Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6684) to provide for spending reduction.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 841 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about the fact that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and we have had the first three letters used in discussion here on the House floor today, A, B, and my friend from Worcester brought up the letter C in talking about this. We have what is so-called letter B. And I'm not doing a Sesame Street skit here, Mr. Speaker. Letter B is what we are talking about, Plan B, and I think about Plan A.

Plan A is what the majority in the House of Representatives has been trying for the last 2 years to implement, and it's, very simply, a plan that is designed to put into place something that, interestingly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike say that they support. That plan is meaningful, strong, bold plans for a simpler, fairer Tax Code.

The President of the United States supports tax reform. I'm pleased that the President of the United States strongly supports the notion of taking the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That, again, is a very positive area of agreement that we have. But I will say that we in the majority have been trying to put into place real, meaningful tax reform that can ensure that people will see reduced rates, and we will generate enhanced gross domestic product growth.

Coupled with that, our Plan A, Mr. Speaker, has been designed to bring about a reduction in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. And everyone knows what that means. Everyone knows what has to be done to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, and that is real entitlement reform.

So Plan A consists, Mr. Speaker, of two simple things: pro-growth tax reform that will keep taxes low for individuals, job creators, and small businesses in this country so that we can encourage that kind of job creation to which we all, Democrat and Republican alike, aspire; and a reduction of the mammoth size of this behemoth, which, as we all know, encourages a cycle of dependence which has been generational, and it's essential that we turn the core of it.

So just getting our fiscal house in order dealing with the 16-plus trillion dollar national debt is, again, only part of that. But encouraging individual initiative and responsibility, creating pride in individuals by, again, paring back entitlement spending is the right thing for us to do as a nation. That's what Plan A consists of, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if you look at where we are today, we know 11 days from now we are going over the so-called proverbial fiscal cliff. What does that mean? It means that every single American who pays income taxes will see a tax increase go into effect. We also know there will be a massive sequester, which, as we have just passed the rule, and I guess we're going to have a vote on that, as we've just debated the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act, we know it could have a devastating--devastating--impact on our national security.

We know, I think Democrat and Republican alike--not universally, because I know there are some people who do want to go over that cliff, but very few--I think Democrat and Republican alike by and large recognize that increasing taxes on working Americans, in fact, will create a scenario which will impinge on our ability to encourage the kind of gross domestic product growth that is important for us and for our security as well, economic security and our overall national security.

So I think about my former California colleague, the now-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who said to this institution:

Please do what you can to ensure that we don't have that

sequester take effect. Do what you can. Work hard to try and

make sure that we can address abuse that's taken place within

the Pentagon spending, but have what is necessary for our

national security.

So as we look at these issues, we're going through a troubling time. We have divided government, something that those nations that live under a Westminster-type system don't have. We have a Democratic President and a Republican House of Representatives. I happen to believe that that creates an opportunity.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I do believe that having a President of one party and a United States House of Representatives of another party does create an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan way tackling entitlement spending.

We know that if my party had won everything, it would have been tough for us. It would have been tough for us because of the political attacks that would have taken place from the other side of the aisle to take on entitlement reform. But working together now that we have, again, a President of one party and a House of Representatives of another party, I believe that we can tackle this issue, and that's really what we desire. I think it's the right thing to do.

We're in the midst of very tough negotiations that are taking place between two people, as we all know: the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. And I want to express my appreciation to

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I've been in the minority. I've served in the minority up until--from 1980 until 1994, 14 years I served in the minority, and from 2006 until 2010, for 4 years I served in the minority. And it's challenging. It's not easy.

But we are, as I said, 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff, and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state its position on this. I know that we've heard that the majority leader in the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has indicated that he doesn't want to bring up, if this bill passes the House of Representatives, this measure, and the President has put out a Statement of Administration Policy that this bill would not gain his signature.

I don't think that anyone is convinced that the bill that we're going to pass here is one that is going to end up being the agreement, but it's very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed and for institutions to stake their position.

We happen to believe that Mr. Boehner has really made some bold steps in working to ensure that we do not go over that fiscal cliff, and I think that we are in a position today where I think that the action that we will take will be a positive step to enhance the chance for a negotiated resolution to this.

I want to say that the process hasn't been perfect, and I'm not claiming that everything that took place upstairs in the Rules Committee last night was perfect. But I will say, look at what it is that we've included: basically a reduction of $238 billion over 10 years in the reconciliation package that passed this House of Representatives earlier this year. The measure that we have before us that is going to be debated separately is one that is actually pared back from the measure that passed the House of Representatives. The only changes that have been made have been made to accommodate the date change, putting in this month of December in place of the earlier month this year when the debate took place.

We know what this is. And for those who might claim that the so- called ``reconciliation package'' that we have is imposing draconian cuts which will be devastating for those who are struggling in this country, I remind them of the alternative, which happens to be the sequester. It's our hope that this reconciliation package, Mr. Speaker, will play a role in ensuring that the sequester that would be devastating--I acknowledge it would be devastating--does not take place. This is the alternative to the sequester, Mr. Speaker.

The package that we have will, in fact, see rate increases for those earning in excess of $1 million. That's .19 percent of the American Federal income taxpayers. That means that all the rest of the Americans, an overwhelming majority, will actually avoid seeing that tax increase go into effect.

I also would like to say that we have to remember that if you look at the '01 and '03 tax cuts that became public law, part of that law, current law, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that we actually would see those rates with the top rate at 39.6 percent. That's part of the '03 agreement that we had. So any action that we take that is less than that top rate of 39.6 percent, Mr. Speaker, is actually a tax cut, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here--and I appreciate again the understanding of the minority--is simply trying to move ahead with this good-faith negotiating process that Speaker Boehner and the President of the United States are in the midsts of. I hope that in light of the balanced approach of this package, that we'll be able--by the way, this package has enjoyed at least statements of support from Democrats in the past from both the House and the Senate--I hope that this can be a positive step as we seek to resolve just as quickly as we possibly can this question.

We all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity; and our goal is, Mr. Speaker, to put into place a policy that will have the kind of certainty that will encourage our job creators and encourage those who are out there seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder to have the kind of opportunity that is necessary.

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

If the measures before us constituted the Republican Plan A, they would be a package of sweeping tax and entitlement reforms. They would provide considerable new revenues through economic growth and a simpler, fairer tax code. They would rein in our ballooning deficit by making our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. Together these critical initiatives would put our economy back on the path toward prosperity and opportunity.

For two years, this Republican Majority has worked tirelessly to enact Plan A. We have passed dozens of bills. Speaker Boehner has spent countless hours negotiating with President Obama. All in an effort to advance our Plan A. I still have hope that we will reach an agreement that will substantially achieve the goals that we have outlined: growth and balanced budgets through meaningful tax and entitlement reform.

But the measure before us today is not Plan A. It is Plan B. Time is running out. We are 11 days away from the end of 2012. 11 days away from our last opportunity to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. 11 days away from significant tax increases on every single tax payer in America and devastating cuts to our military.

The Members of this body may disagree on many things, but we all agree that the across-the-board tax rates that become effective on January 1 will have a very damaging effect on our frail economy. The first of today's underlying bills is a safeguard against the most detrimental aspects of the fiscal cliff. It extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the 99.81 percent of Americans who make less than $1 million a year. This action protects the middle class and virtually all small businesses. No other single action would go further to mitigate the crisis that is looming before us.

The second of today's underlying bills makes responsible spending cuts that will help to rein in our deficit without compromising national security. Defense Secretary Panetta has tirelessly exhorted Congress to avoid these draconian cuts to our military at all costs. We are absolutely committed to getting our fiscal house in order. But we must do so in a way that does not sacrifice our security. The underlying spending package makes essential cuts, while ensuring that we do not put our homeland and our troops at grave risk.

We of course want to go much further than simply limiting the worst of the damage of the fiscal cliff. We will continue to strive for a comprehensive solution until the tremendous challenges before us are addressed. These challenges will not be resolved in any sustainable way until we substantially reform our tax code and deal with the fundamental insolvency of our entitlement programs. But we would be utterly derelict in our duty to first do no harm if we failed to implement these critical stopgap measures.

It is essential to recognize that current law raises taxes for every single Federal income tax payer on January 1. Every working American, every small business owner, will face a higher marginal rate 11 days from now. That is the current law of the land. Today's underlying tax bill maintains current law for 0.19 percent of taxpayers, while cutting taxes for 99.81 percent. This is not a tax increase. It is a tax cut for very nearly everyone. Without it, we run the real and serious risk of plunging our economy back into recession.

Today's measures represent neither a comprehensive solution nor the end of our efforts to reach one. It is simply action that must be taken to protect our fragile economy and beleaguered workforce until a long- term solution can be reached.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks that my good friend from Rochester has made as it relates to the sequester. I agree with her completely, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we not let the sequester take place, and I hope and believe that she is right, that we will not see that happen.

Number two, I'd like to associate myself with her remarks as it relates to ensuring that we do not go over the fiscal cliff. That's something that is very, very desired on our part as well.

I'd also like to respond to just one point very quickly, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Roseville and say that I can provide my friend from Rochester, our distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, assurance that we will not be adjourning the Congress today and ending our work. I have said--I said in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--that we are going to continue with our work.

The action that we are going to take relates to these two measures: again, the reconciliation package, which is designed to ensure, as my friend from Rochester has said, that we don't see sequestration, which we all know would be devastating if it were to take effect. It is a package of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time. It is a very responsible measure that is not going to be gutting programs but is going to responsibly begin to tackle entitlement reform.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

If I could reclaim my time, I will say again that I have served as long in the minority as John Dingell. I have served longer in the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, than the dean of the House, John Dingell, has served, and I understand. I've served 18 years in the minority, and I

understand that it is challenging, and I respect that fact. To say that as we're dealing with the very end of this session that we're not trying to get to an agreement is a mischaracterization of where we are.

I've associated myself with the remarks of my friend from Rochester as it relates to our quest to ensure that we don't see the sequester take effect or that we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say that the package that we have that deals with the reduction of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time is, again, virtually identical to what passed this House. It has actually been reduced by 100 pages. It's much smaller than what was passed in May by this House, and I believe that it's a package that is, again, one that can responsibly be a first step towards something that we all know does need to be done. As I talk to Democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform has to take place, and so I believe that that is the right thing to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a very, very strong budget hawk, my fellow Californian, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining. It looks like she has a couple at least. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a very hardworking, thoughtful member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

So I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) might want to exhaust some of the speakers she has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask my friend to yield? I will yield her an additional 30 seconds.

I just wanted to inquire. I didn't understand this ``there is no sequester here.'' We're dealing with the threat of a sequester, and our idea is $238 billion in spending reductions within the reconciliation bill that passed the House last May is what we're including. So I just didn't understand, if I could just ask my friend.

And I'm happy to yield her an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

If the gentlewoman would further yield, let me just say that there is a plan to respond to the sequester, and that is the $238 billion reduction over a 10-year period of time that is the reconciliation bill that was passed by the House last May.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very thoughtful colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a great member of the Appropriations Committee, our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia, Ann's father, Mr. Kingston.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that we all know we're 11 days away from going over the proverbial fiscal cliff. We are trying our doggonedest to make sure that a sequester doesn't go into place. We all know that Secretary Panetta has said that that would be a devastating thing for our Nation's security.

I think that discussions taking place between the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are very important. I also think it's important for every Member of the House to have an opportunity to state where they stand on these issues.

The bill before us is one which actually has, again, basically enjoyed bipartisan support. I remember when Senator Schumer made it clear that he believed that there should not be any increase for anyone who earns under $1 million. That was a request that he said. I know there was a lot of discussion within the Democratic Caucus as to exactly what that level should be. Well, this is at the level that Senator Schumer had indicated that he supported earlier on.

I've got to say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, we are not planning to adjourn. We want to address this issue. We want to do everything that we possibly can, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this just as quickly as we possibly can.

We're just a few days away from Christmas. We are obviously still here working. We're prepared to come back after Christmas. Sadly, many of our colleagues are going to the funeral of Senator Inouye. That service that will take place in Hawaii has created a challenge for us when it relates to the schedule itself.

We understand that this is a difficult time, but we need to work together to put into place pro-growth economic policies. I think that there is, as I said in my opening remarks, a bipartisan quest to do that. I congratulate the President for his call for reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Real tax reform is something we've been trying to do for a while and I think can be done in a bipartisan way. Real entitlement reform that does not hurt our fellow Americans is something that can be done in a responsible way.

So I will simply say that this is not a perfect process, but it's an end-of-the-session process that's going on right now to deal with a tough, tough situation. We don't want our fellow Americans to be hurting, especially at this time of year as we look towards the Christmas holidays. I believe that we can see an agreement which will work to ensure that that does not take place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the underlying legislation, both the tax issue and the effort to ensure that we don't see a sequester take place to bring about $238 billion, as the House passed it last May, of spending over a 10-year period of time. This is the right thing for us to do to get on a path that can provide certainty, which we all know is necessary.

So I urge support of the rule, and I urge support of the underlying legislation, both bills.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At the outset, I just want to say to my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have great respect for him. And I hope he won't take it the wrong way, but I'm glad to have you back, and look forward to actually working with you next year. I actually hoped that we'd be able to work in a bipartisan way, starting right now. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be

the case, and we are engaged here in the House on this floor today in what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take us much closer as a country to going over the fiscal cliff. We're wasting valuable time. The Speaker should be engaged with the President of the United States in negotiations rather than having walked away from those negotiations with the President. That walking away is becoming a bad habit.

The President put on the table a balanced budget plan that calls for shared responsibility. It calls for $1.2 trillion in additional revenues from high-income earners over the next 10 years, and $1.2 trillion in additional cuts, if you include the interest savings over the next 10 years. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, that $1.2 trillion in cuts comes on top of the over $1 trillion in cuts that have already been agreed to this year.

And to our colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when he says that the President hasn't lifted a finger to remove the sequester on defense, that's just not true. It's just not true. In fact, the President's proposal to cut the $1.2 trillion would also remove the sequester for at least 1 year--and maybe for 10. And it's more cuts total than what we're talking about on the floor here today.

So what we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that too many of our Republican colleagues still think that compromise is a dirty word. And that's what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise.

As has, unfortunately, been the case throughout the year, the Republican package that we're dealing with today has two objectives. One objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on high-income earners and to shift that burden on the middle-income earners and working people.

The numbers tell the story, Mr. Speaker. Because if we go over the fiscal cliff, people earning over $1 million will face a significant income tax hike. But under the Republican Plan B, compared to the Senate plan that is before this House right now, the House Republican plan would give those millionaires a $50,000 tax break on average.

But do you know who would pay more under a Republican Plan B? A whole lot of middle class families. Eleven million families will see an average of $1,100 tax increase because the Republican Plan B takes away the tuition tax credit. Twelve million families will lose the enhanced child tax credit; they will face $800 more burden. EITC, 6 million families will pay more. The typical U.S. Army private--including those men and women serving us in Afghanistan today--married with a newborn infant will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of Republican Plan B. On average, 25 million families will pay an average of $1,000 more so that 402,000 families who make over $1 million can get an average tax break of $50,000. That's the tax part of Republican Plan B.

We're here today right now talking about the cutting part of Republican Plan B. I think all of us recall during the election the Republican Presidential candidate said:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the

President no matter what.

And then he went on to say:

And so my job is not to worry about those people.

Well, you know what? The Republican sequester-cutting plan today is making their nominee's promise come true. It sends a signal that our Republican colleagues just don't care about the 47 percent. Because you know who gets hit? Here's what it would do. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is a recycled version. We had virtually the same bill on the floor last spring; we're just doing it again. That bill did not get one single Democratic vote, and now it's brought here under the premise of some kind of bipartisan approach. The reason it didn't get Democratic support is, while they're providing these tax breaks to people making over $1 million compared to what it would be if we went over the fiscal cliff, 22 million children will face reduced or eliminated food benefits. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. 1.8 million Americans will permanently lose their food assistance, and of those, nearly 300,000 children will lose their school free or reduced lunch program.

So what this sequester-avoidance plan does is make good on the promise that Republicans don't care about the 47 percent. That's why it didn't get any Democratic votes last spring. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I wish the outgoing chairman of Financial Services would check his facts.

Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic leader, did not make a tax proposal that would give people over $1 million a year a $50,000 tax break, which is exactly what the Republican plan would do, number one.

Number two, the proposal that the President has put on the table has $1.2 trillion cuts if you include interest savings, which is more than the cuts here, and will also deal with the sequester.

Number three, the Republican proposal out of Financial Services will increase the likelihood that taxpayers have to bail out the financial industry again, not reduce it.

And number four, they strip away the independence of the Consumer Finance Protection Board so that lobbyists can meddle in exactly how they do their work so that they're looking out for lobbyists' interests rather than the interests of the American people.

So this whole approach that we're seeing right here is another example of trying to help the folks at the very top at the expense of the rest of the country.

And, Mr. Bachus, it wasn't me making the 40 percent comment talking about dividing America. That was the comment made by the Republican candidate for President.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lowey, and I congratulate her on becoming the new ranking member.

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

What is unbalanced is the Republican package that we see on the floor today. We already talked about the numbers of the Republican Plan B tax proposal which compared to going over the fiscal cliff and the Senate alternative would actually provide millionaires with a $50,000 tax cut on average while 25 million American families will actually see a tax increase of $1,000 on average, including, Mr. Speaker, some of our soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan today.

The majority leader talked about doing the math. Then do the math on the tax plan, because that's exactly what it shows. What the President has called for is a balanced plan that asks for the wealthiest to share the burden of our deficit challenge and make sure that we get our economy in full gear.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points here.

First, the chairman of the Budget Committee said that the President hadn't put any specific spending cuts on the table. That's just not true. His proposal has been available to the public for well over a year now. As to just one specific proposal, the President has said we should get rid of excessive agriculture subsidies. He has called for $30 billion on that item alone.

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, that also is not true, and on that, we will have a longer discussion.

The reality is ag subsidies are one very concrete example. Interestingly, this bill that our Republican colleagues have brought to the floor, again, while cutting deeply into the food and nutrition programs, doesn't take one penny from ag subsidies for agrabusinesses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's also important to correct another statement that has been made by both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Ag Committee with respect to the food program. I think the chairman knows that the SNAP statute provides in statute two routes for people to be eligible for food and nutrition assistance--one is the specific income and asset test, or they can become eligible under the SNAP statute based on participation in other programs in which they have to show income-based need.

Nobody wants fraud. We should find every dollar of wasted money and get rid of it, but don't pretend that people who qualify under the statute are engaged in fraud. What you're proposing to do in this Republican bill is to deny millions of those people on nutrition programs their legal support, and we do not think we should be doing that. At the same time, we are giving millionaires a $50,000 average tax cut.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), and I congratulate her on becoming the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

May I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words again about the priorities reflected in this Republican package.

If you look at Plan B, the tax part, you're giving people who earn over $1 million a year on average a $50,000 tax cut compared to what it would be under the Senate proposal. At the same time, under this proposal that we're talking about here on the floor of the House, you're talking about eliminating important support in food and nutrition programs for millions of Americans, including for 300,000 kids who would no longer be on school lunch programs.

What this boils down to once again, Mr. Speaker, is a question of priorities. We've got to reduce our deficit, and we've got to get the economy moving again. But we have to deal with the deficit in a balanced way, not in a way that provides additional tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's talk a little bit about what this Republican package will and will not do with respect to health issues.

First of all, while their bill would replace much of the sequester, they leave in place the 2 percent across-the-board Medicare cut. Let me say that again. Despite all the talk we're hearing today on the floor about their efforts to replace these across-the-board cuts, they leave them in place for Medicare, which will hit providers and have an impact on the Medicare system.

Second, with respect to children's health, they cut about $20 billion from Medicaid and the Children's Health program over the next 10 years, even though those programs are protected from the sequester. So if we were to go over the fiscal cliff--which apparently is the way our Republican colleagues want to take us right now because we're not down talking with the President but we're here on the floor. If we go over the fiscal cliff, those children's health care is protected. But if we adopt the Republican proposal, those children will actually see less health security. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2015, there will be 300,000 children who no longer have coverage under the Children's

Health Insurance Program. That's what they're proposing here, even as their tax Plan B provides millionaires with an average tax break of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and even though their tax plan, while providing millionaires that average rate compared to the Senate plan, is going to increase the tax burden on 25 million families. So an average tax cut for millionaires of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and at the same time a sequester proposal that would result in 300,000 kids in the year 2015 losing their Children's Health Insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

There you have, Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican plan. That's not balance.

Look, the reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues refuse to compromise. They bring this bill to the floor in the name of a productive contribution to compromise when this virtually identical bill did not get a single Democratic vote last spring--not one. And that's compromise?

The Senate has already said it's not going to take up this bill. That old bill has been sitting over there, and the President has said he would veto it. We are wasting the people's time, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the Speaker of this House to negotiate with the President.

Now, we know what the problem is. There's this book, Mr. Speaker, which is very aptly titled, ``It's Even Worse Than It Looks.'' This book was written by two scholars of the Congress, one person in a Democratic-leaning think tank and the other in a Republican-leaning think tank. Here's what they say, and they say it with great regret. They say:

The problem is that in the House today, we have a

Republican Party that's become an insurgent outlier,

ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social

and economic policy regime, and scornful of compromise.

That's from two independent, nonpartisan scholars. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the problem we've got here today.

It's time for the Speaker to actually follow the good counsel of many members of his caucus. Either take up the Senate bill and pass it, or let's get serious and negotiate with the President, who's put forward a balanced plan, a plan, as many of my colleagues have said, that a lot of Democrats don't like.

In fact, there are going to be Democrats who don't vote for even the proposals the President's put forward already. Many are still reserving judgment.

That's the test of compromise, not a bill that comes to the floor that's never had a single Democratic vote. That's not compromise.

The American people want us to work together. Let's stop playing these political games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not bring to the floor of the House bills that have never gotten a Democratic vote before, and which the President has already indicated he will veto because they fail the important test of balance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's true that our Republican colleagues are not going to have a partner for a totally lopsided, unbalanced approach, that, once again, minimizes the responsibility of the wealthiest of the country at the expense of everybody else.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The chairman of the Budget Committee began his closing remarks by saying, ``Let's take a step back.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what this package of bills does for the country; it takes us many steps back. And the reason it takes us back is because the Speaker of this House has backed out of negotiations with the President for a balanced approach to dealing with our deficit and making sure that we accelerate economic growth and job creation in this country.

The issue has never been whether or not to reduce our long-term deficit. The question has always been: How? And how you do it reflects your priorities. The President has made clear his priority is not to give higher income individuals another tax break relative to what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, and yet that's exactly what this package of proposals would do.

I've used this chart a couple of times, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to use it again, and with good reason, because no one has or can dispute the facts in this chart.

The reality is, while folks who earn more than $1 million a year, about 402 families in this country--and God bless them, we want people to keep making more money; the issue here is shared responsibility for reducing our deficit--under the Republican plan relative to the Senate bill, they're going to get a $50,000 average tax break, while over 25 million Americans will see an increase in their tax obligation compared with where we are today. We don't think that's balanced. That's not even balanced within their tax plan.

At the same time, they bring to the floor today a bill, a sequestration bill

that, by the way, leaves in place the cuts to Medicare and then cuts support for kids on food stamps and children under the health insurance bill, groups that, frankly, would be protected if we went over the fiscal cliff under current law.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of priorities. So what this motion to recommit does is say, you know what, we think it's time that we end the taxpayer giveaways and subsidies to the Big Oil companies. My goodness, why should all of us be providing them one more round of tax breaks? Gas prices are high, their profits are going through the roof, taxpayers should not be subsidizing that. And we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing that when we have before us a bill that removes about 300,000 kids from the school lunch program and removes about 300,000 kids from the Children's Health Insurance Program in the year 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So, again, this is about priorities. What this very simple motion to recommit does, in addition to asking that oil companies no longer keep getting taxpayer subsidies, is just to disclose to the public what the impact of these cuts will be on citizens throughout this country. It says, tell us what the impact of the Medicare and Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program cuts will be on kids and others in our congressional districts.

At the very least, we should know what we're doing. The Congressional Budget Office had told us, but anybody who thinks that that independent, nonpartisan group has its projections wrong, we'll get a real world check. So this is simple accountability. This is understanding what the impact of your vote will be. So I would hope that our colleagues would recognize that at this time, when oil companies are doing just great, they don't need welfare from the U.S. Government.

We should also understand very clearly what the impact of these cuts will be because the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are that it's going to have a very serious negative impact on kids' health, as well as in terms of the support under the preventive health fund for women around the country. So, for example, with the $10 billion cut to the prevention fund, 326,000 women would not get breast cancer screenings; 284,000 women would not get cervical cancer screenings they are slated to receive in 2013.

These cuts have real impact. So the question is not whether to make cuts--we have to make cuts. The President has put $1.2 trillion in additional cuts forward on top of the $1 trillion. We're just asking for balance. We're asking for common sense in our priorities. I urge people to support the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 841, I call up the bill (H.R. 6684) to provide for spending reduction, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This is what we should be doing almost every day here--cutting spending. In particular, this cuts $236 billion over the next 10 years in net spending cuts to pay for 1 year of the sequester. It sets aside the sequester on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. It cuts $218 billion in mandatory spending and $19 billion in discretionary spending by lowering those caps. The result of this is we believe it's better to identify specific spending cuts, waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government in order to prevent the sequester from occurring. This sets aside this question for 1 year. But in exchange for that, it has a net spending reduction of $236 billion. We think the path forward is even lower spending, which is what this achieves.

I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon.

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

My friend started off by saying this is a farce, this is not real. This is what Congress is supposed to do.

Let's review what this legislation is or is not.

Number one, six congressional committees went through their areas of jurisdiction to look for areas where spending can be reduced--to look for areas where there was government duplication, to look for areas where there was government waste and fraud--reported out of those committees savings, spending cuts, and we package it together here. We ought to be doing this each and every year.

More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this package of spending cuts are built on top of the fact that we actually passed a budget to pay off the debt. We actually passed a budget to make sure that nobody gets a tax increase. That's a lot more than the President can say.

The President's budget was voted down unanimously in the House and the Senate. The Senate, they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We don't just have a fiscal cliff, we have a fiscal abyss in front of us, and that is the debt crisis that is on our horizon.

Failure to address this debt crisis means not just 47 percent of Americans, but every American gets hurt. Every American gets a lower standard of living. Every American, especially the next generation, receives a lower standard of living if we don't fix this mess.

So what is this we're doing here today? We're saying we don't think the crude across-the-board sequester is good policy. We think it will harm our national security--the first and primary responsibility of the Federal Government--and we want to replace next year's cuts with even more spending cuts that we think are smart spending cuts.

The gentleman is talking about all these people who will lose food stamps and free and reduced lunches. Let me say it really clearly: Every single person who qualifies for food stamps will get food stamps. Every single child who qualifies for a free and reduced lunch will get their free and reduced lunch. What we're saying is you actually have to qualify for these benefits to get these benefits, and that's not the case today. We are spending so much money from this government that people who don't even qualify for these benefits, who make more than they should to qualify for them, are getting these benefits.

There is a lot of waste. There's a lot of fraud. There's a lot of abuse in how our Federal tax dollars are being spent, and we're beginning to rein that in with this down payment of spending cuts.

With respect to taxes, what we are trying to do here is limit the damage to the taxpayer. There's not a single tax increase that we're proposing here--not a single. What we're saying is prevent as many tax increases as possible from hitting anybody in this economy. Because you know what? It's not a very good economy. Look, elections have consequences. We understand that. I, of all people, understand that. The consequence of this election is we have a President who in every proposal he has given us has called for net spending increases along with tax increases.

He used to say we ought to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increases. He's not even doing that. The latest proposals say let's raise taxes and then raise spending. Mr. Speaker, that's what got us in trouble in the first place.

With that, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my congratulations to the fine gentlewoman from New York on becoming the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. She has our respect and our congratulations.

With that, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds to say, Follow the President's lead? I wish he were leading.

The gentleman from Michigan said he's offered all these specifics. I wish it were so. Where are they? We hear numbers, we hear platitudes, we see budget gimmicks and accounting tricks; but we don't see specifics. We have yet to see a specific solution from this President to deal with his debt crisis.

He's claimed he wants to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increase. We've seen a lot of specific tax increase proposals come from the President, but we haven't seen a specific spending cut proposal from the President. That's the problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Will the gentleman yield?

I meant ``net.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The food stamp program has grown over the last 10 years by 270 percent. That's far in excess of the recession. With these kinds of reforms, it will have grown by 260 percent. Hardly the kind of draconian cuts the gentleman seems to suggest. What we're saying with these programs is that you need to be eligible for the actual benefit to receive the benefit. That's not asking too much. If we can't put commonsense reforms like this in place, we'll never get anywhere in dealing with this debt crisis.

The gentlelady from the Financial Services Committee says it's just wrong to submit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau agency to the appropriations process. I find that an amazing critique.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

This is an agency that gets its money from the Federal Reserve without ever having to go through Congress. When we uphold the Constitution to take office, let's never forget that the power of the purse lies in the legislative branch. All of these executive agencies should have to go through the appropriations process. That's not gutting a program; that's bringing accountability to a program.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, over the past decade Medicaid spending increased by 150 percent. Over the next decade it's projected to increase by 225 percent, and an effort to slow the increase is called a cut. That's our problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

May I inquire as to how much time remains?

I'll reserve the balance of my time since we have no more speakers for closing, and leave it to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, let's take a step back to remind us where we are.

On January 1, if we do nothing, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase. That will dramatically hurt our economy and families. Then, on the next day, we'll face a 10 percent cut in our defense budget.

Americans chose divided government, whether it was intended or not. The President won. The House is still a Republican House. We're going to have to find a way to make this work. This is what we're attempting to do today. We want to avert this crisis, this cliff, but that means to begin to get spending under control, that means to prevent as many tax increases from hitting Americans as possible.

My friend--and I mean this sincerely--my friend from Maryland says we need a balanced approach. The President, in all of his latest proposals, says more taxes and even more net spending. Hardly a balanced approach.

Here's the problem: Our problem is not balanced. Even if all the current tax rates are extended, those taxes still go up. The problem is spending goes way up. Spending is our problem.

The size of our government will double over the course of this generation as a share of the economy. The President has shown no leadership on dealing with the drivers of our debt. We have. We have passed our budget. We put the specifics out there.

Let's avert a fiscal cliff and let's get on to the business of preventing the fiscal abyss, which is the coming debt crisis that will not be resolved until we have real leadership; and that, unfortunately, is sorely lacking.

With that, I urge passage of this. Let's prevent taxpayers from tax increases, get a down payment on spending cuts, and let's pass this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this. It's good reading. It has a very rich irony, ``Title VIII. Disclosure of higher beneficiary costs from provider cuts under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP cuts.'' Where was this when they passed ObamaCare? Where was this need for disclosure on the beneficiaries of Medicare when they took $716 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare? Where was this concern when they raised $1 trillion in taxes to pay for ObamaCare? Where was all of this need for disclosure when they were hitting providers and beneficiaries in Medicare to pay for their vaunted ObamaCare program?

The gentleman talks about cuts to food stamps and Medicaid. Food stamps will have grown by 260 percent instead of 270 percent under this bill. Medicaid has grown by 150 percent over the last decade, and it is projected to grow by 225 percent over the next decade. Slowing the growth of spending isn't a cut, it's slowing the growth of spending. This is our problem, Mr. Speaker. If we lambaste these commonsense ideas as draconian cuts, we're never going to fix this problem. If we keep this kind of language and definition, heaven help us.

The other part on oil companies, all these taxes. Look, I've been a member of the Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. A number of years ago we put in place a policy that says: We want more manufacturing in America. We want to reward manufacturing jobs. So if you manufacture something in America, you will pay effectively lower tax rates than if you make something overseas. The idea would be more U.S. manufacturing jobs. Here's what they do. They say ah, ah, ah, not if you're in the oil industry. So, if you're working in the oil fields in North Dakota or the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania or the Woodford in Texas, we don't want your jobs, because if you manufacture oil in America, we're raising your taxes. We're not going to raise your taxes if you manufacture oil overseas, but if you create American-made energy jobs, this raises your taxes. Not only does it raise our taxes and costs American energy jobs, it raises our gas prices. How is that good for consumers and families?

So, it's an anti-American energy job, pro-high gas tax bill that all of a sudden calls for the kind of disclosure that they weren't willing to disclose when they jammed ObamaCare through. This is not serious and I reject this motion.

I urge all Members to vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we're watching an attempt to perpetuate a hoax. To everybody watching, I want to say to you don't bother to take notes, no need to call the family to see history being made here. Just move along. There's nothing happening here. We've got this plan that doesn't come anywhere close to being a solution to the fiscal cliff. It's a political gimmick, and all of us recognize that it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law.

The process that has brought us here has been equally shameful, more befitting a developing country than the greatest democracy on Earth. It has been absolutely painful to watch the otherwise responsible Members of the majority play their assigned roles, pretending that what we did last night was normal and legitimate. Last night we saw one of the greatest miscarriages of the democratic process in my time on the Rules Committee. Facing the impending fiscal cliff that could devastate our economy and harm millions of Americans, the majority decided to cobble together last-minute legislation on a wing and a prayer.

Last night, the Rules Committee spent most of the evening debating legislation that we've barely seen. We were told that there would be two bills. Two bills actually were filed at midnight on Tuesday. One of them disappeared. And in the waning hours, even while the debate on the rule was taking place, a third was dropped into our laps. It turned out to be a warmed-over bill that went through the House of Representatives in May destroying health care, food stamps, and almost every other possibility of people in the country to survive. That's how the majority wants to solve the greatest economic threat facing our Nation.

With nothing less than millions of jobs on the line, does the majority really believe that passing a bill in less than 24 hours that will do absolutely nothing is responsible governing?

Today we're prepared to vote on this legislation and, I think, possibly adjourn for the final time this year. If this is the majority's final attempt to reach a compromise, then our Nation does indeed face frightening times. If no compromise is reached, we may face the greatest displacement of workers since 1929 as sequestration takes effect and forces countless layoffs. How devastating is that to a recovering economy? Every American knows we cannot let this happen; and, frankly, I believe that every Member of Congress knows that we never would let it happen. But after last night, I'm not so sure.

This is not a serious solution to avoid economic catastrophe. It's just one last attack on the poor and the middle class right before we tumble off together over the fiscal cliff. Today's bill contains many dangerous provisions. I mentioned part C that we got last night, the old warmed-over bill providing an average tax cut of $50,000 for millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, the 25 million working families would pay an average of $1,000 more on taxes; 11 million families would lose a tax credit that helps to pay for college; drastic cuts would be made to Medicare; and the important provisions of the Affordable Care Act would be no more. They simply could not adjourn this year without one last attempt to destroy the health care bill that will provide health care for millions more Americans, many covered by insurance that they have never been able to have before.

During my last election, which occurred last month, I met more than one person who told me that they had been born--there is one person who sticks out in my mind--she had been born with cerebral palsy, Mr. Speaker. She told me that her whole life, while she brought up a family, lived her life driving a car, cooking, moving, everything that we all do and take for granted in life, she had to do without any health insurance because having been born with cerebral palsy, she had a preexisting condition that prevented it. It was not until she was 65 and was able to get Medicare did she have the peace of mind that most of us take for granted that she was eligible to be covered. Why in the world do we keep trying to be the only industrial country that does not take better care of its people than that?

Finally, 2 million Americans would lose their unemployment assistance right here at the holiday time. As I said before, the nutrition assistance program would be gutted. Those unjust cuts would leave millions struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table.

The Americans that we're talking about, those that will be suffering, are not the ones that caused the problem in this country. They had nothing to do with financial services and the shenanigans that were played that brought us to our knees. Yet, continually, this House asks them through the majority side to pay the price.

Enough already. They're not to blame, and they should not be put on the block.

Sadly, just days ago--Tuesday, in fact--it appeared that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were close to a fiscal cliff compromise. President Obama had made concessions, some that, frankly, as I pointed out, our side is not that crazy about, but in the blink of an eye, the House majority decided to walk away in 51 seconds, announcing what they were going to do in a take-it-or-leave-it manner and introduce this political hoax that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, don't anybody be fooled. The American people know better. They see through this. They know that a compromise means that we must meet in the middle. Unfortunately, the majority continues to think, if they pass extreme legislation and then run for the hills, the rest of us will be forced to give in.

We've seen similar antics from the majority throughout the 112th Congress--from holding the full faith and credit of this Nation hostage for the first time in its history and losing our credit rating to voting 33 times to repeal health care reform. The majority has continually advanced a cynical and partisan agenda at the expense of our Nation's welfare. Given this, there is little surprise that the approval rating for Congress is at an all-time low and that historians have said it is the least productive Congress in our history.

Mr. Speaker, in the election just last month, the American people made their voices heard. When asked to choose between an extreme agenda that took care of the millionaires and billionaires at their expense, they said ``no'' in that they wanted not to be going over a fiscal cliff, and they have made that very clear.

I think of what we have done to just the economic future of this country by debating this fiscal cliff as long as we have, but I don't believe, as I said, that we will actually go over it, except I'm not really clear on what we're doing here today unless that is to cut and run. Yet, in the process, the majority has presided over a shameful legislative circus not worthy of this institution. When our Nation is in desperate need of serious solutions, the majority is doing everything in its power to avoid finding the answers.

I strongly oppose this hoax before us. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your yielding.

I appreciate your giving us your assurance, but I do recall that Mr. McGovern and I, both in our turns, asked last night for assurance that the bill that we were looking at was the bill we were going to vote on, and all we got was doublespeak. So, while I appreciate your giving me your assurance, I think I'll give it back to you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I'd be happy to tell you. We expect four. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it has been said here before that the bill that mysteriously appeared last night had passed the House in a bipartisan way. Let me point out it was bipartisan opposition. No Democrat voted for it and 16 Republicans voted ``no.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I can't say it enough, today's legislation is a step backwards in the effort to find a fiscal cliff compromise. Plan B, Plan C, neither one of them are serious proposals but a gimmick designed to get headlines. By using the Halls of Congress to play political games, the majority is making it harder to find a commonsense and bipartisan solution to the impending fiscal cliff.

The time for these games is over. It's time that the majority comes to the table with a serious proposal that reflects the wishes of the American people.

Nobody wants to see the taxes raised on 25 million working families. As I said earlier, they seem to be called upon to pay the price for the fiscal irresponsibility of the financial district.

The American people don't want to see hundreds of thousands lose access to nutritional programs, and I sure can tell you that they don't want to see Wall Street reforms repealed and the historic health care law dismantled, but all these things would happen if this bill before us became law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the gimmick proposal before us today and return to the serious work of balancing our budget while protecting the poor and the working class.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which will allow the House to have a chance to vote on the bill passed by the Senate to extend the middle class tax cuts to all persons making less than $250,000, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the amendment would prevent the House from adjourning until we have averted the fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent tax increases on the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule and certainly on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time.

I came down here to talk about tax policy and my support for the rule, Mr. Speaker; but I've got to tell you, when folks back home ask me what's wrong with this place, I'm going to start playing them a clip of this debate because there's a serious topic on the floor right now. This fiscal cliff, I don't think there's a man or woman in this room with a voting card who doesn't believe this is a serious issue for our economy, for working families, and for small businesses that we're counting on bringing us out of this recession. I believe every man and woman in this room believes that.

And yet as we're down here trying to have that discussion, in the short 11 days we have left to sort that out, I hear that our tax package, which does exactly what the President has asked, though not the levels that he asked for it, it picks winners and losers. He campaigned on that platform. I think it's wrong. I think we ought to keep tax rates low for everyone, but the President says no. The President says we ought to pick some folks who win and some folks who lose, and this tax bill does that. But it just deals with taxes because, as my friend from Massachusetts reminded me, when I ran as a part of this freshman class, I said let's try to make things more simple here. Because we all know what happens at the end of the year. Anybody who's watched this process in December knows those Christmas tree bills that come rolling to the floor where you handle 100 different unrelated things at one time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in polling folks who don't have a voting card. I'd be interested in knowing what folks who've listened to this debate believe is happening in this underlying tax bill, because I've been told by some of the speakers on this floor that this tax bill throws Americans off unemployment; when, in fact, it does no such thing. No such thing.

Do we need to deal with unemployment? Yes, we do--in an unemployment bill.

I've been told that this tax bill cuts payments to doctors. It does no such thing. There's not one line in this bill that does any such thing. Do we need to deal with Medicare and SGR? Of course we do.

Do we need to jumble all of these things together in a straightforward tax bill? The answer's no.

I'm told by my friend it's not just stony silence on these issues; it's stone hearted to be silent.

Who is it, Mr. Speaker, who believes it advances the debate, this hard, complicated debate we have, who believes we advance it by calling the absence of a nongermane provision stone hearted on the part of the authors? Don't tell me about violating trust. Don't tell me about how it is folks ought to work cooperatively together. We have that opportunity right now, and folks are throwing it away line by line by line.

My friend from the Rules Committee comes to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and he says this bill throws folks off food stamps. Nonsense. Nonsense.

Every single time I go to the town hall meeting, Mr. Speaker, folks believe if only we eliminate the fraud in government, we'll balance the budget. Now, due to spending that both sides of the aisle are responsible for, we're way far out of balance. Fraud won't do it, Mr. Speaker. That's not going to be enough.

But what the underlying bill does to request to eliminate the defense sequester cuts that President Obama's Secretary of Defense has called so dangerous, it says the only people who should get food stamps are people who qualify for food stamps. That's right. The underlying bill says the only folks who should get food stamps are those who qualify for food stamps.

Now, it turns out, Mr. Speaker, like every Federal program, there's some fraud, and so some folks are receiving taxpayer-sponsored benefits today who have not earned them, who do not find themselves entitled to them by virtue of their circumstances. And because this underlying bill aims to eliminate that fraud, folks come to the floor and say, Why in the world are Republicans throwing hungry people out during Christmas?

It's outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that we can't have a conversation about serious things in a serious time. The outrages that my colleagues on the Rules Committee point to from last night, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, what happened last night is exactly what I would hope would happen in a conversation like this.

Almost to a person, every Democratic member in that Rules Committee and those testifying said, All we have in front of us tonight is a tax bill. All we have in front of us is a tax bill, and every American knows the problem isn't taxes. The problem is too much spending. Where are the spending cuts?

And so the Rules Committee staff went to work immediately, Mr. Speaker, and found a package, not that had never been seen before, not that had never been read before, not that had never been vetted before, but one that had passed this body in a bipartisan way.

They said, You know what? The criticism from my colleagues is right. We do need to do this, and we did.

I thank my chairman for the additional time.

There is a sense out there in this country that folks in Washington, D.C., just want to argue about things, that they don't want to solve anything at all.

You all made absolutely accurate criticisms last night that I'm glad we took steps to correct. We have a straightforward tax bill today. We have a straightforward sequester replacement bill today.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't the wrong way to do things; this is the right way to do things. And with only 11 days left to prevent all American families from having an unprecedented tax increase, let's pass these bills. Let's pass this rule. Let's get to debate on the underlying resolutions.