American people, many of which we're just now becoming aware of. I guess that's what happens when you don't read the bill before you pass it. But every single American will see their personal taxes already go up, and that's before we get to whatever happens with the fiscal cliff.

This is an arbitrary across-the-board tax increase, the combination of which will mean that if we are unable to resolve the fiscal cliff without raising taxes, we'll already see a lot of new taxes as a result of the health care law on financial transactions, on insurance programs, on every single working American. That's why we have Speaker John Boehner trying to present President Obama with an alternative that says rather than raising taxes, which is already going to happen on January 1 from this massive new tax increase that was in the health care bill, why don't we find a way to understand and have the economy take that in hand first.

I know the President stood here at the State of the Union address and said we're not going to spend one dime of taxpayer money. I know the President stood here and said every single American can keep their own insurance plan. I know the President has made these promises to the American people, and these are the things that we're going to have to understand about January 1 of next year. I believe that's why we need to have John Boehner be successful, and the President, to make sure we avoid further tax increases because we already have a massive tax increase that's going to take place. This would, in essence, be a double whammy on not just a fragile economy, but an economy that is in far worse shape with a country that is far more in debt and much more at risk today.

So you and I understand, the CBO has estimated some 2 million American jobs would be at risk because of the ObamaCare implementation and its massive impact on the free-enterprise system and taxation, combined with what would be this new--if the President gets his way-- tax increase on working Americans and, in particular, small business.

While much has been made about the debates surrounding tax rates, there is, I think, a larger picture that we need to consider. We should focus on employment and jobs. Instead of trying to necessarily aim for fairness just by using this weapon against small business, we should focus, I think, on job creation.

We understand that if the President's bill passes, we will lose 700,000 jobs. That means 700,000 Americans and their families would then qualify, I presume, for unemployment, and it would mean that we begin the new year once again on a negative pathway. That's why we are here today talking and trying to have our leaders of this great Nation make sure that we avoid this.

This country is in desperate need of an economic kick-start. Lower taxes, we believe, through stimulating job creation and job investment and by stimulating the economy, will allow all Americans not only to keep their jobs but also to keep more of their own hard-earned pay. In fact, President John F. Kennedy, I think, agreed with us when he said:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and

tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to increase

revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.

That's exactly where we are. Republicans are arguing not to increase taxes at a time when the American economy is struggling, when families are struggling. Let's not ask them to go into their pockets and pay more to a government that simply wants to spend more of this money.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to staying in Washington, D.C., to try and get this done. Between now and then, what this rule is all about is saying that we're going to put us to work on solving some of the ideas and issues that remain in the workplace where there are answers with suspension votes. So that's why we're here today pending conference reports and decisions that need to be made.

I encourage my colleagues to support this rule with a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a number of good points. We did pass in the House the Violence Against Women Act. It passed on May 16 of this year, 222-205. The House has passed, by the way--256 of our colleagues to 171--what's called the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. It was passed on August 1.

I will yield in just a second.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would have extended all current rates and would have compelled Congress to enact meaningful tax reform in 2013. We passed this. We've said we ought to do what we should do, and that was back in August.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

In reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentlewoman in that we will be engaged in many of these debates. We have been in the past, and we will be in the future. I think the gentlewoman makes a good point.

We offered this bill. We debated it. We passed it. We are waiting for the Senate to get to a point at which they can get to conference. I mean, this is how this thing works. We're not going to take the Senate bill and pass it. We passed our bill. Now, if we could get to conference, where the Senate and the House get together and they resolve their differences, then we can bring it back, and we'll have a bill. That's supposed to be how this place works. It's not where we pass our bill and then, all of a sudden, we decide we're just going to take the Senate bill and repass it and negotiate with ourselves. I think what we need to do is to stick to what we understand, and that is that we are waiting for the Senate to come and do business with us.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to a young, new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I appreciate the gentleman's engaging me. I would say to you there is nothing in this rule that will preclude our taking a conference report or any business on what we might call ``regular order'' that would require a rule to come forth.

The gentleman would be correct, and we do expect those.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from San Francisco and minority leader, I'm delighted that she came down to engage us on this very important issue. The gentlewoman does recognize and know that the House on August 1, in fact, did exactly what she is suggesting today, and that is to take action on what the future tax rates would be in this country. And on a bipartisan basis, 256-171, this House of Representatives said let's understand that now is a bad time to raise taxes on the American people; and let's extend for a period of time all of what are known as the tax cuts which allow America to keep working. We passed it 256-171.

Mr. Speaker, I'll insert into the Record a chart that exists on the House Budget Committee that shows the choice of the futures. And one future that was presented, this slide that I've got that's on the House Budget Committee is essentially about the current pathway as the President would choose as outlined in his budget that the gentlewoman, Ms. Pelosi, spoke of that got no votes in the United States Senate. Not one vote. No votes here, the plan that the President has presented which would substantially not just raise taxes, but substantially raise spending.

If you isolate the President's ideas of simply raising taxes on whatever he calls the top 2 percent, those who have a household income of $250,000 and above, what you essentially do, Mr. Speaker, is very quickly lose 700,000 American jobs. And that's the answer that this administration fails to include in their talking points, that there's a huge impact. And part of that impact, Mr. Speaker, comes from the problem where dividends, and dividends are that money that comes back as a result of an investment, would rise essentially from 15 percent to whatever a person's top tax rate is--meaning it could go, at least under the scenario that the President wants, to 39 percent. That means from 15 to 39 percent.

That window, that value in between is what people reinvest in their companies. They reinvest that many times in small business, and that's the job creation element. When you make this rate go up, you arbitrarily take away some 700,000 American jobs that need current capital every day, a small business owner, reputting that money, reinvesting that money for the life of their business.

And this is the part that we believe as Republicans, that we stand on the side of saying we shouldn't lose American jobs just for the sake of fairness, of what the President, what the minority leader is down arguing for, of increasing taxes.

So it's obvious to Republicans that what we believe we stand for is creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in the economy continues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the gentleman that Republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut on August 1 of this year, and it passed 256-171. We're now waiting for the Senate to act on that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make sure that the speaker that was up here, Mr. Becerra, understands that on August 1 of this year we passed a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class, 256-171. We've already done that, and it's now awaiting Senate approval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Maryland, whom I have not only regular conversations with but enjoy very much. I would once again remind the gentleman that on August 1 of this year we passed, 256-171, an idea that would be about not losing 700,000 jobs by doing it the way that our friends the Democrats want to do it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it is wrong to lose 700,000 more American jobs, and that's the practical effect.

The minority leader and our speakers here all day want to talk about sequestration. The sequestration came as a result of a promise, a deal, an agreement that we as Republicans and House and Senate and the President agreed upon that we would come to an agreement upon how to cut some spending. The President says it's absolutely essential. Now they want to back away from the deal.

Well, here's what their deal is:

Their deal is, among other things, about the new taxes that will take place. Here's one of them that we know will happen already under law: Medicare DSH payments paid to qualifying hospitals that serve low- income patients will be reduced by 75 percent starting October 1, 2013, in addition to the $700 billion that will be transferred away from senior care. And I know we had an election where we talked about this. One person tried to explain, Well, that's not really right. Those were to a certain group of people that may be rich. But it's right here, to low-income hospitals. That means that we're going to have hospitals that no longer will serve seniors because their payment rate got cut by 75 percent. Tax increases, tax increases on health care; tax increases, as we learned last week, when it was announced that all insurance plans will now be paying an extra $63. Those are passed on to customers, consumers.

This is an outrageous government takeover of health care, and now what they want to do is diminish another 700,000 jobs. No, sir, we're not going to fall victim to that.

[From the House Committee on Small Business]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is currently

being implemented. The following table lists some of the

provisions affecting small businesses that take effect in

2013.

The gentleman from New York, a very dear friend of mine, really, I think, got something wrong. What we're trying to extend is the law that President Obama signed into law as a result of bipartisan action 2 years ago, and the economy was better then than it is now. We were trying to extend the tax cuts that President Obama was asking us to do, and that's what we simply did in August again. So it is a President Obama last-signed bill that we're trying to offer an extension of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who formerly was the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. I would like to remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th and 111th Congress were for post offices and Federal building namings, or resolutions, or things just like National Pollinators Week.

What we're trying to talk about is, at the end of the year, since we're going to be here waiting for the ``big deal,'' that we're going to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and reside on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I have no further speakers and will allow her that opportunity, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, top to bottom, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes on small business. They want to increase taxes on family-owned businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people and work harder. Small business is the engine of our economy, and our friends, the Democrats, want to punish them through taxes for fairness issues.

Well, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got a bunch of problems in this country, and that's why we're at the fiscal cliff. This thing is not as a result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes, but to be able to sustain our economy.

So we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing unemployment compensation. We're seeing disabilities rise at a rate of 16 percent every year. One thing which we note is that just before President Obama took effect, the White House figure showed the Federal budget was $2.9 trillion. Next year's estimate is going to be $3.8 trillion. This is a 31 percent increase in spending in just 4 years.

We have someone as President, our great President, who is hung up on taxing and spending. What we need is a House of Representatives that's hung up on jobs and job creation, the American product, entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition with the world. The next new great ideas will not come from this body but from the creativity of the American people.

This is what Republicans are trying to keep alive in our country, the idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood, your cities, our States, the vibrancy of our country. We are headed over the fiscal cliff after 4 years of leadership from this President who is running-- running--directly to the fiscal cliff, and he has even said, and his Secretary of the Treasury said, We don't mind jumping off this cliff.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. We should have the attitude that we're for everybody. We want to be for American entrepreneurship and especially small business, because it's small business such as family farms, small business such as electrical companies and people who put their name on the buildings, the creative people who get up to go to work every day. That is who we're going to hurt.

We're not just going to hurt them, we're going to hurt their business families, the people they have had employed, small communities, large communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy. That's really who we're going to punish.

Lastly, we should not do it at this time, just like we should not have 2 years ago, but I guess we were aiming for an election at that time, and now the President does not have one ahead of him.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

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

I do want to thank my true and good friend, Mr. Sessions, for yielding this time; and I want to congratulate him on his ascension to the chair of the Rules Committee. I look forward to working with him.

I think, though, what we want to do this morning perhaps is debate the health care bill one more time. It's not enough that this House in the last term debated it 32 times at least to try to repeal all or part of it, and we know that not a single person on the other side voted for that bill. But as it gets more and more popular in the United States, I think sooner or later they'll wish that they had.

There is one comment I need to make before I get to the business at hand, and that is the notion that it was rammed through in the middle of the night. The health care bill went through the entire committee process. There are pieces in there that Republican members of committees put in. Although they may not want to admit it, they're there. In addition, the Democratic Caucus, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, went over that bill line by line three times. I remember it well.

But let me get to the business at hand because, Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen an honest day's work from Congress here in quite a while.

Earlier this year, the Columbia Broadcasting System News reported that it costs $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives. But for the last month, the majority has spent the money on shuttling us back and forth to Washington and then asking us to sit here and twiddle our thumbs. No more. It's time to get down to brass tacks and give the American people a return on their multimillion dollar investment. We need to start right here and right now by passing the tax cut for the middle class. We could do it tomorrow. All we have to do is take up the Senate bill. It's right there.

In addition to that, we ought to really take up the Violence Against Women Act from the Senate, not the House bill. The House bill did not include numbers of women in America under this act: Native American women, gay women, and immigrant women. We couldn't tolerate that. So let's take the Senate bill and pass it. That bill has reduced domestic violence 67 percent. We need to reduce it 100 percent, but we cannot do without that. It's terribly important.

The farm bill is important, but we'll get to more of that. I cannot say enough that we absolutely need--and I think so many people this morning on 1-minutes made the point clear. I know that numbers of Republicans want to do it in a bipartisan way. What we can do is what we've already agreed on, and that is that the middle class should not have a tax increase, but that the richer people in this country should be paying their fair share. There is simply no reason for this delay. Once those tax cuts are passed, then we can move on to the countless other issues that I've already mentioned that demand our attention. We can extend unemployment insurance. It's set to entire on January 1 and will affect millions and certainly affect our economy. We can give support to millions of Americans struggling to recover from Hurricane Sandy. We can begin an open debate, as I said, on the Violence Against Women Act.

Historians have said that this term of Congress these last 2 years has been the least productive in American history. That is not anything to be proud of, but the majority seems to be intent on keeping that title. They spent 2 years taking vote after vote to repeal health care and even more time to make sure that the $4 billion subsidy to the big oil companies stays intact. It's shameless, and we need to do more than that. The people who sent us here deserve more than that. We should not be crying out in the wilderness to work. We have been sent here to work, and we need to get down to it in the final hours of this Congress. We have always had the threat of a working Christmas. If we have to do it to get things done, I'm certainly willing to do that. But the majority should help solve the Nation's most pressing issues. That's why we're here. Do not actively choose--as that's what's going on--to leave the work unfinished.

As we sit and wait for the negotiations on the fiscal cliff, there is always other legislation that is ready, that could be done now, could help our markets, could relieve the minds of employer, could give security to the middle class and people below that; and we certainly ought to be doing it.

All we're doing now with today's rule is giving the majority the freedom to spend the rest of this month and the rest of this year on minor, noncontroversial legislation. I refuse to give this blank check to a majority that has yet to show any interest in completing outstanding work.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing today's rule so that we can try to get back to work. This Wednesday should be the day we start doing our job to provide real solutions to those we represent who have real problems.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you, Mr. Sessions, because I know you, and I know that you understand that I've already talked about this. That bill that passed this House excluded a large number of women. Basically, what this House said with that vote was to go ahead and beat them up, that we don't want them covered.

After the election, after what everybody has been through, after what the American public thinks about what a large number of our cohorts believe here, surely to goodness, you would not recommend that that bill become the law of the land. The simple thing we're asking for is to take up the Senate bill, which covers everybody in domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democrat leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself 2 seconds to say it is not a government takeover of health care. It will be performed by private insurance companies.

I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to 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 am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I have no further requests for time, Mr. Speaker, and I wondered if my colleague is prepared to close.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we should be doing one thing today, and that's passing the continuation of tax cuts for the middle class. The American people couldn't be more united in their support for a tax cut, and there's no reason for delay. The Senate has already passed the bill that we could take up now. It's here at the desk. Members across our aisle agree, quite intelligently, that we must not let middle class taxes go up.

With such common ground, why would the majority waste another minute before ensuring that the taxes will not go up on the middle class? The answer isn't clear to me. I simply cannot fathom it. But if the majority won't take action, we will.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule that says two things. One is first that we will pass a bill to extend the middle class tax cut, and second that we will pass legislation that will avoid the fiscal cliff and the chaos that would ensue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question so that we may put our rule on the floor. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule if we are unsuccessful, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you very much, Ranking Member.

Mr. Speaker, why did I sort of smell smoke when I heard this debate? It's reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The American people are waiting for us to get the job done here, not to make a myriad of excuses about why stuff hasn't been done.

You're bringing up a rule that says we should have a suspension authority? Let's bring the middle-income tax cut up under suspension. I believe--and I am willing to take the chance--that this House would give over two-thirds of a vote to the middle-income tax cut.

Do I detect your smirk to mean that you don't think Republicans will vote for a middle-income tax cut, Mr. Sessions? Should I take it to mean that you will continue to hold middle-income tax cuts hostage, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country?

The unfairness of it is appalling. The fact that it increases the deficit is disgraceful, and that it does not create jobs is a big mistake for us to make.

What we are asking for in this rule is to say ``no'' to the previous question so that we can take up a rule that says that we cannot leave here until we and unless we pass the middle-income tax cut, whatever else happens on a whole myriad of other issues that relate to the cliff. This matters, what happens here. It matters that we get the job done. It is relevant to the lives of the American people.

As we gather here--we, a country of great family tradition, of family values, of commitment to faith, faith in ourselves, our families and our God, our country--we are away from home while people are lighting a Menorah candle, a Chanukah candle, while people are trimming trees and the rest of that. Okay, we're here to do our job. But we hear from the Republican side that they might not be ready to relieve the pain and curiosity that American families have about whether we are going to get this done. They are going to put this off until the very last minute, as to whether the markets will have confidence on how to grow the economy and create jobs and remove all doubt--remove all doubt in the full faith and credit in the United States of America.

Every time you come to this floor, it's an existential question: Why are we here? We are here to do the people's work. Let's sit down, get it done, and move forward, instead of filling the agenda, however worthy some of those initiatives may be; instead of, not along with, passing a middle-income tax cut.

This is also reminiscent of a year ago. The President proposed, the Senate Democrats and Republicans voted for the payroll tax holiday. The Republicans in the House resisted, painted themselves into a corner until they had no choice. The issue had been made too hot for them to handle, and they finally had to come around to supporting the payroll tax holiday.

And here we are again.

One hundred percent of the American people will receive a tax cut when we pass the middle-income tax cut. The wealthiest people in our country will receive a tax cut up to their income of $250,000. We're asking them to pay a little bit more for what they make over

$250,000 a year to help reduce the deficit, to help grow the economy. Grow the economy. That growth is what is essential. If you want to reduce the deficit, create jobs.

So why aren't we doing that? Why are we just having all this subterfuge and this, that, and the other thing? Why are we being told to make a reservation on Christmas Eve and one on the day after Christmas to come back. Is there not an appreciation for the Jewish holidays, the Christmas holidays, Kwanzaa, all the other things that families come together around, bonding rituals important to the strength of our society? Do we not care about that? Well, the American people do. And they want to shop for it. They want to have family dinners and they want to exchange gifts, as is the tradition. But they really don't know if they're going to be able to pay the bill in January for their purchases in December.

The President has been very clear: Democrats have agreed to $1.6 trillion in cuts, much of it voted on--all of it voted on already either in the Budget Control Act or in other actions taken by this Congress in the course of this Congress. We have already taken a savings of over a trillion dollars, redirected savings in Medicare to prolong its life and to increase benefits. That would be $700 billion in the Affordable Care Act and now another $400 billion or such in the President's budget. We're committed to that.

Where are the tax cuts? Where are the tax cuts for the middle class that would inject demand into the economy and would therefore create jobs and create growth? Where are the revenues that we would get if we did that and then had the additional participation of those who make over $250,000? Where is the revenue that the Republicans are willing to bring to the table? All we've seen from them is a letter. All we've heard from them is that they don't want to tax the rich. All we know is that the public is very much on board with everyone in our country paying his or her fair share.

And so this rule today that says give us authority to have other bills brought to the floor, well, if one of those bills is the middle- income tax cut, we're happy with that. But if that isn't the plan, then I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that will then enable us to bring a rule to the floor which calls for bringing forth the middle-income tax cut before we leave here.

Again, we support the President and his proposal, which is fair, which reduces the deficit, which creates jobs, and which will work for the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. He will be our chairman next year, and I'm looking forward to his leadership.

We are kind of setting the tone for what's going to happen next year. I said all through the fall, Mr. Speaker, that this was going to be that opportunity, that we were going to have to kind of define where this Congress was going to go for the next 2 years.

I'd say to my friend from New York, for whom I have great respect and with whom I've enjoyed working on the Rules Committee for 2 years, Mr. Speaker, that this rule today does exactly what my constituents back home have asked me to come back to Washington to do. The gentlelady cited bill after bill after bill that I have been proud to support to try to rip the

President's health care bill out by its roots. We absolutely worked hard at that. Of course, the Senate hasn't cooperated with us and the President hasn't cooperated with us, so we weren't able to get that done.

What this rule does is to say let's move beyond those controversial topics, and let's move beyond those topics that we know we could jam through. For Pete's sake, there's a Republican majority in this House. We could jam through absolutely any piece of legislation we wanted to jam through. But what this rule says is that that's not the way to finish out the year. The way to finish out this year is to make sure that we're grabbing each piece of legislation out there that has bipartisan support. Let's grab each piece of legislation out there that folks have been laboring on for 2 years, that folks have brought together a consensus around and brought together a majority behind, and let's pass those things.

I think that's fantastic. I think that's fantastic that every single bill that Members have been investing their energy in they'll now have a chance to move to the floor. My frustration is, what about the bills that we've already worked on here in a bipartisan way that have yet to be taken up on the Senate side?

I heard from my constituents in a town hall meeting last night, and somebody said, Rob, why do you always put everything off until the last minute? Why didn't you deal with this sequester earlier?

I said, Do you mean like back in May when the U.S. House passed the only sequester replacement bill to have been passed in this town? It was back in May.

He said, Okay. Maybe that takes care of the sequester problem, but why didn't you fix these tax rates?

I said, Well, we did. As my friend from Texas just pointed out, what about back in August? In a bipartisan way, we passed a bill in this House to extend current tax rates for everyone in order to prevent tax rates from going up.

Then I took another question from one of the folks who said, But what about that Senate bill people keep talking about? What about the Senate bill? Why won't that get a vote in the House?

I said, Well, actually, it's quite unusual in the Rules Committee. You don't see it very often when a tax bill is coming to the floor. The Rules Committee back in August, when we were voting on taxes in general, waived all the points of order, took all the roadblocks out of the way, in kind of an unprecedented way, to allow what we call the Levin amendment, which was, basically, exactly the plan the President has been pushing, which is to raise taxes on family-owned businesses, to punish those job creators.

We took that vote here on the House floor, and I'm proud to say that, again, in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats came together, rejected class warfare, and said let's get behind a program that expands the economy for everyone. We passed that tax bill back in August, then again in September. Again, in being worried about this defense sequester that's coming up, we took up the bill from the gentleman from Florida to say, how could we deal with these defense sequestrations in a responsible way?

So I go back to May when this House did its work. I go back to August when this House did its work. I go back to September when this House did its work. There is proposal after proposal after proposal that, as the gentleman from Texas said, we could take to conference tomorrow.

If I could ask the gentleman from Texas, because you know better than I: I know this rule allows for suspensions to come to the floor, but what about that? What about when the Senate decides to get to work and takes up the companion legislation to some of these bills that we've passed in the House? Will we be able to move to go to conference?

So, as the gentlelady from New York was talking about some of these important pieces of legislation coming to the floor, you're saying, if the House appoints conferees and if the Senate appoints conferees, we can get together and bring legislation back to the House for every piece of legislation that she has on her agenda?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.

This is exactly the kind of deliberative House that I came to be a part of just 2 short years ago. We have the ability to get these things done in the next few days. I reject the idea that I read over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been delaying action. This House got it right. We got it right in our budget in April of 2011. We got it right in our budget in 2012. We got it right when we passed a sequester replacement. We got it right when we passed a tax replacement--and we're getting it right with this rule today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

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

I thank the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that my Republican friends are turning this House of Representatives into a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all.

The bill that we are talking about right now on the House floor basically gives the majority who run this House the authority to bring up suspension bills from now until December 28. Suspension bills, for those who don't know, are bills really of not much consequence, by and large. They are bills that most of the time could pass by a voice vote.

Last night in the Rules Committee the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, suggested that instead of doing suspension bills we ought to be doing bills of some consequence, like reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, doing postal reform, doing a farm bill, or what we're talking about right now--passing a middle class tax cut extension. Those are real things that mean real things to real people in this country, and yet we're not talking about any of those things. We're talking today about basically doing not much of anything between now and December 28.

Last night in the Rules Committee we were told, well, we're trying to negotiate a deal on this fiscal cliff. Well, the reality is that there are a few Members of this House who are probably in discussions with the White House about trying to work out a deal, but the vast majority here, Democrats and Republicans, are being asked to do nothing. Last night we came back and we voted on one bill, to approve the Journal. That's all we had to do last night, to approve the Journal. We haven't reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. We haven't extended the middle class tax cut. We haven't reauthorized the farm bill--I can go on and on and on--but we had to come back and have a Journal vote last night.

The time has come for us to get back to work. The election was clear: the views advocated by Governor Romney and the Republican majority were rejected. The President won comfortably. Democrats won more seats in the Senate, we won more seats here in the House. I think it's a pretty clear message that the American people think that we ought to do what's right in terms of balancing the budget, and that is ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more.

We have already cut, I should say to the gentleman, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. A lot of those cuts are in programs that I think help people. So, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending we've already cut, and my friends on the Republican side are saying that Donald Trump can't pay one penny more. Give me a break. Give me a break.

This is about fairness. This is about justice. This is about doing the right thing. At the very minimum, we should be debating now not suspension bills, but we should be debating the extension of the middle class tax cut. That is why we need to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to allow us to bring this bill to the floor.

If my Republican friends say they agree with us on a middle class tax cut, fine, let's vote it, vote overwhelmingly for it. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. Let's give the middle class certainty. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question.

I just want to say when we were in charge, we were able to walk and chew gum at the same

time. We passed some pretty important and substantive legislation that I'm proud of. We should be talking about real things that matter to real people right now instead of just extending the suspension authority.