Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. In doing so, I and my fellow Republican House colleagues have made an important choice--the choice to focus on job creation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a different choice--the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs.

The Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act stops the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a 1-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010. The 2010 bill was supported by 85 current House Democrats, 40 current Senate Democrats, and President Obama.

Importantly, this legislation allows Congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform without causing undue harm to our fragile economy. Economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation of 1 million American jobs in the first year alone.

The choice Republicans have made is to pass this bill, work toward comprehensive tax reform, and create jobs. In contrast, my Democrat colleagues have proposed raising taxes. They claim the tax hike will only affect the rich. What they don't want to tell you is that, in reality, this tax hike will hit nearly 1 million small businesses and 53 percent of small business income. A study conducted by Ernst & Young concluded that the Democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 700,000 jobs. That is the choice the Democrats have made--to raise taxes on families and small businesses and to destroy jobs.

As this chart illustrates, America is at a crossroads. The question is: Which path will our country take? The Democrats' path includes tax hikes that will cause small businesses to lose 700,000 jobs. The Republicans' tax reform path will make the Tax Code simpler and fairer, and it will lead to the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the first year.

What is even worse is that, in their quest to raise taxes on the so- called ``wealthy,'' several of my Democrat colleagues have made it clear that they are willing to hold low- and middle-income Americans hostage by threatening to let all income tax rates rise as scheduled at the end of the year if they don't get their way. These massive and imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff, or ``jobs cliff'' as I often refer to it, that we face at the end of this year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that going over the fiscal cliff could cost America 2 million to 3 million jobs. This would be a devastating blow to almost 13 million Americans who are unemployed, as well as to middle class Americans who have been struggling in the Obama economy.

Mr. Speaker, the choice, to me, is obvious. Let's pass this bill. Let's work toward comprehensive tax reform that creates a simpler, fairer Tax Code for all Americans and, most importantly, that creates the jobs that we so badly need.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their choice to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. Now is not the time to dig the hole we are in any deeper. Instead, Democrats should take the advice of people like President Bill Clinton and former economic adviser to President Obama, Larry Summers, and join Republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy, and get our country back on track.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say that the gentleman's remarks refer to the stimulus bill, a failed stimulus bill that was promised to create unemployment of under 8 percent. Frankly, it's never been there. For 40 months, we've been over 8 percent. These are spending items that were failed, that failed in the stimulus program. That program did not work.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

At this time I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished

member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

At this time I yield myself 15 seconds.

We have a note here from Stan's Two from Rowland Heights, California, a small business. They were asked: How would increased taxes impact your business? ``Less hiring, more struggle to pay for expenses and payroll.'' If rates were allowed to increase, would that affect your ability to hire new employees? ``Absolutely. We've done nothing except cut staff for 4 years now. A tax increase could spell disaster.''

At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee,

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say that my friend's proposals just aren't bold enough. The economy isn't growing. Unemployment is still above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months.

We need to get on a plan for comprehensive reform, not just raising taxes on a segment, not just pitting one group of Americans against another. But let's get a comprehensive reform so we can get certainty, we can get job growth, we can get economic prosperity and get Americans back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I have one more speaker and then myself.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

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

I would just say this isn't just about taxes. I would agree with my friend from Maryland, Republicans do not want to raise taxes on small businesses, job creators, or investors because it's also about the economy.

This has been a dismal recovery, the worst since the Great Depression; and unemployment has been above 8 percent for 40 consecutive months. Their answer is to raise taxes on the small business sector, the area where we need to have those jobs to begin to be created. What we're saying is let's keep the law the same for 1 year. We're the only Nation in the world that has all of these tax provisions expiring year in and year out. Let's leave this the same for 1 year, then let's move and adopt comprehensive tax reform in an expedited procedure to do that so we can finish that next year.

If we go down their path of raising taxes on small businesses, 700,000 jobs will be lost. If we go down our path of extending current law for a year, bringing certainty, extending that law for a year, moving forward on comprehensive reform, addressing some spending problems we know this Nation has had, 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, if we do that, we create a million jobs.

Vote for H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Let me just say that this substitute increases taxes, and it increases taxes

on small businesses, the very sector that we need to be growing to bring us out of this recession. It does not include tax reform. There's no path to tax reform. Our Tax Code has had 5,000 changes in the last decade. The complexity is making it difficult for Americans to know what their responsibilities are. They suspect others get a better deal under the Tax Code because of the complexity. If we can take that away and move to a system that has a lower rate, revenue neutral, that closes off some of these 5,000 changes that have been made in the last few years, we can create a million jobs in the first year alone.

One of the things that led us into this recession is the housing crisis. Here we have a letter from the National Association of Home Builders saying that housing can be a key engine of job growth that this country needs. However, the recovery we're seeing remains fragile. As the rest of the economy is experiencing softening conditions, now would be the worst time to raise taxes.

The National Association of Home Builders believes that lower rates, simplification, and a fair system will spur economic growth and increase competitiveness. That's good for housing, because housing not only equals jobs, but jobs mean more demand for housing. This is just one area that if we raise taxes, as this substitute attempts to do, we're going to really close off what little recovery we've been seeing, and obviously it's been very anemic. Economic growth is just over 1 percent.

We need to be the best country in the world. We need to have the strongest country in the world. We need to have the best Tax Code in the world. Raising taxes on one segment, one group of Americans against another is not the way to get America's greatness back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I don't have to refute what the Member from New York said because the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has already done that. They've said the matters the gentleman is talking about are not tax increases. Those are spending through the Tax Code. That spending was put into the stimulus bill. We know how unsuccessful that was in lowering our unemployment rate below 8 percent, as was promised.

So at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I travel around Michigan and my district, the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I often hear from many families that they think America is at a crossroads. They really question is the American Dream, is that dream that their children and grandchildren are going to have the opportunities that they had, is that dream still alive for their kids and their grandkids? The reason they ask that is because we've been on the economic path that the majority has established for the last 3 years, and we've seen the slowest recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is still too high. I

think maybe being from Michigan, I'm particularly sensitive to that because we've had tough times for more than a decade. We need to get people back to work. We need to get jobs growing in this country.

There's really a choice: Which path are we going to be on? Which road are we going to take? Which lane are we going to be in? Are we going to be in the lane where we just simply raise taxes? No matter what segment it is, I don't care, just name the segment, but one that we know will cost us 700,000 jobs?

Or will we go down a path where we extend current law for 1 year, as many bipartisan experts have called for. Even President Bill Clinton has called for it. The President's former economic adviser, Larry Summers, has said let's extend current law for a year. Let's take the uncertainty out. And in the 20 hearings we've had on tax reform this year in the Ways and Means Committee, so many employers, so many tax experts, so many independent groups have come forward and said the uncertainty of all of this expiring tax policy is causing a huge problem.

And my friends would say, well, if only we'd raise taxes on people and small businesses and others who make $250,000, that'll solve our problems. Well, it won't. It's just a piece of it. The Tax Code is so complex, with 5,000 changes over the last decade. I often say it's 10 times larger than the Bible, with none of the good news.

The burden that this Tax Code is placing on our economy, it's a huge wet blanket. Our GDP growth is just barely over 1 percent, the gross domestic product. Our economy is not growing enough; and if we don't grow our economy, we can't create the jobs that we need so desperately.

Let's work together. Let's pass this 1-year extension. Tomorrow, we have a package that will lay out our principles for comprehensive tax reform that will also lay out a process to expedite this next year in the House and Senate. We've been working with the Senate to establish these procedures. They will go through regular committee in an open and transparent way, not just roll a bill out on the floor and say, oh, if we only ding that one segment, things will be okay. Let's do this the right way.

This is the greatest country in the world. Let's make this the greatest economic power in the world. Let's reform our Tax Code for the first time in 26 years. Let's make it a pro-growth, modern code that lets our U.S. companies compete around the world, lowers its rates and makes it simpler for people to file their taxes, lessens that burden, lessens that uncertainty and creates 1 million jobs in the first year alone.

It's very clear which path we need to choose. Reject this substitute. Support H.R. 8. Get on the right path. Get on the path to job creation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

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

It's clear that my friends on the other side are committed to raising taxes at any cost. Does anyone believe that they're going to use that to reduce the deficit? We'll just see more wasteful Washington spending. This isn't a solution. America is at a crossroad. We've had 40 months of 8 percent unemployment. What do we get from them? Not a solution. We get a political ploy.

I appreciate my friend from Oregon touting the benefits of the Clinton administration when we had a Republican Congress. Let me just say I've welcomed the advice of former President Bill Clinton. He said extend all of the current tax rates. Let me just say that this would gut tax reform.

Say ``yes'' to tax reform. Say ``no'' to raising taxes. Say ``no'' to this motion to recommit.

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

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

We're here today to repeal a law that is both fundamentally flawed and overwhelmingly unpopular. The problem with this law, among its many faults, is it puts government at the center of health care decisions, not doctors and patients.

Instead of families and employers deciding what coverage is best for them, the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes that choice.

Instead of families and employers deciding what they can afford to spend on insurance, the IRS makes that decision.

Instead of families and employers deciding if they even need or want health insurance in the first place, the government mandates they purchase it.

This is all about the government. It is Washington knows best, and it's wrong.

By virtually every measure, this law is a failure. The price tag of the law has already doubled, health care premiums are going up, Americans are losing the insurance they have and like, taxes are being raised by over $1.5 trillion, and 12 of the 21 new taxes in the law will hit the middle class. It increases costs for 9 out of 10 seniors. It's paid for with budget gimmicks that even the government's own actuaries admit are not workable.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the law hinders job creation, which is something we can hardly afford after 41 consecutive months of the unemployment rate being above 8 percent.

To put it bluntly, this law is bad for workers, seniors, families, patients, doctors, and employers. As the Supreme Court ruled, the cornerstone of the Democrats' health care law, the individual mandate, is a massive tax. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that approximately 20 million Americans will either pay the tax or be forced to buy insurance they otherwise wouldn't have purchased. That's 20 million people. Only two States in the U.S. have more than 20 million people: California and Texas. Clearly, this is a major tax with major implications.

Democrats have argued that the individual mandate was necessary to improve the Nation's health. What's next? Will they require you to purchase low-fat or low-salt foods, or will you have to pay a tax because they think it's good for you?

House Republicans have heard the American people loud and clear, and we will not let government--let alone the IRS--dictate your health care. We will repeal this law so you're again free to choose your health insurance plan, to choose your doctor, and to choose the medical treatment that best meets your needs. Most important of all, we will ensure you have the freedom to choose what's best for you and your family.

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

I would just note that our health care bill was the only bill scored by the Congressional Budget Office that actually reduced the premiums.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

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

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

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

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I believe three or four.

How much time is remaining?

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

At this time, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Member from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

At this time, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. Speaker, this law is overwhelmingly unpopular, and the reason it is is because it is fundamentally flawed. The flaw is that government is being placed at the center of health care decisions that should be made by doctors and families together, not by the government.

Look at the other measures that we can use to examine this law. The pricetag of the law has already doubled. It's over $1.8 trillion now. Health care premiums are going up. They're not going down as result of this law. They're going in the other direction. And Americans are losing the insurance they have. And there is a perverse incentive in this bill for employers to drop coverage because it's cheaper for them to pay the tax in the bill.

Also, taxes are being raised in general over a half a trillion dollars in this legislation, and 12 of the 21 new taxes in this law hit the middle class. It will make costs expensive for more than 90 percent of the seniors, and it's paid for with budget gimmicks that even the government actuaries say aren't going to work.

The Congressional Budget Office has said this law makes job creation harder. What we really need is to have a stronger economy that will help create jobs, but this law makes it harder, according to the CBO. We can't afford that after 41 months of unemployment above 8 percent. This law is bad for workers, bad for families, bad for patients, doctors, and employers.

I urge that we repeal this law, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Robert John ``Bob'' Mesler, Jr., 87, longtime Midland resident, World War II veteran and retired Manager of Emergency Response for The Dow Chemical Company, passed away Wednesday, June 20, 2012, after a lengthy illness. Bob was born on January 4, 1925, in Cass City, Michigan, to Robert John Mesler, Sr. and Ethelyn Louise (Smith) Mesler. The Meslers moved to Midland from Saginaw in 1941. Bob was a January, 1943 graduate of Midland High School, where he played football and ran track. He began his career at The Dow Chemical Company immediately after graduation. Less than six months later, Bob was drafted into the U.S. Army, and after basic training, was assigned to the Army Specialized Training Program at Hendrix College, Arkansas.

Bob married his high school sweetheart Margery Keicher on August 16, 1944, a month before shipping out to England, then to Belgium where he served in the U.S. infantry. During the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945, Sargeant Mesler was taken prisoner, escaping his captors at the end of April 1945, a few weeks before V-E Day. He was initially reported missing, and it wasn't until he had escaped that his family learned he'd actually been a POW.

``At the present, we live for the future, but we will long remember the past,'' he wrote home in an April 8, 1945 letter to his bride that vividly described his capture and treatment at the hands of his German captors, long marches and strafing by friendly fire. He was serious about remembering the past. Whatever it cost him in painful memory, he talked about those wartime experiences with generations of inquiring middle and high school students, as well as with those now-grown children of his fellow World War II veterans who perhaps hadn't shared their stories as candidly. Though he rarely claimed the distinction, Bob was proud to have served as a member of ``The Greatest Generation.'' With Marge by his side, he revisited the Ardennes battlefield in 1989, where he was impressed by a local memorial to his fallen comrades. ``It kind of finished off some unfinished business I had,'' he said upon returning home. Fifteen years later, Bob and fellow Midland veterans Max Bottomley and Bill Kennett--father of Midland Daily News reporter John Kennett--joined their fellow honorees in Washington, D.C. at the dedication of the National World War II Memorial.

With his war service completed, Bob attended Central Michigan University, graduating in 1949, with a B.S. in Biology. He resumed his career at The Dow Chemical Company, capping his 40-year career there by retiring as Manager of Emergency Response. Always active in his church and community, Bob's civic efforts included two terms on Midland's Parks and Recreation Commission, the presidency of the Jaycees, and being district manager for then-Congressman William Schuette. A talented craftsman, Bob also worked on the crew that restored the Midland County Courthouse. Until recently, Bob was the Buildings and Grounds committee chair for St. John's Episcopal Church in Midland, where he had previously served terms on the church vestry as both the senior and junior warden, as well as being a Sunday School teacher and youth leader.

An avid sports booster, Bob coached and refereed Little League baseball as well as coaching Pee Wee Football. Bob and Marge raised two sons; Jeff (Sheila) Mesler and Greg Mesler, both of whom survive him, as does Jeff and Sheila's son Kyle Robert Mesler. Bob's brother Garry (Jean) Mesler also survives him, along with nieces and nephews Kim, Liz, Kevin, Patti, Jim, Ethelyn, Mike, Lyn, John, Janette, Sherry, Mary and Bill.

Bob was ``stand-in grandfather'' to Anna, Maria, Cate and Matt. His extended family, the ``Gang,'' includes Niki (Don) Beckwith, Max and Martha Bottomley, Gloria and Pete Lehman, Bill and Bonnie Kennett, Grace and Mike Merrell, Janet (Larry) Lang, Helen (Bob) Ward and Caroline (Al) Gunkler. Bob was preceded in death by his parents; and two brothers, James Russell Mesler and James Richard Mesler.

Memorial Services will take place at 11 a.m., Monday, June 25, 2012, from St. John's Episcopal Church, The Rev. Rob Skirving and The Rev. Mike Wilson will officiate, with inurnment to take place in the church mausoleum. Bob's family will receive friends at the Ware-Smith-Woolever Funeral Home, 1200 West Wheeler Street on Sunday from 2-4 and 6-8 p.m. Those planning an expression of sympathy are asked to consider the Toni and Trish House or Shelterhouse. Full military honors will be presented by the Midland Area Veterans and the Department of the U.S. Army.

The family would like to give special thanks to Bob's Midland doctors, to Dr. Washer of the University of Michigan, and especially Dr. Hafez of the University of Michigan, for all the special care they gave Bob. Thanks also to the staff of MidMichigan Home Care (Hospice) and Bob's special nurse Raime.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Highway Conference Report. This bill helps to provide the funding that cities and towns depend on to develop and maintain the infrastructure they need to attract businesses to locate in their communities and create jobs. However, given the current fiscal challenges facing our country, we must ensure that meeting those obligations does not further hamper an already weak economic recovery.

This legislation reflects that effort and serves as a reminder that Washington must learn to live within its means. To that end, House Republicans ensured that the provisions in this conference report promote job creation and do not add to the national debt.

First and foremost, the Conference Report rejects nearly $7 billion in tax hikes included in the Senate bill. From higher taxes on private investment in infrastructure to redundant and ineffective tax enforcement measures, House Republicans were able to prevent $7 billion in costly tax hikes on the nation's families and businesses during a time when our economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.

In addition to preventing these job-killing tax hikes, the Conference Report also adopts necessary reforms to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation--or PBGC--resulting in greater accountability to taxpayers, the pension plans who participate in PBGC's insurance program, and workers who depend on PBGC to insure their retirement needs. Importantly, these reforms will also protect taxpayers from being on the hook for potential bailouts in the future.

Along with these critical reforms, this legislation provides companies who sponsor pension plans with some important funding relief made necessary by the stagnant economy, while also requiring greater accountability and transparency so that resources are correctly accounted for and used in a way that puts workers first.

Specifically, to address the failed policies of the Obama Administration that are squeezing employers and pension plans, there has long been bipartisan support for some form of pension funding relief. Liabilities in pension plans are often calculated by using an average of interest rates on corporate bonds over the prior two years. In response to an extremely weak Obama economy, the Federal Reserve has driven interest rates to historic lows and kept them there. Combined with plan investment policies, this has substantially increased the value of plan liabilities, resulting in ``a rising tide'' of required pension contributions (to quote a report by the Society of Actuaries). The pension funding relief provided in this conference report will allow companies to spread these skyrocketing required contributions over a long period of time, rather than forcing employers to divert resources in the near term from other business activities such as hiring, expansion or pay increases.

Pension funding relief is necessary, but so too are reforms that provide greater protection, accountability and transparency to the workers who depend on the PBGC, and taxpayers who should not be called upon to bailout PBGC. That is why this Conference Report includes several necessary PBGC reforms that were not included in the Senate bill to protect against a taxpayer-funded bailout. Those reforms include:

Disclosure requirements so participants in pension plans know of any shortfalls;

Adjustments to PBGC fees, including for multiemployer plans, which currently pose the greatest risk to PBGC;

Reforms to PBGC's governance structure;

The establishment of a new PBGC Risk Management Officer;

A required annual peer review of PBGC's insurance modeling systems; and

The termination of PBGC's unsecured $100 million line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

Madam Speaker, we have passed nine extensions of the highway bill. Today we have an opportunity to put an end to the ``stop and start'' and take more significant steps toward a longer-term set of solutions. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 679, I call up the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 436.

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

I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012.

This bill would repeal two of the harmful tax hikes contained in the Democrats' health care law: the medical device tax and restrictions on using health-related savings accounts for over-the-counter medication.

The legislation also includes a provision that will increase flexibility for health care consumers who use flexible spending arrangements. All are fully paid for by recouping overpayments of taxpayer-funded subsidies used to purchase health care in the government-run exchanges. Notably, every one of these provisions has bipartisan support.

As a result of ObamaCare, beginning in 2013, a 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices by manufacturers or importers. This tax will increase the effective tax rate for many medical technology companies, threatening higher costs, job loss, and reduced investment here at home. One study predicts that as many as 43,000 American jobs are at risk if this goes into place.

A recent Washington Post piece by George Will reinforced the threat to job creation and investment, noting that Zimmer--based in Indiana-- is laying off 450 workers and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Medtronic expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million; and ZOLL Medical Corporation's CEO, Rich Packer, says the tax will impact the company's investment in research and development, stating that means fewer jobs for engineers. Plain and simple, this tax hike is a job killer, and it must be repealed. I commend committee member Erik Paulsen for introducing this legislation.

Another ObamaCare tax increase, the medicine-cabinet tax, imposes new restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications through tax-advantaged accounts used to pay for health care-related needs. Because of the Democrats' health care law, patients must now get a prescription from a physician if they want to use these accounts to pay for over-the-counter medications. The ban affects everyday lives. It prevents a mom from using her FSA in the middle of the night to buy cough medicine for her sick child without a prescription. It also leaves doctors saddled with unnecessary appointments to get a prescription so that a parent can use their FSA to buy Claritin for their son's allergies.

One study estimates that even eliminating half of these unnecessary appointments could save patients time and the health care system more than 20 million visits each year, reaping a savings of more than $5 billion. These new restrictions must be repealed, and I'm happy that the provision introduced by committee member Lynn Jenkins is being considered today.

The last provision is a new approach that allows consumers the freedom and flexibility to keep more of their money. Under current law, employees' FSA balances must be spent by the end of the year or they will forfeit any unused balance back to their employers under the use- it-or-lose-it rule. Such a rule encourages wasteful and needless spending at the end of the year. This legislation would allow participants to cash out up to $500 in FSA balances, and those funds would be treated as regular taxable wages.

Allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in these difficult times is a commonsense goal that should be widely supported. This provision, championed by Dr. Boustany, is a commonsense one; and I urge its passage.

Finally, I would like to take just a moment to talk about the offset for this legislation, asking those who receive higher tax payer-funded premium subsidies than they are eligible to receive to repay all of the overpayment. Let me be clear: this is a bipartisan offset. Increasing the amount of overpayments to be repaid was a proposal first put forward by congressional Democrats in the 2010 Medicare doc-fix legislation which passed the Democrat-controlled House 409 2. Such an offset was used again when the House passed and the President signed the 1099 repeal last year and more than 70 Democrats supported that bill. In fact, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said:

Paying back subsidy overpayments makes it fairer for all

taxpayers.

This legislation, and the provisions included here, are supported by job creators big and small, patient advocates, senior organizations, and physician groups. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these groups by voting for the Health Care Cost Reduction Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of Ways and Means Committee.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

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

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

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

At this time we have no further speakers and are prepared to close, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to my friend from Michigan that we in the committee are in the process of reviewing all of the tax extenders. There's going to be about a hundred of them that expire at the end of the year, research and development being one of them--one I, obviously, have supported over the past.

Given our budget situation and given the record deficits run up by this administration, we're taking a close look at all of these provisions to make sure that they're justified, to make sure that they really bring economic benefits and jobs to this country, not just pass them along because that's what's been done in the past, but to really take our oversight responsibilities, review responsibilities seriously to make sure the things that we're doing are efficient, are effective, and really get to the core of how do we get this economy moving again.

We had the jobs numbers last Friday. They were abysmal. Clearly, the economic policies of this administration have been a failure. We're, obviously, trying to address some of the other policies of this administration that aren't going to work. And clearly, there are flaws in the health care bill. We've had bipartisan support to fix some of them, like repealing that onerous 1099 provision that would have put a wet blanket over all small businesses as they try to file paperwork on every expenditure over $600. It was a ridiculous provision. We had strong bipartisan support to repeal it. The President signed it. That is law.

We're now looking at today what we can do to improve other problems in this health care bill. One of them, clearly, is we need to help people save and allow them to afford the kinds of medications they need. For example, they tax over-the-counter medications by saying you can't use your tax-free savings account to buy cough syrup for your sick child.

So what's happening is many people are going to doctors. They're actually having to get a prescription so they can use their flexible spending account, the account that they have set aside to save for their medical needs. And don't we want parents to be able to try to find a least-cost alternative? If cough syrup will fix the problem that their child is having and meet their medical need, shouldn't we do that first, before going to the ER or before going to get a prescription? Again, what we want to do is keep parents in the driver's seat. Let them make the medical decisions that effect them and their children.

So we believe that it's so important that we allow over-the-counter medicines to be purchased out of an FSA. That is just a critical thing. And that has had strong bipartisan support.

The other issue is regarding medical devices. Clearly, taxing the medical devices is going to do one of two things. It's going to cost jobs. As Stryker Corporation in my home State of Michigan says, it's responsible for about a thousand layoffs as they try to plan for the future. Or, it's going to raise costs. Either one is a bad choice for those people who have medical needs that they need to meet.

And the last provision in this is, can people keep some of the money in their health care or flexible spending account if they don't have all their medical needs requiring the use of money out of that account? Can they save

some of it, or do they have to use it or lose it and buy extraneous things or things they don't really need. What this bill would do is say you can keep some of those dollars--up to $500. You would pay tax on it. And that means that if you've overestimated what your medical needs are, you can get some of those dollars back and use those. Again, it's your wages. You've put it in there. It's yours. You should be able to get it back.

I think these are all strong provisions. They've all had good bipartisan support, both for the substance of them as well as for the pay-for in the bill. That has had strong bipartisan support as well.

So I would urge support for this legislation. I do think it has a lot of support in the Senate as well, and I think we're going to see this legislation move forward. So I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Midland Daily News on its landmark 75th year in operation. First published on May 1, 1937, the Daily News set out to provide the people of Midland and the surrounding areas with the news and information they would need to thrive as a community. Seventy-five years later, the paper is still standing strong amidst a changing media landscape, having never once missed publication of a single print issue.

News today looks nothing like it did when the Midland Daily News was first published. The paradigms of journalism have shifted and news is being disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate, but the Midland Daily News adapted to change and thrived as a newspaper. It has served as a vital source of information and an important forum for debates on the most pressing issues impacting the Midland area and our nation.

On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District, I congratulate the Midland Daily News on this landmark occasion and commend the Daily News' publisher and staff for 75 years of quality journalism.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, I served on the President's debt commission, otherwise known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. During that Commission, we heard nonpartisan, expert testimony that debts as large as ours slow economic growth by about 1 percent. In America, that translates into 1 million fewer jobs. So, to start getting our debt under control and our economy back on track, we passed the Budget Control Act, but we all know that was a blunt and ineffective tool. As a result, Republicans have stepped forward with a smarter plan.

Today, I want to highlight the more targeted, sensible reductions in spending the Ways and Means Committee has offered as part of the reconciliation process, each of which has enjoyed bipartisan support.

Our first recommendation requires exchange subsidy overpayments in the Democrats' health care law to be repaid in full. This is simple and common sense. If you aren't entitled to the benefit, you don't get to keep it. This policy will reduce the deficit by $43.9 billion over the next 10 years.

A Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate first used a version of this offset in 2010 to pay for a temporary Medicare so-called ``doc fix.'' This Congress also endorsed this policy as part of the 1099 repeal legislation that became law early last year. As Secretary Sebelius has previously said, requiring the return of exchange subsidy overpayments ``makes it fairer for recipients and all taxpayers.''

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) to discuss the committee's second recommendation. He is a true American hero, as well as the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee.

I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), to discuss the committee's final recommendation.

Today, the economy is down and we're out of money, so it is our responsibility to reevaluate these programs, to assess whether they're meeting their intended purposes and to determine if the American taxpayer can afford them. We must reduce the burden our debt is putting on our economy, on our families, on job creation in this country. This legislation does that. It encompasses commonsense, bipartisan policies; and I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters:

May 9, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing concerning H.R. 4967, the

``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2012,''

which is scheduled for Floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over revenue measures generally. H.R. 4967,

contains a provision that raises revenue by increasing the

Chapter 11 filing fees for the operation and maintenance of

the courts of the United States, which falls within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In order to

expedite this bill for Floor consideration, the Committee

will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with the

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation in

the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4967, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Ferris State University Men's Ice Hockey Team upon their runner up finish in the 2012 NCAA Frozen Four Men's Ice Hockey Championship.

This year's Bulldog team made the first showing in school history in an NCAA championship game and won the school's second-ever Central Collegiate Hockey Association regular-season championship as well as a Midwest region crown. Along the way, the Bulldogs saw significant moments of success, including an impressive 15-game unbeaten streak during the regular season. Accomplishments of this magnitude can only be achieved through teamwork and a shared determination amongst players, coaches, and staff.

Several individuals were recognized for their personal achievements throughout the 2011 2012 hockey season. Bulldog's head coach Bob Daniels received the 2012 Spencer Penrose Award as the Division I Men's Ice Hockey National Coach of the Year. Bob's leadership and guidance were crucial in developing skillful and dedicated players that could meet and surpass the season's challenges.

Ferris State's Tommy Hill, the team's senior co-captain, received the NCAA Elite 89 award. This award recognizes athletes that have reached the pinnacle of achievement by competing for a national championship as well as achieving the highest academic standard among peers. Teammates Kyle Bonis and Chad Billins were also recognized and named to the 2012 NCAA Frozen Four All-Tournament Team for their significant efforts during the Frozen Four games.

On behalf of the Fourth District of Michigan, I congratulate the 2011 2012 Ferris State Bulldog's Men's Ice Hockey Team on their monumental and record-setting season.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 620, I call up the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for domestic business income of qualified small businesses, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 9.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. This legislation will allow small businesses with fewer than 500 employees to take a 20 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation, and while we pursue comprehensive tax reform that will give all businesses certainty to invest and hire, this bill will help small businesses to reinvest, hire new workers, or provide a raise to an employee.

The policies put forth by President Obama and congressional Democrats have yielded more government spending but have failed to generate strong income growth and the jobs Americans need. Instead of lowering unemployment, we got a lower credit rating; instead of massive job creation, we got massive and unprecedented levels of debt; and instead of higher wages for working families, we got higher gas prices.

This bill provides real relief to American small businesses and the workers they employ, and it treats every small business equally. Contrary to the political cronyism we've seen time and time again, this bill does not pick winners and losers. It provides relief to all small businesses, including those in my

home State of Michigan. Michigan has been hit especially hard over the last 3 years with some of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. And while small business owners in my district need and want comprehensive tax reform, they also agree that we must take steps to spur investment and hiring today as well. These business owners are the real experts who know what they need to add jobs back to our communities.

Take, for example, Bob Yackel, president of Merrill Tool. As part of the 400-employee Merrill Technologies Group, Mr. Yackel says:

As a manufacturing business in mid-Michigan, we know

firsthand the ramifications of the recent economic turmoil.

The best way Washington can help energize economic growth is

by making sure business owners are spending less on tax

payments and more on creating jobs.

Bob Yackel is a larger small business owner, but there are smaller businesses that feel the same way.

Jim Holton, owner of Mountain Town Station in Mount Pleasant, has served the central Michigan community as a restaurant owner for more than 15 years. He is especially pleased with the simplicity and ease of this legislative approach. He says:

The beauty of the Small Business Tax Cut Act is its

simplicity. If you're earning profits and contributing to the

economy, then you can take 20 percent off your tax bill. No

hoops to jump through. This is a great way for business

owners like myself in the Great Lakes Bay region and across

America to help jump-start our economy.

Those are just two examples in Michigan's Fourth District, but they echo small businesses and small business owners across the country.

Throughout our history, we've depended upon these industrious and innovative risk-takers to help us move through tough economic times. While we work to provide them the long-term comprehensive tax reform they need, we can also take steps today to unlock new opportunities for them immediately. Passing this bill will provide these much-needed, immediate opportunities.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting small business and to demonstrate that they support them as well by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 9.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) be permitted to control the balance of the time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

At this time, I have two additional speakers. One of them will close, so I have one speaker before closing.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, we're prepared to close.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Thank you.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has the right to close.

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

I appreciate at least hearing some of the new-found fiscal responsibility from my friends on the other side, since the Obama administration has come into office with help from Democrats on the other side of the aisle who increased the debt by $5 trillion, with a ``t.''

Let me just comment on this substitute. It's not that the bonus depreciation in this legislation doesn't go far enough. It's that it doesn't provide bonus depreciation. It does limit the bill based on the concept of bonus depreciation, but this bill has been analyzed by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Rather than providing the $46 billion of tax relief, this bill only provides a small fraction of that, 6 percent. Under the underlying legislation, millions of small businesses would be able to make investments, be able to buy equipment, would be able to hire workers. This substitute guts the bill and will result in no economic impact in this country.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. I would urge support for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.

I would just say to my friend that I'm not going to stand up and say that this is a procedural ploy. But I will stand up and say it is a political ploy.

We should not be picking winners and losers. The fact is small businesses are hurting because of the failed policies of the Obama administration. It's time to stand up for small business and the people they employ.

Let's get America back to work. I urge defeat of this motion to recommit and support for H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today I come to the floor to speak in support of H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, which, among other things, will repeal yet another poorly designed provision from the Democrats' health care law.

Specifically, this legislation would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB, as it's commonly known, is a dangerous new government agency made up of unelected bureaucrats who can meet in total secrecy to decide what seniors will pay and what health care services will be available to seniors. This unaccountable board has but one objective: to save money by restricting access to health care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Nearly 2 years since its passage, the Democrats' health care law remains deeply unpopular, with an Associated Press poll recently revealing that nearly half of the American people oppose the law. IPAB, which is a critical component of the law, illustrates why those concerns are still so strong.

A separate poll confirms that opposition far outweighs support with 73 percent expressing concern that Medicare cuts recommended by IPAB could go into effect without congressional approval. Even IPAB's recommendations overturn a law previously passed by Congress. Seventy- one percent expressed concern that changes made to Medicare based on IPAB's recommendations cannot be challenged in court, and 67 percent worry that IPAB could choose to limit which specific health services are covered by Medicare.

The American people have every reason to be worried. We should be protecting and empowering our seniors, not jeopardizing their access to health care. Yet IPAB removes seniors, physicians, and families from the decision-making process about how best to meet their health care needs. Instead of giving seniors more choices, these unelected bureaucrats will take away choices from patients, from doctors, and from families. This government-knows-best approach is why Americans across the country support repeal, and it's also why there's strong bipartisan support here in Congress to repeal IPAB.

When the Ways and Means Committee considered this legislation, we received numerous letters from groups across the Nation representing employers, patients, doctors, and health care professionals who voiced strong support for IPAB repeal. The groups span

across the political spectrum and include the Easter Seals, the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the Veterans Health Council, FreedomWorks, and Americans for Tax Reform. In total, over 390 groups have signed letters asking that Congress repeal IPAB, and I will insert these letters into the Record.

America's seniors deserve better. Without reform, the Medicare trustees have said that Medicare will soon go broke and not be able to provide the benefits seniors rely on. With more and more Americans becoming eligible for Medicare each day, no time is more urgent than now to secure the future of beneficiaries' access to care. IPAB does just the opposite. It threatens seniors' access to health care, and that is why it must be repealed.

Madam Chairman, the Democrats got it right when they named the IPAB. It truly is the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It's independent from seniors, independent from people with disabilities, independent from the voters, independent from legal challenges and appeals, and independent from any accountability.

It's time to give that independence back to doctors, to patients, and to Congress by voting to repeal this Washington power grab. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board and to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

March 7, 2012.

Dear Member of Congress: The organizations listed below

represent a breadth of entities including all sectors of the

healthcare industry, employers of different sizes and

geographic locations, as well as purchasers of care,

consumers and patients. We all share the conviction that the

Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will not only

severely limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to care but

also increase healthcare costs that are shifted onto the

private sector. While we all recognize the need for more

sustainable healthcare costs, we do not believe the IPAB is

the way to, or will, accomplish this goal.

As you know, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

(PPACA [P.L. 111 148]) created the IPAB, a board appointed by

the President and empowered to make recommendations to cut

spending in Medicare if its spending growth reaches certain

measures. The IPAB will have unprecedented power with little

oversight, even though it has the power to literally change

laws previously enacted by Congress. Further, the law

specifically prohibits administrative or judicial review of

the Secretary's implementation of a recommendation contained

in an IPAB proposal.

We are deeply concerned about the impact the IPAB will have

on patient access to quality healthcare. The bulk of any

recommended spending reductions will almost certainly come in

the form of payment cuts to Medicare providers. This will

affect patient access to care and innovative therapies. In

the past five years for which data is available, the number

of physicians unable to accept new Medicare patients because

of low reimbursement rates has more than doubled. According

to an American Medical Association survey, current

reimbursement rates have already led 17 percent of all

doctors, including 31 percent of primary care physicians, to

restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practices.

In all likelihood, the IPAB will only exacerbate this

problem.

While we are all supportive of improving the quality of

care in this country, we are concerned that the IPAB will not

be able to focus on improving healthcare and delivery system

reforms, as some of its proponents have suggested. Requiring

the IPAB to achieve scoreable savings in a one-year time

period is not conducive to generating savings through long-

term delivery system reforms. According to a recent Kaiser

Family Foundation issue brief, ``[w]hile the requirement to

achieve Medicare savings for the implementation year provides

a clear direction and target for the Board, it may discourage

the type of longer-term policy change that could be most

important for Medicare and the underlying growth in health

care costs, including delivery system reforms that MedPAC and

others have recommended which are included in the ACA--and

which generally require several years to achieve savings. If

these delivery system reforms are not `scoreable' for the

first year of implementation, the IPAB may be more likely to

consider more predictable, short-term scoreable savings, such

as reductions in payment updates for certain providers.'' The

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has in fact stated that the

Board is likely to focus its recommendations on changes to

payment rates or methodologies for services in the fee-for-

service sector by non-exempt providers. Again, this will have

a severe, negative impact on Medicare beneficiaries.

Last, we believe that the IPAB sets a dangerous precedent

for overriding the normal legislative process. Congress is a

representative body that has a duty to legislate on issues of

public policy. Abdicating this responsibility to an unelected

and unaccountable board removes our elected officials from

the decision-making process for a program that millions of

our nation's seniors and disabled individuals rely upon,

endangering the important dialogue that takes place between

elected officials and their constituents.

We do not believe the IPAB is the right way to achieve

savings in Medicare and strongly urge Congress to eliminate

this provision.

Sincerely,

Abigail Alliance, Action CF AdvaMed, Advocates for

Responsible Care, AIDS Delaware, AIDS Drug Assistance

Programs Advocacy Association, AIDS Housing Association of

Tacoma, AIDS Institute, Alabama Orthopaedic Society, Alabama

Podiatric Medical Association, Alaska State Chamber of

Commerce, Alaska State Grange, Alder Health Services, Inc.,

Alliance for Aging Research, Alliance of Specialty Medicine,

ALung Technologies, Inc., Alzheimer's & Dementia Resource

Center, Alzheimer's Arkansas, American Academy of Facial

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of

Neurology.

American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery,

American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases,

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American

Association of Clinical Urologists, American Association for

Homecare, American Association for Marriage and Family

Therapy, American Association of Neurological Surgeons,

American Association of Orthopaedic Executives, American

Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Autoimmune

Related Diseases Association, American College of Emergency

Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians--Indiana

Chapter, American College of Mohs Surgery, American College

of Osteopathic Surgeons, American College of

Radiology, American College of Surgeons--Missouri Chapter,

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

American Gastroenterological Association, American Liver

Foundation--Allegheny Division.

American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, American

Physical Therapy Association, American Podiatric Medical

Association, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American

Society of Breast Surgeons, American Society of Cataract and

Refractive Surgery, American Society of General Surgeons,

American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of

Radiation Oncology, American Urological Association,

Americans for Prosperity, Amigos por la Salud, Arizona

BioIndustry Association, Arizona Medical Association, Arizona

Podiatric Medical Association, Arizona Urological Society,

Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas Orthopaedic Society,

Arkansas Podiatric Medical Association, Associated Industries

of Florida.

Association for Behavioral Healthcare, Association of

Nurses in AIDS Care, Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America--

California Chapter, Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America--

New England Chapter, Bay Bio, BEACON (Biomedical Engineering

Alliance & Consortium), Connecticut, BIOCOM, BioNJ, BioOhio,

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Bismarck-Mandan

Chamber of Commerce, California Healthcare Institute,

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Medical

Association, California Orthopaedic Association, California

Podiatric Medical Association, California Rheumatology

Alliance, California Urological Association, Capital Region

Action Against Breast Cancer!, Center of the American

Experiment.

Children's Rare Disease Network, Coalition for Affordable

Health Coverage, Coalition of State Rheumatology, Council of

University Chairs of Obstetrics & Gynecology Organizations,

Colorado Academy of Family Physicians, Colorado BioScience

Association, Colorado Cross-Disability Association, Colorado

Gerontological Society, Colorado Podiatric Medical

Association, Colorado Retail Council, Colorado Springs Health

Partners, Community Health Charities of Florida, Community

Health Charities of Nebraska, Congress of Neurological

Surgeons, Community Oncology Alliance, Connecticut

Orthopaedic Society, Connecticut Podiatric Medical

Association, Connecticut State Urology Society, Delaware

Academy of Medicine, Delaware Ecumenical Council on Children

and Families.

Delaware HIV Consortium, Delaware Podiatric Medical

Association, Delaware State Orthopaedic Society, Docs 4

Patient Care, Easter Seals, Easter Seals Crossroads, Easter

Seals Iowa, Easter Seals of Arkansas, Easter Seals of Maine,

Easter Seals of Massachusetts, Easter Seals of New Jersey,

Easter Seals of Southeastern PA, Easter Seals of South

Florida, Easter Seals UCP North Carolina, Elder Care Advocacy

of Florida, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Medical

Association, Florida Podiatric Medical Association, Florida

Society of Neurology, Florida Society of Rheumatology.

Florida Society of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgeons,

Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Florida

Transplant Survivor's Coalition, Florida Urological Society,

Georgia Association for Home Health Agencies, Georgia Bio,

Georgia Orthopaedic Society, Georgia Podiatric Medical

Association, Global Genes, Global Healthy Living Foundation,

Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, HEALS of the South,

Healthcare Institute of New Jersey, Healthcare Leadership

Council, HealthHIV, Hemophilia Foundation of Maryland, Heart

Rhythm Society,

Hoosier Owners and Providers for the Elderly, Idaho Medical

Association, Idaho Podiatric Medical Association.

Illinois Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Illinois

Biotechnology Industry, Organization--iBIO',

Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Association of Cities

and Towns, Indiana Health Care Association, Indiana Health

Industry Forum, Indiana Medical Device Manufacturers Council,

Inc., Indiana Neurological Society, Indiana Podiatric Medical

Association, Indiana State Medical Association,

InterAmerican College of Physicians & Surgeons,

International Franchise Association, International

Institute for Human Empowerment, International Society for

the Advancement of Spine Surgery, Iowa Orthopaedic

Society, Iowa Podiatric Medical Association, Kansas

Medical Society, Kansas Podiatric Medical Association,

Kansas Urological Association.

Kentucky BioAlliance, Kentucky Medical Association,

Kentucky Podiatric Medical Association, Kidney Cancer

Association of Illinois, Large Urology Group Practice

Association, Latino Diabetes Association, Licensed

Professional Counselors Association of Georgia, Louisiana

State Medical Society, Lupus Alliance of America--Hudson

Valley Affiliate, Lupus Alliance of America--Queens and Long

Island Affiliate, Lupus Alliance of America--Southern Tier

Affiliate, Lupus Alliance of America--Upstate New York

Affiliate, Lupus Foundation of Arkansas, Lupus Foundation of

America, DC/MD/VA Chapter, Lupus Foundation of Florida, Lupus

Foundation of Mid and Northern New York, Lupus Foundation of

the Genesee Valley, Lupus Foundation of Pennsylvania, Mabel

Wadsworth Women's Health Center, Maine Health Care

Association.

Maine Osteopathic Association, Maine Podiatric Medical

Association, Maine State Council of Vietnam Veterans of

America, Maryland Orthopaedic Association, Maryland State

Medical Society, Massachusetts Association for Behavioral

Health Systems, Massachusetts Association for Mental Health,

Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives, Massachusetts Medical

Device Industry Council, Massachusetts Orthopaedic

Association, Massachusetts Podiatric Medical Society, Medical

Association of Georgia, Medical Association of the State of

Alabama, Medical Society of Delaware, Medical Society of the

District of Columbia, Medical Society of the State of New

York, Medical Society of New Jersey, Men's Health Network,

Mental Health America of Indiana, Mental Health America of

Greater Houston.

MichBio, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan College of

Emergency Physicians, Michigan Podiatric Medical Association,

Michigan Orthopaedic Society, Michigan Society of

Anesthesiologists, Minnesota Podiatric Medical Association,

Minnesota State Grange, Mississippi Arthritis and Rheumatism

Society, Mississippi Orthopaedic Society, Mississippi

Podiatric Medical Association, Missouri State Medical

Association, Missouri Urological Association, Montana

Orthopaedic Society, National Alliance on Mental Illness,

National Alliance on Mental Illness Colorado, National

Alliance on Mental Illness Florida, National Alliance on

Mental Illness Georgia, National Alliance on Mental Illness

Indiana, National Alliance on Mental Illness Maine.

National Alliance on Mental Illness Michigan, National

Alliance on Mental Illness NC, National Alliance on Mental

Illness Texas, National Association for Home Care & Hospice,

National Association for Home Care & Hospice--Indiana

Chapter, National Association for Home Care & Hospice--Ohio

Chapter, National Association for Uniformed Services,

National Association of Manufacturers, National Association

of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs, National

Association of People with AIDS, National Association of

Social Workers NC, National Association of Spine Specialists,

National Council of Negro Women, National Council of Negro

Women--Los Angeles View Park Section, National Council for

Community Behavioral Healthcare, National Health Foundation,

National Hemophilia Foundation--Delaware Valley Chapter,

National Kidney Foundation--Ohio Chapter, National Medical

Association, National Minority Quality Forum.

National Retail Federation, NCBIO, Nebraska Academy of

Physician Assistants, Nebraska Medical Association, Nebraska

Orthopaedic Society, Nebraska Urological Association,

Neurofibromatosis Mid-Atlantic, Nevada Orthopaedic Society,

Nevada Podiatric Medical Association, Nevada State Medical

Association, New Hampshire State Grange, New Horizons Home

Health Services, New Jersey Academy of Ophthalmology, New

Jersey Mayors Committee of Life Science, New Jersey Podiatric

Medical Society, New Mexico Podiatric Medical Association,

New York Podiatric Medical Association, New York State

Rheumatologists Society, New York State Urological

Society, North Carolina Association on Aging.

North Carolina Psychological Association, North Carolina

Rheumatology Association, North Carolina Urological

Association, North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, North Dakota

Medical Association, North Dakota Policy Council, Northwest

Urological Society, Ohio Association of Ambulatory Surgery

Centers, Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health

Authorities, Ohio Association of Medical Equipment Services,

Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio Orthopaedic Society, Ohio

State Grange, Ohio State Medical Association, Ohio Urological

Society, Ohio Veterans United, Oklahoma Podiatric Medical

Association, Oklahoma State Medical Association, Oklahoma

State Orthopaedic Society, Oklahoma State Urologic

Association.

Old North State Medical Society, Oregon Medical

Association, Oregon Podiatric Medical Association, Partners

in Care Foundation, Partnership for Drug Free North Carolina,

Pennsylvania BIO, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business &

Industry, Pennsylvania Medical Society, Pennsylvania

Orthopaedic Society, Personal Coaching & Psychotherapy for

Women, PhRMA, Premier healthcare alliance, RARE Project,

RetireSafe, Rhode Island Medical Society, Rio Grande

Foundation, New Mexico, Rocky Mountain Stroke Center, Rural

Health IT, Sanfilippo Foundation for Children, Society for

Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Society for Vascular Surgery, Society of Gynecologic

Oncology, Society of Urologic Oncology, South Carolina BIO,

South Carolina HIV/AIDS Care Crisis Task Force, South

Carolina Medical Association, South Carolina Orthopaedic

Association, South Carolina Podiatric Medical Association,

South Carolina Urological Association, South Dakota Podiatric

Medical Association, South Dakota State Orthopaedic Society,

South Jersey Geriatric Care PC, South Jersey Senior

Networking Group, Southeastern Medical Device Association

(SEMDA), Southwest Michigan Pharmacist Association, Stockton

Center on Successful Aging, Syndicus Scientific Services,

Team Sanfilippo Foundation, Tennessee Medical Association,

Tennessee Orthopaedic Society.

Tennessee Podiatric Medical Association, Texas Healthcare &

Bioscience Institute, Texas Podiatric Medical Association,

Texas Urological Society, The Center for Health Care

Services, The G.R.E.E.N. Foundation, The National Grange,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Pain Foundation, Urology

Society of New Jersey, Utah Medical Association, Utah

Podiatric Medical Association, Utah State Orthopaedic

Society, Vascular Society of New Jersey, Vermont Medical

Society, Vermont Podiatric Medical Association, Veterans

Health Council, VHA Inc., Vietnam Veterans of America,

Virginia Biotechnology Association.

Virginia Podiatric Medical Association, Visiting Nurse

Association of Ohio, Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical

Association, Washington Free Clinic Association, Washington

Osteopathic Medical Association, Washington State Podiatric

Medical Association, Washington Rheumatology Association,

Washington State Medical Association, Washington State

Urology Society, WERAK Foundation, West Virginia Academy of

Otolaryngology, West Virginia Chapter of the American College

of Cardiology, West Virginia Manufacturer's Association, West

Virginia Orthopaedic Society, West Virginia State Medical

Association, William ``Hicks'' Anderson Community Center,

Wisconsin Hospital Association, Wisconsin Urological Society,

Wyoming State Grange, Women Against Prostate Cancer.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that our Republican alternative, our Republican health care bill, prevented unlawful recisions, had no lifetime caps on coverage, did not deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions, and was the only bill that was scored by CBO as lowering premiums. Also, we did it without spending $2 trillion and 2,400 pages and did not create a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats.

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

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

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just say that with regard to IPAB, the 15 unelected people appointed by the President, Congress can't simply reject the IPAB findings. Congress has to reject and find those savings somewhere else within the program, unlike the Base Closure Commission, which some Members have cited. And these are all people appointed by the President.

So with that, I would yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would just say to my friend from New Jersey who says ``consider the source''--and the source is the American people--73 percent have expressed concern that the Medicare cuts recommended by IPAB would not only go into effect without congressional approval, but would also hurt their ability to get the Medicare services they need.

Let me just say I hear from my friends on the other side how important IPAB is to the integrity of Medicare. It is not effective until 2022. And let me just say with regard to the Medicare cuts that are in your health care bill, most of them don't take place until 2014. And I would just say that our health care bill included provisions that covered preexisting conditions, included many of the provisions the gentleman mentioned, and we did it without a tax increase, and we did it as the only health care bill that was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as decreasing premiums for American citizens.

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

Since the gentleman has asked, we are using those dollars to protect the Medicare program. You used those dollars to create a new entitlement which we can't afford.

Certainly you would reclaim your time.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Nearly 70 percent of seniors are worried that IPAB will limit their Medicare choices and the coverage that's available to them under Medicare. I think this is the most troubling part of the health care law that the Democrats rammed through the Congress, and that is because this secret rationing board is given enormous power with no accountability.

The 15 unelected board members of IPAB are free to cut reimbursement rates for certain procedures or for services that they deem unnecessary. They can cut those rates so low that physicians will no longer be able to offer those services. That's pretty clearly the ability to ration.

We have had countless physician groups warn us about the IPAB. They're warning us that these cuts will force them to stop seeing Medicare patients, and the real problem is, because TRICARE reimbursement rates are tied directly to Medicare, that will have health care for our military personnel negatively impacted by the IPAB as well.

The Democrats gave IPAB blanket authority to operate in secret. There is no requirement that their deliberations, their reasonings for their conclusions must be made public. Also, the health care bill states directly that IPAB, and I'm quoting here, ``may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.'' That's not a very subtle invitation for lobbyists and others with interests in issues before the Congress to impact these unelected and unaccountable IPAB members with cash, with gifts, with other items.

So not only do they have enormous power that if the Congress can't override automatically becomes law. But they have the ability to do it in secret, and the legislation states directly that they can accept gifts and donations.

So this is a troubling piece of ObamaCare that we need to repeal, and I urge my members to vote for repeal of this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4105) to apply the countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries, and for other purposes.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation to ensure that we can continue to fight unfair subsidies from countries like China that violate the WTO, injure our industries, and cost U.S. jobs. This legislation reaffirms that our antisubsidy laws, or countervailing duty laws, apply to subsidies from China and other nonmarket countries, and it overturns an erroneous decision by the Federal circuit that the Department of Commerce does not have the authority to apply these countervailing duty rules to nonmarket economies.

China distorts the free market by giving enormous subsidies to its producers and exporters, and our companies and our workers should not be expected to compete against the deep pockets of the Chinese Government. That is why it is vital that we preserve this important tool and ensure that current countervailing duty orders and investigations from nonmarket economies remain in place and that this important tool is available in the future.

In addition, this legislation fully complies with our WTO obligations. China agreed to be subject to countervailing duty laws when it joined the WTO in 2001, and the WTO has reaffirmed our right to apply these laws to China. Failing to enact this legislation would mean that we're unilaterally giving away a right that allows us to protect American workers. This legislation also brings the United States into compliance with its obligations by requiring the Department of Commerce to make an adjustment when there is evidence of a double remedy.

Finally, I am pleased that this legislation, which has already passed the Senate, is bipartisan and has administration support.

For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

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

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

In summary, I'd like to say that an identical bill to this passed the Senate with unanimous consent. The ability of the U.S. to impose countervailing duties on nonmarket economies, specifically on China, was something China agreed to when it entered the WTO. There are massive subsidies that distort the free market and cost us jobs here in the United States. This is an important tool, as so many have said, as speakers today have said, for us to have to address unfair subsidies from China that hurt our U.S. workers.

I think this is an important bill. It has bipartisan support, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 554, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany

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

I come to the floor today in strong support of this conference report as a result of a lot of long hours, hard work, and determination on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. This agreement shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can work.

First and foremost, this legislation prevents a tax increase on 160 million Americans. As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see some very big wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms to the Federal unemployment program since it was created in the 1930s, all designated to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of unemployment and benefit checks.

While extending unemployment benefits through the end of the year, this agreement creates a national job-search standard for the first time, covering benefits from beginning to end and requiring every American to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits.

The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying people to work instead of just sending them a check when they are out of work. It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting drug testing under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a job. It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the first place; and it improves fiscal responsibility by not only recovering more overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12 billion per year, but also by making sure that this program is fully paid for.

And the last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All government spending in this agreement is fully paid for, and not with one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care are fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending that has gripped Washington for far too long.

For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in December, we're paying for it today, and we set a clear precedent that Congress must live within its means, no more spending unless its paid for. Period.

Now, I understand this is a compromise, and not everyone likes everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in December would be the law. That was the only bill that extended these programs through the end of the year. It was the only bill that was fully paid for, and it was the only bill that ensured seniors and their doctors were protected from dramatic cuts for at least 2 years. But we don't control Washington.

Democrats still control Washington. They control the Senate, and they control the White House. Yet utilizing the process that dates back to our Founding Fathers, House Republicans have scored significant victories in this conference committee. Our Founding Fathers recognized that Washington would not always be united. In their wisdom, they knew that even divided government must still govern, and that's what we're doing here today, governing and providing a solution to the very real problems Americans are facing in their daily lives.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation, which pays for new spending with spending cuts, prevents working Americans from getting hit with a tax increase next month, reforms our employment programs, and ensures seniors continue to have access to their doctors.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in strong support of this conference report. As a result of a lot of long hours, hard work and determination on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol, this agreement shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can work.

As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see some very big wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms to Federal unemployment programs since they were created in the 1930s, all designed to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of unemployment and benefit checks. This agreement:

Creates a national job search standard for the first time, covering benefits from beginning to end, and requires every unemployed American to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits;

The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying people to work, instead of just sending them a check while they are out of work;

It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting drug testing, under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a job;

It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the first place; and

It improves fiscal responsibility by not only recovering more overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12 billion per year, but also by making sure that this program is fully paid for.

That last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All Government spending in this agreement is fully paid for--and not with one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care is fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending that has gripped Washington for far too long.

For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in December, we are paying for it today, and we have set the clear precedent that Congress must live within its means. No more spending unless it is paid for, period.

Now, I understand this is a compromise and not everyone likes everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in December would be law. That was the only bill

that extended these programs through the end of the year; it was the only bill that was fully paid for; and it was the only bill that ensured seniors and their doctors were protected from dramatic cuts for at least 2 years.

But, we don't control Washington. Democrats still control Washington--they control the Senate and they control the White House.

Yet, utilizing a process that dates back to our Founding Fathers, House Republicans have scored significant victories in this conference committee. Our Founding Fathers recognized that Washington would not always be united. In their wisdom, they knew that even a divided government must still govern.

And, that is what we are doing here today--governing and providing a solution to the very real problems Americans are facing in their daily lives.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation which pays for new spending with spending cuts; prevents working Americans from getting hit with a tax increase next month; reforms our unemployment programs; and ensures seniors continue to have access to their doctors.

In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference for H.R. 3630, the description of sec. 7003, Points of Order in the Senate, was erroneously included in the joint statement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield, I just would like to say to the gentleman that he did characterize our conversations correctly. It was very late. I do look forward to working with him in the future on these issues as we move forward.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a conferee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a member of the conference committee.

(Mrs. ELLMERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House- Senate conference committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a member of the House/Senate conference.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I reserve the balance of my time.

If we're prepared to close, I will yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This conference report extends the payroll tax cut to 160 million working Americans. It prevents a cut in physician payments through the end of the year so that seniors can get the medical treatment and care that they need under Medicare.

This represents about $800 for working families in America over the next 10 months. Most importantly, this agreement includes no job- killing tax hikes to pay for more government spending. The deficit spending on unemployment stops with this legislation. This agreement firmly establishes that extensions of unemployment benefits must be paid for.

This legislation also includes some of the most significant reforms to unemployment since the 1930s--job-search requirements, drug screening and testing, reemployment programs. These are all critical for work readiness and for reemployment, and these are essential reforms to the unemployment system. We also reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families with this legislation; but while doing so, we make reforms to that program, as well, by closing the loophole that allowed welfare funds to be accessed at ATMs and in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos.

The government spending in this bill is fully offset. Reductions to ObamaCare pay for more than half of the health spending in this legislation. This also restores to the Congress a process dating back to our Founding Fathers. They knew that, at times, government would be divided and that we wouldn't always agree. This agreement was debated in public while using that time-honored process.

With that, I urge all Members to support this bipartisan House-Senate conference agreement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman from New York for withdrawing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated Builders

and Contractors, Inc.,

Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

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

Hon. Harry Reid,

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

Dear Leaders: On behalf of Associated Builders and

Contractors (ABC), a national association with 75 chapters

representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and

construction-related firms with nearly two million employees,

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

amended by the Senate last week.

Whether Congress ultimately chooses to extend these various

provisions, the proposed two month stop-gap measure merely

serves to delay the inevitable tough decisions, compounding

the climate of uncertainty that continues to impact small

businesses. This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress'

uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more

harm than good for America's job creators.

Moreover, a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday

creates an untenable administrative burden for employers in

the construction industry and beyond. In a letter sent today

to leaders of the tax writing committees, the National

Payroll Reporting

Consortium warned of ``substantial problems, confusion and

costs'' associated with the extension's implementation.

America's small businesses should not be punished for

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

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

together to determine their policies for the full year and

provide some semblance of certainty for the companies driving

our economy.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Burr,

Vice President, Federal Affairs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I would yield----

Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 15, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and

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

one-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation

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

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

We are extremely concerned about the potential impact of

the expiration of these programs on families and our economic

recovery as a whole. Unless Congress extends these programs

before adjourning for the holidays, nearly 2 million

unemployed workers will lose this critical support in January

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

working Americans. Individuals who are laid off through no

fault of their own rely on these funds to support their

families.

Extending unemployment insurance is a critical part of our

ability to speed up the economic recovery process.

Unemployment insurance benefits are immediately injected back

into the economy. According to the Congressional Budget

Office, federally extended unemployment insurance benefits

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

stimulating economic growth.

Congress has never failed to act on extending federal

unemployment insurance benefits when the unemployment rate

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

We urge immediate action to extend Emergency Unemployment

Compensation and 100% federal funds for the Extended Benefits

program through the end of 2012.

Sincerely,

Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois; Governor John Hickenlooper,

Colorado; Governor Jack Markell, Delaware; Governor

Steven L. Beshear, Kentucky; Governor Deval Patrick,

Massachusetts; Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York;

Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, California; Governor

Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut; Governor Neil

Abercrombie, Hawaii; Governor Martin O'Malley,

Maryland; Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota; Governor Bev

Perdue, North Carolina; Governor John A. Kitzhaber,

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

Islands; Governor Peter Shumlin, Vermont; Governor

Chris Gregoire, Washington.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to my good friend from Maryland that we just voted on the Senate amendment. It was rejected by this House.

Just yesterday, Minority Leader Pelosi told the media, ``I don't think we should go to conference.'' In those same reports, the minority leader said that, if the House passes a motion to go to conference on the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, she would not appoint any House Democrats to participate in the negotiations.

Set aside for a moment that a conference committee is the established way for resolving differences between the House and the Senate. It's an idea that was best articulated by Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers and someone who provided the foundation for the rules of this House. Set aside the fact that Democrats are, with 2 weeks left before critical programs expire, refusing to work. Instead, let's just focus on what the leader of House Democrats said.

The minority leader declared that she would not appoint any House Democrats to a conference committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has echoed those same comments. So I

ask them: Who are the Democrats seeking to instruct with this motion? If the Democrats won't even appoint conferees, how can they instruct conferees?

Clearly, this is nothing more than a partisan, political stunt that keeps us from doing what the President has asked us to do and what House Republicans have agreed to do: pass a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday and a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits.

Turning to the substance of the motion to instruct for a minute, it seems like we've already debated this today. The motion asks the House to recede to the position of the Senate, meaning the deeply flawed bill that would sunset in 2 months and that payroll providers, job providers--experts--have said would be administratively unworkable, and that even the administration concedes would pose challenges for employers.

I urge the defeat of this motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

Earlier, the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, said, The Senate gave us time. No, the Senate gave themselves a vacation. The House is prepared to work to ensure Americans don't face a tax hike in 2 months.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).