Floor Statements

I've been listening to this debate; and you know, the Republicans' claim that they're saving Medicare is political mythology.

Essentially, what they're doing is shifting coverage to the private sector. They have a cap more stringent than that in the Affordable Care Act. So over time, more and more there is the erosion and the end of Medicare.

I want to say just a few words about the tax provisions in the Republican budget.

On Sunday, this is what was said: I don't know. That's what the Republican budget chairman said on Sunday when asked whether the middle class would suffer under his tax proposal.

It's important for the American public to know the facts. The Republican budget would cut taxes for the very wealthy. The top tax rate would be reduced by such a significant extent that, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the average millionaire would receive $265,000 in tax cuts. To pay for this tax cut, the Republicans would have to put on the chopping block provisions in the Tax Code relating to health, education, the home mortgage interest deduction, and pensions.

Mr. Ryan, you call these loopholes. No, these are policies. For example, four-fifths of the benefit of the health care exclusion goes to households earning less than $200,000. Half goes to those earning less than $100,000. Then 70 percent of the benefit provided through the home mortgage interest deduction goes to families who earn less than $200,000.

Yet the provisions that, in fact, disproportionately benefit the wealthy, including the reduction for capital gains and dividends, the Republicans would protect from any changes.

The Republican priorities could not be clearer when it comes to Medicare: end it. As to their tax provisions: help the very wealthy.

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

I hope everybody's been listening to this. What has become clear is this: the Republicans have a 3-act play. First, repeal IPAB; next, repeal the rest of health care reform; and, finally, repeal Medicare.

It is so hypocritical to come forth and say that the efforts of Republicans is to protect Medicare when the purpose of it is to destroy it. That's what would happen if they had prevailed before. That's what would happen if they prevail today with their voucher plan.

So the third act really came forth before the first act. They rolled out, yesterday, their budget plan that essentially would repeal Medicare, would destroy it. There would be a voucher and, over time, the end of Medicare.

It's an essential commitment to the seniors of this country, and we Democrats are determined to thwart every effort to destroy it.

Now, as to the first act, repeal IPAB. You know, it's interesting that Medicare is a major instrumentality for ensuring that over time the costs of Medicare are brought under control, protecting the health care opportunities of seniors. Indeed, there have been efforts already under the Affordable Care Act to bring under control the costs of Medicare, to make sure it survives.

So being an essential part of controlling health care costs over the long term, the Republican proposal, essentially, would go in the opposite direction. And that's why the CBO, last year projected--and I want everybody to listen to this--that health care costs would jump by 39 percent under the Republican plan to end the Medicare guarantee. That's why 300 economists have said that health reform puts into place, essentially, every cost-containment provision policy that analysts have considered. It's because of those policies that CBO has given this estimate that IPAB isn't going to be triggered until some time after 2022.

So what happens is, the Republicans come forth with the repeal of IPAB as a first step towards repealing Medicare when they have never presented an alternative in terms of the Affordable Care Act. So, today, we hear all the scare tactics about a board whose operation effectively won't be triggered for a decade. That's a scare tactic that is not worthy of this floor, so I urge very much that we oppose.

It's interesting that the Republican budget has a cap that is more severe, if you want to put it that way, more strenuous than the provision that relates to IPAB. And so they come forth, and they say that IPAB, which won't be triggered until 2022, is something that they should oppose, while they want to put in place a budget this year that would have a more severe cap than is in IPAB. Let me also say the notion that there is some agency here that could act without any role for Congress is simply untrue. It's not true. You shouldn't say it.

We have an opportunity, once IPAB goes into operation, to review any recommendation that comes forth, and to replace it, as long as the various targets are met. So I urge very much that we reject this proposal in part because the repeal, in and of itself, I think, is a mistake but mainly because of what the aim is here, and that has been so clear from the debate, because people who come here on the Republican side, some of them talk about IPAB; some don't even discuss IPAB. They talk about the Affordable Care Act.

The polling data we have is essentially relating to the Affordable Care Act as well as to IPAB. I think the more people understand what has been going on, the more they see the benefits of health care reform, the more they will be supportive of it. We're going to take that case to the American people.

Let me just give you a few numbers that everyone should know about

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Blumenauer, from the proud State of Oregon.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield 4 minutes to a member of our Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield to the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of our committee, Mr. Doggett.

It's curious. You're talking about, according to CBO, a board whose operation would be triggered in 2022. You come here and scare people. It doesn't work. You talk about rationing. You're talking about an operation 10 years from now.

Right now, health care is being rationed. You have 50-plus million people who have no insurance, 50-plus million people who have no insurance at all, and you haven't come up with a bill that would address that.

I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been so key in the health care debates.

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Let me just say it is strange to say you save something by destroying it. That is 1984 in 2012.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We're talking about a board whose operations trigger, according to CBO, 10 years from now.

I just want to say to those who say it's unaccountable: Every one of their recommendations will come before the Congress of the United States, every single one. What's unaccountable are the statements that are made on this floor that are not true.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No. What the Republicans would do would be to send the decisions already there in large measure to insurance companies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

The present system doesn't have enough primary care. I know from my own experience that there's a lack of family physicians and primary care physicians. The Affordable Care Act strengthens that program, will strengthen the relationship between the physician and the patient. And for anybody to come here and scare patients and seniors into thinking that there is some kind of a wall that will be replaced is really not true.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Look, I respect that. But the primary fact, the basic fact is that the Affordable Care Act addresses this issue more effectively than has been addressed before. There is more money for primary care physicians, for family physicians. That's what we need. That's what we need.

And to come here and raise the specter that this bill is going to diminish it, when its major purpose, among others, is to increase the availability, to have a linkage between the patient and the specialty care--

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Look, we need to address it, but destroying Medicare is not the way to address it. That's what you do. You destroy it. You destroy it when you say you're saving it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Look, the Supreme Court will be hearing the case about the individual mandate next week, and I don't think we want to argue this now. We don't have any judges here.

But let me say, on the individual mandate, it really is ironical that the more conservative, apparently, you are, the more you dislike the individual mandate, when the individual mandate was the central point within the health care reform proposal of conservatives in this country several decades ago. It was their central point in the eighties and in the nineties. And now they've reversed course and claim, I guess, what they proposed in the seventies and eighties was constitutional then is unconstitutional today. Talk about a flip-flop. That is, I think, maybe an unconstitutional flip-flop, but the Court will decide that.

Let me just say a word about cost containment and the importance of our addressing that and the importance of our reforming the present system, how we reimburse the fee-for-service system. I don't think it's been noticed that, in addition to IPAB, ACA has a number of provisions that will go into effect long before IPAB could become operational. Those systems are beginning to work.

For conservatives who talk about the importance of cost containment, they want to repeal an act that has within it not only the seeds of cost containment, but the instrumentalities of it. In fact, they're beginning to work well enough. That's why CBO says that it's going to be 10 years before IPAB is triggered.

So, those who come here who claim to be concerned about cost containment essentially are undermining their own position.

Well, this is act one of the Republican three-act play.

The second is to eliminate health care reform altogether, and the third is to take away Medicare.

I want to close reporting the views of AARP in terms of the Ryan budget proposal. It says:

It lacks balance, jeopardizes the health and economic

security of older Americans. A number of proposals in this

budget put at risk millions of individuals by prioritizing

budget caps and cuts over the impact on people.

Those who talk about the cap that would essentially be within the structure of IPAB's operation, that proposed cut is less than in the Ryan budget, which would be more severe, and essentially the implementation would be by insurance companies who are nameless, who are unaccountable.

So let me continue with another quote from the AARP:

By creating the premium support system for Medicare

beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply increase

costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's promise of

secure health coverage--a guarantee the future seniors have

contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.

The premium support method described in the proposal,

unlike private plan options that currently exist in Medicare,

would likely `price out' traditional Medicare as a viable

option, thus rendering the choice of traditional Medicare as

a false promise.

So this is what I think we should do in terms of this three-act play of the House Republicans. That is to start by rejecting act one, this repeal of IPAB.

This may be a vote, but it's not going to be an act.

I finish with this. In a sense, you are acting because this isn't going to become law. You have not come up in all of these months with a comprehensive alternative to the Affordable Care Act. There's not been a comprehensive bill put forth. We haven't voted on a comprehensive bill in these days on the Ways and Means Committee. Instead, there has a piece-by-piece effort to dismantle what was health care reform to address a serious situation, including over 50 million people who go to sleep every night without health care coverage in the United States of America.

We should be ashamed of that. We should be ashamed. A couple years ago, we acted to lift that shame off of the shoulders of all of us in the United States of America.

I urge we vote ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This bill will send a clear signal, especially with an overwhelming vote, that there are clear consequences when a nation violates the rules. China is, indeed, tilting the field of competition by not playing by the rules. This bill restores a key instrument for our Nation to hold China and other nations accountable. The failure to pass it would be an enormous step backwards at a time when, indeed, we need to fast-forward our efforts to rein in China's abusive trade practices that, in part, have led to our record $295 billion trade deficit with China. This legislation ensures that tools remain available under U.S. trade law so that manufacturers can fight back against China's unfair trade subsidies.

Countervailing duties have been a part of U.S. trade law for nearly 120 years, and today, almost one-half--23 of 50--of all countervailing duty orders in place involve China. This is not surprising. A central element of Chinese industrial policy has been to provide massive subsidies to its producers to help them knock out competitors and to dominate the market. These include loans at below-market interest rates, cheap or sometimes free land, extensive tax breaks, and other subsidies designed to advantage domestic industry.

To date, countervailing duties have been the singular form of relief available to American workers and companies devastated by these mercantilist policies. Over the last 6 years, Commerce has put in place 23 countervailing duty orders against China--23--and five other investigations are currently underway. More than $4 billion in subsidized imports have been covered by these measures, shielding an estimated 80,000 American jobs from unfair competition.

Yet, in December, based on a deeply flawed assessment of congressional intent, the court of appeals for the Federal circuit ruled that Commerce, which administers our countervailing duty laws, does not have the authority to apply those laws to nonmarket economy countries like China. That decision threatens to eviscerate the U.S. right to apply countervailing duties to China, a right protected under WTO rules; and it threatens to cripple Commerce in its efforts to combat Chinese subsidies that harm our industries.

With this bill, we are making clear that the Federal circuit's decision was wrong and that it cannot stand. Commerce has always had the authority to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies such as China, and now it shall continue to have and exercise this vitally important authority in the future.

Because of this bill--and I urge the strongest possible support--tens of thousands of American workers and scores of American companies in 38 States across this country that have shown that they are entitled to relief from unfair subsidization by nonmarket economies will continue to get that relief. This bill ensures all of the existing orders and investigations remain in place.

For these reasons, I support the passage of H.R. 4105, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Pascrell from the great State of New Jersey, another very active member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who is very active in trade matters.

I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Critz from the great State of Pennsylvania, a gentleman who is most active on these issues.

I now yield 2 minutes to our ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield myself the balance of our time.

The need is clear, the answer is clear, and I hope the vote will be clear. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated, compassionate and effective public servant Steve Truman, who is retiring after serving the people of the City of Roseville, Michigan, for 32 years, the last eight as City Manager.

Mr. Truman graduated from Eastern Michigan University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Secondary Education and he also earned a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from Wayne State University.

Mr. Truman began his career in the private sector as a city planning consultant. He started working for the City of Roseville in 1979 as the Executive Director for the Roseville Housing Commission. In 1983 he was appointed as the Director of Building and Inspections, and in March 2005 he became City Manager and has served in the capacity successfully to the present date.

Although City Manager is not elected position, Mr. Truman truly devoted himself to the community and was constantly visible everywhere throughout the city. He is a member of the Roseville Optimist Club, as well as a number of other community and professional organizations. Mr. Truman made it his goal to improve the City's financial future, and under his leadership, the City has continued on a path of sound financial footing despite immense economic challenges, while still providing quality services to residents.

It has been a true pleasure for my staff and me to work with Mr. Truman on collaborative efforts that have resulted in some important local initiatives. On one such occasion we worked together on a project to combine three municipal police and fire dispatch centers to consolidate and form one regional police and fire dispatch authority that provides greater efficiency and increased productivity. This type of forward and creative thinking has saved the City of Roseville $2.5 million over a five-year period and is just one example of Mr. Truman's abilities as an effective leader.

In addition to his dedication to providing quality government service, Mr. Truman has also been a passionate advocate for education, serving on the Utica School Board for almost a decade. Since 2010 he has been a member of the Utica Schools Foundation for Educational Excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated public service of Steve Truman and his numerous achievements over a 32-year career. I am so pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to his achievements, and thanking him for years of talented service. I am confident he will continue to play an important role in the community where he is highly thought of, in addition to enjoying a bit of retirement. Importantly, he and his wife Pam now get to enjoy spending time visiting their four children and three grandchildren Ben, Jack and Avery.

I support the conference report.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The basic fact is that this legislation is very different from the December House Republican bill, very different, and any efforts to mask that are faults. That House bill was the main bill before the conference committee.

The basic fact is the conference committee made major changes to the House bill that passed in December essentially on a partisan basis. Therefore, this legislation is much better for the American people.

The Speaker said this about this bill:

Let's be honest. This is an economic relief package, not a

bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs.

That's not an honest statement. It's wrong. This is a bill that relates to the economic growth of the United States of America. We're recovering, and this bill will provide a boost to continue that recovery.

It continues the 2 percent payroll tax through the calendar year; and it is not offset, as was true of the House Republican bill in December. It had massive harmful cuts that would have been countercyclical and that would have undermined further economic growth. In that respect, this is very different.

It's also very different in terms of unemployment insurance. Let's be clear about that. The bill that the Republicans passed through the House that was the main bill before the conference committee would have slashed 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for millions of Americans in every State regardless of the unemployment rate in that State. This bill essentially changes what was in the House bill. It extends unemployment insurance through the rest of the year up to--this is the maximum--up to 89 or 99 weeks through May, up to 79 weeks through August, and up to 73 weeks through December, depending on the level of unemployment.

Let me just say, our chairman has talked about job search and now a requirement that people be looking for work. That's already in the law of every State. That isn't a meaningful reform. In terms of job search, everybody not only registers, but also, as I said, is required to look for work. I find it an insult to the unemployed of this country to say, essentially, that we're simply giving them a check instead of a paycheck.

If you talk to the unemployed, through no fault of their own, they are looking for work. They had a paycheck in most cases year after year after year. They worked for their unemployment insurance. To simply label this an effort to get people off of unemployment insurance-- unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. People work for it, and they need that subsistence as they look for work.

The bill that passed through the House had a GED requirement. That is out. To say to people you don't get a check if you're not in a GED program when there are 160,000 people in this country who are on waiting lists for education, that's out of here because it deserved to be out of here.

In terms of the drug programs, the effort to test people for drugs, it is so limited. So it is really masking the reality to call this major reform. It freezes the reimbursement for physicians through December.

Let me just close by saying a few words about the limits on this bill, because there are limits.

It would have been much better to treat unemployment insurance as an emergency, as we have for 20 years. This is the highest level of long- term unemployed on record in this country, which is another reason not to blame the unemployed for the unemployment, as the House bill in December did and some of the rhetoric on this floor continues to do. We were not able to obtain this, and I want to say this in terms of a precedent. In my judgment, it should not serve as a precedent. The precedent is 20 years treating it as an emergency.

Let me also say, it is deeply unfortunate that some on the other side insisted that Federal workers carry a disproportionate share of the cost of this bill, even after there were put forward bipartisan pay- fors that would have covered the cost of UI. In the bill that came through here on a partisan basis in December, there would have been an impact on Federal employees of $67 billion. This bill has a provision that will apply to pension programs, $15 billion over 10 years compared to the $67 billion that was in the bill that the House Republicans passed.

Let me just say in closing, this argument provides tax relief to working families, certainty for unemployed workers that a framework is in place for the year, and a real commitment--and I emphasize this--by us Democrats to aggressively continue to pursue efforts to strengthen the economy and boost job growth so that those hardest hit by the recession can return to work as they desperately want to.

I just want to reiterate how wrong the Speaker was when he said:

Let's be honest. This is an economic relief package, not a

bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs.

The opposite is true. The provisions in this bill will help to continue economic growth, the payroll tax. Most economists say that. Unemployment insurance people spend, and that is not only good for their subsistence but good for the economy of our country. For all those reasons, I urge support of this conference committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Waxman, a member of the conference committee and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

It's now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, Ms. Pelosi, from the great State of California.

I now yield 2 minutes to another conferee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the conference committee, Mrs. Schwartz from the State of Pennsylvania.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

How much time is there for each?

I yield now 1 minute to the very distinguished Representative and a leader in our caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is left for Mr. Camp and myself?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think this has been a healthy discussion, and I think all of us respect very much the positions that have been put forth. I think we need to look at where we came from.

The main bill before the conference committee was the bill that passed on a partisan basis here in December. It essentially would have countermanded the effort at continued economic growth through the payroll tax bill. It would have required very inimical pay-fors. It would have threatened the pay of 160 million people. That bill also would have drastically cut unemployment insurance.

Cutting unemployment insurance is not reform. It is not reform. People have worked for it. These are people looking for work who can't find it. We have worked so hard--so hard--to defend and to preserve the lifeline of unemployment insurance as best we could; and essentially it does preserve it in major ways through the rest of this year. For seniors, we have made sure that health care and their physicians are available.

With respect to differing points of view, I strongly urge support for this conference committee report. It is said it isn't perfect, and it is often said no bill is perfect; but we have worked to preserve the basic ingredients to promote economic growth and to preserve the unemployment insurance so critical for the unemployed of this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the surface transportation bill before the House of Representatives this week and the partisan and contorted process the Republican Leadership is using to ram this bill through the House.

For as long as I have served in the House, transportation bills have always been bipartisan. That's because every one of our states confront unmet transportation needs, and infrastructure investments are critical to jobs, economic growth, and competitiveness.

But this bill throws bipartisanship out the window. Secretary of Transportation LaHood--himself a former Republican House Member from Illinois--recently said that this is, and I quote, ``the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' Secretary LaHood also declared that this is ``the worst transportation bill I've seen during 35 years of public service.'' That's quite an indictment coming from a man who is respected on both sides of the aisle.

Some of our constituents may be watching and wondering why Speaker Boehner decided to take the transportation package and divide it into three separate bills. The reality is that the bill probably can't pass as a single, stand-alone piece of legislation. So the Leadership has broken the bill into pieces that will move separately through the House. Later, the clerk will be directed to sew all the pieces back into one bill and it will be deemed passed without a single member of the House voting for it.

Today we're considering the portion of the bill that opens up vast swaths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and the pristine Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The bill also approves the controversial Keystone Pipeline and there is not even a guarantee that any of the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico will remain in the country to benefit Americans. What does handing out more goodies to the oil companies have to do with transportation policy? The oil industry made record profits last year. They don't need the special interest provisions contained in this bill.

Although this portion of the transportation package is not before the House today, I want to state my complete opposition to the provision of the larger package that undercuts mass transit. This provision undermines the very structure of the highway trust fund by eliminating guaranteed funding for transit and replacing it with monies from the general fund. The loss of dedicated revenue will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country to plan for long-term investments. I will continue to strongly support efforts to correct this unnecessary and harmful attack on mass transit.

I urge defeat of the bill before the House. We need to go back to the drawing board and craft a bipartisan transportation bill.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce today the Carried Interest Fairness Act of 2012.

The Carried Interest Fairness Act provides that the ``carried interest'' compensation received by investment fund managers will be taxed at ordinary income rates and treated as wage income subject to employment taxes. In exchange for providing the service of managing their investors' assets, fund managers often take a portion of a fund's profits, or a carried interest, usually equal to 20 percent of such profits. The bill clarifies that this income is subject to ordinary income tax rates rather than the much lower capital gains rate. For a technical explanation of the Carried Interest Fairness Act of 2012, please visit my website at www.house.gov/levin.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise very much in support of the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012. It is crucially important in two respects:

It is important in and of itself. It's clear we need to act. Every year, hundreds of these aircraft are flown across our borders. They are carrying drugs. Smugglers favor them because they are hard to detect, they are inexpensive, and they can often avoid radar detection. The problem is that under current law, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and the prosecutors don't have the authority to charge the users, these offenders, with the existing statute, so they can't seek the higher penalties or lower the burden of proof.

This bill--and this is the second significance--was introduced by Representative Gabby Giffords, and it would close this loophole. So I think for all of us, colleagues and friends, this is a special moment. This legislation was characteristic of the devotion, the dedication, and the hard work of Representative Giffords, representing so ably the people of her district, the people of her State, and the people of our entire Nation.

Gabby Giffords has been a spectacular star in the congressional galaxy. And we say, as friends, with love and affection, we know that that star will continue to shine brightly, and it will inspire us all.

Gabby Giffords will be sorely missed, but her dedication, her vitality, and her courage have set an example that I think, hopefully, will lead us to undertake our duties with the same devotion as she has given to her work here in the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

It is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington and member of our committee, Mr. McDermott.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a gentleman who has been very much involved in issues relating to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up, I look about and think of this institution. It sometimes can be quite impersonal. I think for all of us today, this is a very personal moment, and I think all of us join in saluting Gabby and Mark.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to join my colleagues in remembering Ed Jenkins-- and Mr. Rangel, who served with him for all of Ed's service, as chairman, I will yield time to him after I say just a few words on behalf of Ed Jenkins.

The Ways and Means Committee is indeed a key committee, and Ed Jenkins was a key person. I was reading some of the tributes, and one of them noted what was said in the Almanac of American Politics about Ed Jenkins: ``He was a man who must be consulted on many key legislative issues.'' How true that was.

Ed Jenkins showed you could be both gentle and strong. He did not seek the limelight, but he shed light on so many issues. One example is the textile industry. He comes from an area that once reined close to supremely in terms of textile.

Ed never gave up. He introduced legislation. It passed, but because of a veto, it did not become law. But talking about shining light, he did expose the importance of the textile industry as part of the manufacturing base of this country, and in that sense, he was very successful. He also showed his grit when it came to the Iran-contra dispute, and he took on Oliver North in his strong though gentle way.

I close my remarks with memories of Ed Jenkins when he would come right up to where I now stand, and almost invariably he would say, well, I'm just a poor country lawyer. Well, that's about the only thing that he said about himself that wasn't true. He was more than a poor country lawyer. He had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney. But he had a lot of quiet dynamism.

And so, as we talk about Ed, we remember the many times he came forth to speak in his soft but often strong way. He was an important part of this institution. He served his district, he served his State, and he served the Nation with dignity, with pride, and with civility that is too short available today in this Hall.

So I join all of you from Georgia who represent that State and everyone who has spoken in sending our warmest regards to Ed's family, and say to all of you, you should remember your husband and dad not only as a wonderful family member, but someone who came here, often at sacrifice, and he did so in a way that indeed served this country.

I would now like to yield the balance of my time to someone who knew Ed so well who has served as chairman of our committee and who remembers Ed Jenkins with such affection, the senior member for the State of New York, Charles Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

You know, there's a very basic fact--I've listened to the rhetoric-- if House Republicans prevailed on this bill, what would be the result? Chaos. Chaos.

The House Republicans have become the ``party of chaos.'' Six months ago, they took us to the brink of default. No one in this country liked what they saw--or maybe a very few--not the American public at large, surely not the markets, surely not the markets. But apparently House Republicans did, and you're at it again.

Here we are in the first full day in the House when we're in session this year debating a measure that would take us immediately back to the brink of default. House Republicans are once again relying on the votes of others to save them from themselves and to save this country from them.

This is posturing, not legislating. This is rhetoric, not reelection. And we've seen this movie before. 174 House Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act that set out the structure to keep the government functioning and address our long-term debt, but many decided to turn tail. And on September 14, 228 House Republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution to end the President's authority to pay our bills. That is what's fiscally responsible, paying bills.

Basically, they were for it before they were against it. It's a rerun of a bad movie when the American people clearly want us to move forward. And unfortunately, House Republicans have turned to Washington with the same confrontational tone they left when they nearly allowed the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance to expire. And I want to emphasize that, the same confrontation; instead of a spirit of seeking common ground, essentially confrontation. And I think the American people have said to you, enough is more than enough.

House Republicans act as if they don't already have a deadline looming, one with vast implications for millions of American families. That's what we should be talking about. In 6 weeks, the payroll tax cut expires for 160 million Americans, Federal unemployment insurance begins to end for more than 3 million people searching for work, and access to health care becomes endangered for 46 million seniors and the disabled.

Well, last month's jobs numbers were encouraging. The private sector created more than 200,000 jobs in December and nearly 3 million since the recovery began. But with 13 million Americans still looking for work, we need to do more. We should be doing everything possible, everything possible to ensure that our recovery doesn't falter. And you are here supporting something, if it prevailed, that would deeply impact our economy and economic growth.

So here we are in the third week of January. And now we have a conference committee on these issues, charged with the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. But that hasn't yet happened, not for a lack of wanting on our part. We've been ready and eager to begin. Businesses and families that are trying to plan and budget for the year should not have to wait until the 11th hour, once again, for certainty. For Republicans, brinkmanship has, I'm afraid, as demonstrated today, become the rule.

So I urge we should reject this cynical, this rigidly ideological attempt to take us back to the brink of default. If you prevail, it wouldn't take us back to the brink; it would throw us over.

The resolution, fortunately, is going nowhere. Its only impact will serve to divide and distract from addressing the real needs of the American people. So I assume--it's happened once before--a majority, and maybe a vast majority, of the House Republicans will come down here and essentially contradict what they helped to pass. That contradiction isn't even good politics, and it's terrible policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It's now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

It's now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished senior member of our committee, Mr. Charles Rangel of New York.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

You know, I was looking over the vote from the 1st of August, and it's interesting to see and hear people coming forth who voted ``aye'' on August 1 and now essentially want to repudiate that.

I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished active member of our committee, James McDermott, Dr. McDermott, from the snowy State of Washington.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Flake, the problem is, if you prevailed, you'd create an abyss.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, another active member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 3 minutes to a former active member of our committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes to our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer from the great State of Maryland.

I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Reed, Mr. Hoyer mentioned this. You know, on Ways and Means for years, once the Republicans gained the majority, we protested they weren't paying for anything. So this isn't a new issue. It isn't a new issue.

I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a distinguished former member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 2 minutes.

I now yield 3 minutes to the very active gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I reserve the balance of my time.

How many more speakers do you have, Mr. Reed?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me reserve so I don't have to do this each time until, Mr. Reed, you finish, and then I'll close and then you'll close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

It will take me just I think 30 seconds, maybe a minute.

You know, in a few words what the Republicans in the House are doing, they're playing with fire. And that's reckless. They know that others will put out the fire. And we'll vote, many of us, to do that today. And if we don't succeed, the Senate will do so.

This, I think, is worse than a charade because it really assumes that the agenda of this Congress should essentially be a kind of a plaything.

A number of the people who came to speak for this resolution voted in August for the resolution that brings us here today, including, I think, Mr. Reed.

So I think what's changed is not our responsibility, but the ability of some to kind of have it both ways, to vote ``yes'' on the resolution knowing that as it goes to the Senate, this potential damage to the economy will be saved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from Jenni LeCompte, Assistant Secretary for

Public Affairs, United States Treasury Department: ``Everyone

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

would have been preferable, which is why the Administration

has long advocated an extension for the entirety of 2012.

Unfortunately, in the waning days of this session of

Congress, Members were unable to reach agreement on the

details of a year-long extension that could generate strong

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

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

Saturday.

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

administative complications, it is feasible to implement the

bipartisan Senate bill, and the Treasury Department will work

with employers to ensure the smoothest possible

implementation. In the current economic situation, any such

complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of

ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans

starting on January 1st.''

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated, compassionate and effective public servant Frank Taylor, who is retiring after serving the people of Macomb County, Michigan for 33 years, the last 10 as Director of the County's Community Services Agency. Mr. Taylor is a leader in the field of Community Action Agencies and a shining example of everything a public servant should aspire to be.

Mr. Taylor graduated from Wayne State University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Education in 1974. The next year he began teaching and coaching at Harper Woods Public Schools and began earning his Master of Arts Degree in Education from Oakland University which he completed in 1980. In 1979, he began his successful tenure with Macomb County, starting at the Macomb/St. Clair Workforce Development Board as a Youth Programs Supervisor. He rose through the ranks becoming Assistant Director in 1982 and holding that position until 1997 when he was promoted to Director. In 2001 he embraced a new challenge, moved departments and became Director of the Macomb County Community Services Agency.

Under Mr. Taylor's leadership the Community Services Agency established highly effective programs and services that addressed that most pertinent needs of county residents. He worked diligently to leverage funds from the Recovery Act, administering over 14 million dollars for vital programs such as Home Weatherization, Food Assistance and Early Head Start. In fact, through creative thinking, he was able to leverage funds and make the vital Early Head Start program permanent one year after its enactment.

In addition, the Senior Nutrition program vastly increased the number of meals offered to homebound senior citizens and the Food Program increased the amount of emergency food distributed. Mr. Taylor effectively identified grant opportunities to provide emergency services to low income individuals in need.

In 2010 Mr. Taylor led a statewide initiative to purchase a multimillion dollar client database within nine months that substantially increased accessibility and efficiency. The initiative included a plan to deliver training to staff and is now being used by every Community Action Agency in the State.

I have witnessed first-hand Mr. Taylor's passion and dedication through the years. He is an outspoken advocate for low-income home energy assistance, as well as the Community Service Block Grant program, which is so important to the delivery of vital services to those in need. Mr. Taylor has always focused like a laser on ensuring that residents of the county receive the highest quality of services in an efficient and compassionate manner. It has been a true pleasure for my staff and I to work with him, and the citizens of Macomb County are grateful for his dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Frank Taylor, who has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of living for working class people in Macomb County for 33 years. I am confident he will continue to play an important role in the community where he is highly thought of, in addition to enjoying a bit of retirement. Importantly, he and his wife Rosanne, married 34 years, now get to enjoy spending time with their first grandchild, Olivia, just born on December 6th.

You know, when there is an issue as serious as this, you would think that the majority would let us introduce a substitute. Instead, the answer is a stone wall. So I am going to explain what is in my substitute. I want the American public to know what would be in it.

A 1-year extension and expansion of the employee payroll tax cut to 3.1 percent, as the President proposed; a 1-year extension on the bonus depreciation; and a 1-year extension on unemployment insurance is in the bill that Mr. Doggett and a lot of us introduced, H.R. 3346--and a 10-year SGR fix.

I want the American public to understand what's at stake here and how we pay for it. This chart shows very vividly what the Republicans essentially are doing. I want everybody to look at it. Under their proposal, seniors sacrifice $31 billion. Under their proposal, Federal employees sacrifice $40 billion. Under their proposal, unemployed Americans--unemployed, looking for work--sacrifice $11 billion. And under their proposal, essentially people earning over $1 million sacrifice nothing, nothing. They don't pay for this bill, while seniors and everybody else indicated here, Federal workers and the unemployed, do.

I will just say to the majority, get in the shoes of the unemployed. If you don't, I think those who deny it deserve their unemployment.