Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it was to my profound disappointment that I learned last night that the House would adjourn the 112th Congress without providing assistance to the victims of Superstorm Sandy.

I am joined today, Mr. Speaker, by many of my colleagues from the jurisdictions whose people received the most damaging blow. Though my district did not sustain the extreme damage that those in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut did, the President declared several Maryland counties eligible for Federal assistance from this storm, but it was minor, and my citizens are not in dire circumstances; but the citizens of some from whom we will hear today are in that condition.

Those counties joined hundreds in the 1,000-mile diameter of this storm--the largest geographically in the history of the Atlantic hurricanes. Now, at best, the Speaker has said that Sandy's victims will need to wait until the next Congress to receive assistance--Wait, they say, to millions who are in pain and in distress. We should not be waiting. We should be voting this very morning, which I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I expect to happen from my discussions with the majority leader.

As I said last night, I went with Congressman Greg Meeks to Breezy Point and the Rockaways in New York, and what I saw there in Sandy's aftermath defied description and demanded action. To those who say that FEMA has not yet disbursed all the funds it has to assist families and businesses, I would tell them that they deeply underestimate the damage in these areas and the wide range of assistance required to alleviate the pain and suffering. At Jacob Riis Park, I saw the mountains of debris that the Corps of Engineers had begun to remove from neighborhoods. That debris represents people's lives, homes, and businesses.

With this legislation, we would have provided up to $1.6 billion to the Corps to continue removing debris so that families could begin rebuilding. Would we have had to borrow that money? Yes. Just as if the furnace went out and the temperature were at zero, you would immediately replace the furnace to keep the families safe and borrow the money to do so; and, yes, we would have had to repay it, and we would.

This bill would have allocated $6 million in emergency aid for food banks to make sure that people in the richest country on the face of the Earth have some sustenance for them and their children. I saw an area of Breezy Point where more than 100 homes were devastated by fire when an electric transformer malfunctioned. The many firefighters who lived in that neighborhood could not get additional help from surrounding boroughs due to the severe flooding. They battled mightily and they saved many lives, but there is little left--indeed, none--of their homes.

I saw local businesses, Mr. Speaker, which had been there for years, completely destroyed, waiting for the $620 million in SBA assistance this bill would have provided. We talked a lot about not imposing burdens on small business by additional taxes. These small businesses are out of business without our help. We walk away today from nearly $4 billion in assistance to help reconstruct Rockaway Beach and other places, which is critical to the area's economic recovery and important to prevent further storm damage.

Finally, there is also the toll on transit and infrastructure, including inundated subway and traffic tunnels that were referred to last night. This bill would have provided up to $10.9 billion for transit and $2.2 billion for highways to help make sure that the area is not just cleared of water but repaired. If small businesses are going to be able to operate, it will be because consumers and customers can get to them and get to the schools and get to the hospitals and get to their families.

Waiting to act until later this month when Members were here and ready to vote last night is not the right choice. No Member of this House could travel to the Northeast, see the damage, and tell anyone in those areas to wait--wait for us to act, wait for us to help, wait for us to come to your aid. We cannot and we should not wait. We must not walk away.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker of this House to reconsider and to act immediately. Now is the time to act.

Is it in order to ask unanimous consent to extend that time for 1 minute?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may revise and extend their remarks on the issue that has been before the House in these 5-minute speeches.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Camp for his leadership.

There is, of course, a time for partisanship. There is a time for making our political points, and that time has been, and it will be again. That time is not tonight.

All of us have traveled throughout this country; and we have heard our constituents, our neighbors and our friends say, please, don't have us go over the cliff. They're not sure exactly what ``going over the cliff'' means, but they intuitively and deeply feel that it will not be good to go over that cliff. And so we come to this floor tonight with almost everyone who has spoken saying this bill is not perfect, and, of course, that observation could be applied to any and all bills that we consider in this House.

Compromise is not the art of perfection. By its very definition, a compromise contains elements that neither side likes. But it also contains pieces both sides can embrace. What we will do tonight is not only adopt a piece of legislation that will give literally tens of millions of Americans the assurance that their taxes will not be raised; millions of small businesses assurance that their taxes will not be raised; millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to find a job and trying to keep bread on their table the assurance that we will be there to help.

Tonight, we will come together and do something else. With 37\1/2\ hours left to go in the 112th Congress, we will display to all of our constituents that, yes, in the final analysis, we have the ability to come together, to act not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans, 435 of us sent here by our neighbors and friends to try to do the best we can, realizing that there are 435 points of view that sit in this Chamber, and that what we strive to do is to reconcile those differences to create consensus, for without consensus, democracy cannot work.

There will be time for partisan differences. There will be time for partisan confrontation in the days in the 113th Congress. But this night, as we

end the 112th Congress, as we have strived mightily to come to an agreement with great difficulty and realizing that all of us have very strong feelings, I severely regret that this is not a big, bold, and balanced plan.

We had an opportunity to reach such an agreement in a bipartisan fashion, and we will not reach a big, bold, and balanced plan without bipartisanship because the decisions we'll have to make will be too difficult not to be done in a bipartisan fashion.

This night, we take a positive step, and the people watching us, Mr. Speaker, on television tonight and reading about their Congress tomorrow are seeing that we were able to act, not perfectly, but in a bipartisan fashion to try to take a step towards fiscal responsibility, fiscal stability, and, yes, caring for those who most need our help in this country.

I urge my colleagues, as the leader of my party in this Congress urged us, to support this legislation, not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American who understands that our people believe that action is necessary. And I would urge all of us as we close this debate to do so in a way that brings us together, not drives us apart; that reaches out to the best in us, not to the partisan in us.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to come together, address this issue, act together, and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that we will be having perhaps no further votes in this Congress. I am deeply disappointed at that information.

We have millions of our fellow citizens who have been badly damaged by a storm called Sandy. Overwhelmingly, the United States Senate passed some relief. I can't remember a time when we had a very serious storm, tornado, fire, or flood when we did not act. This Congress is apparently leaving town without responding to that emergency.

There's not one of us, not one of us in this Congress that could not be in the same position. I live in a coastal State, but whether you live in the Midwest or the far west, whether you live in the South or the East or the North or the West, you could be and your citizens could be and your neighbors could be confronted by a natural disaster--or for that matter, a man-made disaster--and our fellow citizens would expect us to respond as the United States Senate has responded.

It was my belief, an assurance was given to me--not 100 percent--and the gentleman who gave it to me did not make this decision, but I am deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker.

The people who have been damaged by Sandy, including Governor Christie, a Republican, and Governor Cuomo, a Democrat, should be deeply disappointed and, yes, angry that this Congress would adjourn without addressing the pain of our fellow citizens.

I've been to New York. I've walked the beaches. I've seen the homes that have been destroyed, with my colleague Greg Meeks. I've talked to Nydia Velazquez. I've talked to other Members of Congress--Congressman Crowley, Congressman Pallone, Congressman Rothman--all of whom have had their citizens deeply damaged by the ravages of the, perhaps, storm of historical proportions that struck the Northeast. None of us is immune, not from a tornado or a flood or a fire.

I deeply regret this. I can't change this opinion, but it's not what we ought to be doing. There are Republicans who are deeply grieved by this

action and there are Democrats on this floor deeply grieved by this action. This is not the right thing to do. I would hope it would be reconsidered.

We have asked our Members to stay here, every one of them, knowing full well they wanted to go home just for a day to see their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope this decision would be reconsidered. I would hope that we would say to those citizens: We're here for you, one country, one nation.

Mr. Speaker, we are in pro forma session. Pro forma session is a session without substance or solutions.

We have much to do, Mr. Speaker. Millions of Americans returned to work yesterday. Millions more have returned to work today after taking off time for their holidays.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as you well know, a long list of expiring items this House must complete before the end of the year or it will have adverse consequences to our people.

First I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that you are one who has been working very hard to assure that we reached solutions, and I want to thank you for that. Some of us are here in this Chamber today, but, very frankly, all of us ought to be here in this Chamber today, all the Republicans and all the Democrats, working so that our people have confidence that although our challenges are tough, that we are at least here trying to reach a consensus on solutions to those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, on January 1, middle class taxes will rise. Indeed, taxes on all Americans will rise. Mr. Speaker, you are also aware that we have legislation that has passed the Senate overwhelmingly on a bipartisan, 68-31, vote to address the issue of violence against women. Postal reform legislation passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. We have a farm bill, Mr. Speaker, that has passed through the Senate in a bipartisan fashion and passed out of the committee in this House in a bipartisan fashion. We are facing sequestration on January 2 that every Member of this House believes is an irrational alternative. We have many of our fellow citizens battered by Sandy, one of the largest storms to hit the Northeast ever. The Senate is now considering a foreign intelligence surveillance act, a piece of legislation to keep our country safe and secure. We have doctors who are worrying about whether they're going to be reimbursed for their medical expenses that they deliver to senior citizens. We have an alternative minimum tax that will expire on December 31, resulting in a tax increase to many of our citizens. We have tax extenders that have not been extended. We have a jobs bill that the President has asked for that has not been considered, much less passed.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to be here, working, addressing these challenges. Everywhere, Mr. Speaker, that you and I go, I know that we hear, ``What are you doing on the fiscal cliff?'' Or ``I hope you're working hard on the fiscal cliff.''

Mr. Speaker, lamentably, I must tell them, we're not working. We're not here. We're not addressing the challenges that I have just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Speaker of the House would call us back immediately to address these challenges. We have 4 days left to go before the end of this year, before all of those items that I spoke about expire. The sequester happens the 2nd day of January.

We ought to be here working, Mr. Speaker. We're not. This is a pro forma session. As I said at the beginning, a pro forma session is a session without substance and without solutions.

I would urge the Speaker of this House to call us back in session to do

what America expects us to do: address the challenges, find solutions, come to agreement, make compromises, make democracy in America work and give confidence to our people and to our economy.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker will do that and will do it today.

I thank my friend Mr. Smith, the ranking member, and I thank Mr. McKeon for the work that they have done; and I want to thank my friend Barney Frank for the thoughtful perspective he brings to the consideration of this bill.

As we struggle to get America on a fiscally sustainable path, none of us in this body or in this country ought to believe that we can save harmless defense from oversight and savings where they can be affected while maintaining the security of our country. It would simply be irrational to believe that we cannot have a contribution from the defense sector of our budgets when we are struggling to do what Admiral Mullen says is the number one security issue that we have, and that is the fiscal stability of our country and the elimination of our debt. So I thank Mr. Frank for his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, a bipartisan measure to enhance our national security and provide for our troops. Ranking Member Smith and the chairman, Mr. McKeon, and our Democrats on the committee have worked closely with their Republican counterparts for a long time to craft a bill that will strengthen our defense against emerging threats while ensuring that our troops in Afghanistan and around the world have the resources they need to get the job done that we have given them. This bill includes a number of key provisions, and Ranking Member Smith and his counterparts deserve great credit for ensuring their inclusion:

For one, the bill expands the military's toolkit when it comes to preventing sexual assault--a profoundly unsettling problem in the military. Importantly, from my perspective, this conference report preserves the Shaheen language added in the Senate, extending health coverage for female servicemembers, on whom we are so dependent in our Armed Forces, or their dependents who need access to emergency services following an incident of rape or incest;

In recognizing the importance of strong military ties with Israel, this bill authorizes nearly $480 million for missile defense cooperation with our longtime and critical ally. That includes $211 million for the Iron Dome system, which was critically successful in defending Israeli citizens against Hamas rockets from Gaza just a few weeks ago;

We also remain committed to efforts that compel Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program which threatens the United States and our allies. To that end, this bill further tightens sanctions on Iran. I strongly support those sanctions;

I was also pleased to see the conference report does not include dangerous House-passed language that would have prevented the administration from using all the judicial tools available to bring terrorists to justice.

I thank the gentleman.

Like any compromise, this is not a perfect bill. We don't pass perfect bills, but it's a good bill that is worthy of support.

I would be remiss if I did not note my concern with section 533-- unnecessary and, in my opinion, dangerously vague language that represents another backdoor attack on the highly successful repeal of the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the open service of courageous gay and lesbian servicemembers.

As Barry Goldwater so aptly said, what I'm concerned about is not whether they're straight, but whether they can shoot straight. We ought to focus on competency and patriotism, not anything else.

On balance, this is critical national security legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Our troops continue to do an outstanding job. Many of them are at the point of the spear in harm's way. We owe them our gratitude and our continuing support.

Mr. Speaker, for over 40 years, the Congressional Black Caucus has strengthened and enhanced the work of the people's House. It does so by carrying into this Chamber the voices of millions of Americans who, for too long in our history, were voiceless. It represents millions of our citizens who contribute greatly to building our economy, defending our hard-won freedoms, and fighting for equal justice and equal opportunity for all of our citizens. The Congressional Black Caucus has been rightly known for a long period of time as the conscience of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, since he arrived here 7 years ago, our colleague and my friend, Emanuel Cleaver, has been the conscience of the CBC. Representative Cleaver, as most of us who served with him know, but many Americans might not know, wears multiple hats. He is not only the former mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, but he is also an ordained Methodist pastor. Pastor Cleaver is frequently called upon for words to deliver at my whip meeting on Thursday mornings. I have said that they are the highlight of our week in many respects.

Emanuel Cleaver speaks to us about humanity, about caring, about respecting each of our colleagues on either side of the aisle, of respecting and honoring our responsibilities to our fellow citizens. In short, Emanuel Cleaver, on a weekly basis, appeals to the best that is within us to reflect the best that is America.

Emanuel Cleaver will shortly be succeeded as president of the CBC by Marcia Fudge from Ohio--like Emanuel Cleaver, a leader of conscience, a leader of great ability, and a leader who will reach out to all of us as well and continue to lead this organization that we know as the conscience of the Congress.

As we talk about creating jobs, as we talk about caring for one another, as we talk about making life better for all Americans, there is no more compelling voice than the Congressional Black Caucus towards that end. There has been no more compelling voice than that of my friend, Emanuel Cleaver.

Emanuel, I expect your leadership to be enhanced as the days go by. You have shown us an example of how one can serve with dignity, with grace, and with effectiveness. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, for over forty years, the Congressional Black Caucus has strengthened and enhanced the work of the people's house.

It does so by carrying into this Chamber the voices of millions of Americans who for too long in our history were denied a voice.

It represents millions of our citizens who contribute greatly to building our economy, defending our hard-won freedoms, and fighting for equal justice and equal opportunity for all.

The Congressional Black Caucus has long been the conscience of the Congress. And since he arrived here seven years ago, Emanuel Cleaver has been the conscience of the CBC.

Rep. Cleaver--as most of us who serve with him know, but many Americans might not know--wears multiple hats, also being an ordained Methodist pastor.

Pastor Cleaver is frequently called upon to deliver words of wisdom in the weekly meetings Democrats hold for our caucus, and he uses those opportunities to tell us parables intended to teach that behind every bill and every vote is a human story--real lives and real consequences.

Though he will be stepping down as its Chair, I know Rep. Cleaver will continue to do his part to ensure the CBC retains its position as a moral guide in this House.

That we never forget the real people behind the policies we act on here--people struggling to be safe in our cities, pursue educational opportunities, access health care, and find good jobs.

The CBC may be called, in many respects, guardians of our American dream.

And I thank my friend--Rep. Cleaver, Mayor Cleaver, Pastor Cleaver, Chairman Cleaver--for being a steady captain of that guard over the past two years.

He surely leaves large shoes to fill, but I know Rep. Fudge will do a great job at the helm as the CBC's new chair.

And I look forward to working as closely with her as I have with Rep. Cleaver to help extend the promise of the American dream to all our people.

I thank the gentleman for his observations as to who I am. It's not missed on me. I am pleased to join the gentleman from Georgia, my friend Mr. Dreier, and so many others who I know will speak.

I've had the privilege of serving in this institution since 1981, so I will soon be in my 32nd year of serving in this institution. For all of those years, I have served with Jay Pierson. For all of those years, he has been a presence on this floor. For all of those years, he has been like so many members of our staff--a number of whom we see here on the floor with us today--a critical component of the success of this institution. David Dreier said that sometimes we do not have peace and harmony and good order on the floor of this House. He's absolutely correct on that. All of us know it.

For that, we as Members are responsible, not our staffs.

Jay Pierson has worked on the minority side and on the majority side, the Republican side of the aisle. But like so many of our staff, they work not for a party but for an institution created by our Founders to be the people's House, the House that is most responsive to the people because we are elected every 2 years. We're closest to the people in that respect. We need to seek their affirmation on a biennial basis, and they send to this House their neighbors, people whom they ask to come and reflect their views.

Jay Pierson has been, for the 30-plus years I've served with him in this House, my friend. He's been somebody whom I respect, someone who treated us all with respect and was willing to help all of us irrespective of what side of the aisle on which we serve. Since 1978, Jay Pierson has been an intimate and an important part of the House of Representatives.

Jay, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your friendship. I want to thank you for your always-present civility, helpfulness, good humor, and advice and counsel. Few in this House know as much about this House as you do; and, therefore, on your retirement, we will miss you. But we wish you Godspeed, good health, and much success in the days to come.

Thank you, good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. At this point in time, I yield to my friend, Mr. Cantor, the majority leader, for that purpose.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We had originally thought that we would not be meeting on Monday. I want to make it clear to Members that the majority leader has indicated that we will be meeting on Monday and coming in at 6:30, so they take note of that and their staffs take note of that as well.

Mr. Leader, can I ask you if you know or have some pretty good sense of, on Tuesday, do you know what we might be considering on Tuesday?

I say that because a number of Members who had scheduled things Tuesday during the day have asked me that question, and I'm wondering whether or not you have any thoughts on that. My presumption is the Defense bill conference probably won't be done by that time. I don't know whether that's your sense or not.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. The Members will find that helpful.

The majority leader mentioned last week and reiterated this week that we will not adjourn the 112th Congress until we've averted the fiscal cliff. I think the American people would share that view and would hope that was the case. I hope that's the case as well.

On the fiscal cliff, one of the things, of course, in the fiscal cliff, one of the items of concern--we had a debate on the floor today, and the majority leader and I have discussed it again last week and the week before that. Part of the negotiations are with respect to the 98 percent of Americans who fall in the category that we seem to have agreement on should not receive a tax increase.

There have been an increasing number of Republicans and Democrats who have urged us to take that issue on which we agree in the near term, and I again ask my colleague, the majority leader, whether or not there is any possibility that next week we might consider at least that segment.

And let me make perhaps a wrinkle of a suggestion to the majority leader, if I might. Obviously, we have a disagreement on that over 250. We could, Mr. Majority Leader, perhaps consider two bills--one for those under 250 or 200, the Senate bill, essentially, and another bill that you might bring to the floor which would involve extending the tax cuts on those over those limits--so that Members, even though there's a disagreement, could express themselves on both of those propositions.

I know the gentleman has made the point repeatedly that there are small businesses that would be hurt if we did not extend over the $250,000 level. That would give Members an opportunity to express themselves on that point of view as well as expressing themselves on the under $250,000 and under $200,000 for individuals. My presumption is both of those bills would pass. And that would give the Senate two bills to consider and to send to the President to at least, to the extent we can reach agreement, have some certainty brought to some segment of the population.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Of course, we have this discussion on a regular basis. I'm sure everybody in America looks forward to this discussion.

Obviously, when the gentleman talks about small businesses, he is essentially talking about 3 percent of the small businesses in America, because 97 percent of the small businesses, those job creators of which the gentleman speaks, 97 percent of them make less and would be positively affected by the bill that affects those under $200,000 individually and $250,000 collectively. Of course, 100 percent of the small businesses would be assured--let's say they make $350,000--would be assured that the first $250,000 would not get a tax increase.

So I tell the gentleman I am concerned about those small businesses, and small businesses will be included in the under $250,000 and under $200,000 as well. One hundred percent of America, no matter how much they make, would have the assurance that the first $250,000, or $200,000 if they are individuals and not families, that they would not get any tax increase.

The gentleman, particularly in the election cycle of 2010, talked a lot about--and I agreed with him--about bringing confidence, certainty of what the tax structure and what the rules would be. I suggest to the gentleman small businesses, whether they be in the 97 percent or the 3 percent--the 97 percent being affected by the bill that I would like to see passed, that the Senate has passed, but the other 3 percent, as I say, would be positively affected, knowing full well that the first $250,000 of income would not see any increase in their taxes. I think that would be a positive step for those small businesses and the small businesses above and below those figures.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him, as he knows, to staying here until we get this problem solved. America expects it. America, more importantly, needs it.

The economy needs the confidence of a resolution of this stalemate, so I agree 100 percent with the gentleman. But let me say in terms of, again, one of the disquieting factors is we can't even act on that on which we agree.

Now, the gentleman and I disagree on a proposition, and that is the gentleman believes and cites a study, which we think is of questionable validity, that says we're going to lose jobs if we raise taxes on those above $250,000. We don't share that view, and most economists that I talk to don't share that view. But there is a study that the gentleman refers to that says that. I understand that. And what I'm saying is we can vote on that and some of us will agree and some of us will disagree.

But if we can't vote on it--let me call the attention to somebody who's certainly not a Democratic spinmeister, but I think the perception will be that what we are doing is holding the better off, if we can't help them, we can't help those who are not making as much money. I'm sure you're aware of David Brooks' column in The New York Times. He's not a liberal Democrat--or not a Democrat. I don't think he's a Democrat or Republican, but a more

conservative columnist. He says this, and I quote from The New York Times just a few days ago:

Sometimes you have to walk through the desert to get to the

Promised Land. A budget stalemate on these terms will confirm

every bad Republican stereotype. Republicans will be raising

middle class taxes in order to serve the rich--shafting Sam's

Club to benefit the country club. If Republicans do this,

they might as well get Mitt Romney's ``47 percent'' comments

printed on T-shirts and wear them for the rest of their

lives.

I use that quote not to criticize but to say that the perception, I think, is, if we do not act on something on which we agree, we are not doing so because we want to make sure that the best off, if they're not helped, nobody will be helped, and I think that's not good for the country. I think, frankly, it's not good for the Congress, not necessarily Republicans or Democrats. I think we're all perceived as either having the ability to act or not act. If we're going to get this fiscal cliff resolved, it will be because we agree on that which we can agree. Here, we do.

We have 167 CEOs who have written to us saying that the Business Roundtable agrees that we ought to move in this direction. Senator Corker said that just the other day. Others have said that as well. And I really don't think it's either a political ``gotcha'' or political advantage. I just think it will do what the gentleman talked about. It will give confidence to 98 percent of the American people who pay taxes that they don't have to worry on January 1 about their taxes going up. It seems to me that's a positive for our economy because it will give them confidence that they're going to have resources to do some of the things that will help our economy grow.

I understand the gentleman's position is that there will be 2 percent who won't have that confidence and 3 percent of small businesses who, as the gentleman points out, those 3 percent are relatively large businesses in the sense that that 3 percent gets 53 percent of the business income. He's correct. Those are large small businesses or, in many cases, individuals who just make a lot of money, and that's fine, but they're not the majority. I think job creators, in terms of the numbers of small businesses, are those who add one or two or three people to their rolls.

We can get off this, but I certainly will yield to the gentleman and hope that we can do that.

The reason you've gotten the suggestion of the two-bill strategy, or two-bill scenario, is because that gives everybody in the House of Representatives--and you talked about this particularly in 2010, but you've talked about it since then of giving the House of Representatives the opportunity to work its will. Two bills, if you move them forward, one which the President says he will sign, one which the President says he will veto--and after all, he's going to be our President for the next 50 months--we can get something done. At the same time, all 435 Members--or 433, I think we have presently--can express their views on those issues on which we have agreement and those issues on which we have a disagreement.

I yield to my friend.

If the gentleman will yield, what I have said is everything needs to be on the table, not that I agreed with everything that would be on the table. I have some very substantial reservations about age increase. Particularly--it was in the Ryan bill--it doesn't get you any money in the next 10 years so it will not help us get to that fiscal crisis.

What I have said, and I'll repeat, is you have the right to put everything on the table; we have a right to put everything on the table. If you're going to have an honest negotiation, we ought to consider everybody's point of view. That's what I've said.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

It is a discussion the country is having. It's a discussion we need to have, and we need to have it honestly with one another.

The gentleman knows my position: it's not taxes or spending; it's if you buy something, pay for it. We haven't done that. That's what creates debt. Taxing doesn't create debt; spending doesn't create debt if you pay for it. Spending creates debt only if you don't pay for it. The revenues--taxes--are what you pay for things that you buy. We are buying things and we're not paying for them, and your children and mine are being put in debt as a result.

So this debate is really about: What are we going to pay for? How much do we want to do? And if we want to do it, we need to pay for it.

The gentleman knows my side very much believes that we had two tax cuts in '01 and '03; we didn't pay for it. We had two wars, both of which I supported, as the gentleman knows; we didn't pay for it. We passed a prescription drug bill; we didn't pay for it. We are hopefully going to pass a disaster relief bill that hopefully we're not going to pay for in the short term, but that we will pay for and have a scenario to pay for in the longer term because we know owe that to our children and to our grandchildren.

I'll just make a point. The gentleman always talks about tax and spending is the problem. The problem is we vote to buy things--whatever those things are--and we haven't voted to pay for them. The discipline in any system--in the family's budget, in the country's budget--should be, if you want to buy it, have the discipline to pay for it, or at least to amortize it to pay for it over a series of years that you've planned for. We haven't done that. We're in a debate about this fiscal cliff of how to do that.

We planned this fiscal cliff. This is not a happenstance. We planned. I didn't vote for the tax bills, but they sunsetted. They sunsetted this December 31. That was planned. It was planned because of a scoring issue--not because I think your side really believes they ought to sunset, but because of a scoring issue.

The fact of the matter is the sequester was put in place as a fail- safe to make the supercommittee work. It didn't work, so on January 2 the sequester takes place. I don't think any of us believe a sequester ought to take place in the way that it's planned to do so.

So what I'm saying to the gentleman is everything that's going to happen on December 31 we've planned, we've put in place, we've sunsetted. It is our responsibility to meet that. And, yes, taxes is the way we pay for things that we buy because if we pay for them, we don't create debt.

I would be glad to yield.

I absolutely believe that we need to pay for that tax cut over the 10-year plan that we try to come up with to get us to a place that we can agree on being the objective in 2022 or 2023 as to where we want to be as a country in terms of fiscal sustainability, a credible plan that will get us from here to there, including taking cognizance of the cost of that tax cut. Yes, I am saying that over the longer term we ought to pay for it. Right now the economy is struggling. The reason I think none of us want to raise taxes on the average working men and women in this country is because the economy is still struggling.

We're going to have that issue in terms of the payroll tax. We did the payroll tax deduction, which is controversial and there hasn't been a lot of the discussion, in order to get some additional revenues, 2 percent cut in the FICA tax--actually, a third of the cut, a third of the FICA tax so that we can get additional moneys into the pockets of the consumers so they can continue to buy. The economy has been better than it certainly was. We have grown, but not to the extent that we need to. That is why our view is that for those working Americans we ought to continue that level, but not because we think that we ought to just put that on the credit card and forget about it. It's got to be part of these fiscal cliff negotiations. And your point is making sure we pay for things.

Reclaiming my time, we had that discussion in terms of specifics. I pointed out to the gentleman last week, and I'll point out to him again today, the President has in his budget 23 pages of cuts, including, very frankly, with respect to Medicare, in which he cuts more--specifically identified--than Paul Ryan's budget that passed this House reduced Medicare expenditures.

So I will say to my friend, I have given him this little list--he can't see it. You have five items on your proposal in the letter that you sent, five items. They're over here on the right, five line items, all conclusionary, no specifics. For instance, the gentleman refers to 800 billion--not the gentleman, but in the Republican offer--refers to $800 billion in revenues. Now, the President has been very specific as to what he thinks we ought to do in revenues. We ought to go to the Clinton rates on those over 200,000 individually and over 250,000 family--very specific. And he has made other specific proposals that get him to his revenue number.

Frankly, your revenue number is posited on the fact that we're going to reduce, as I understand it, preference items to attain an additional 800 billion in revenue without increasing rates. I understand that general proposition.

Would the gentleman tell me which preference items he would reduce to get to 800? Now, that's a little rhetorical because I don't want to put you on the spot on that, but it is to the extent I don't think you have been specific in terms of your offer at all while I do believe the President has put forward, both on the tax side and the spending side, some very specific proposals of how to get to his numbers.

I yield to my friend.

Well, of course, again, we have a disagreement. And this list--I can't read it either, so you couldn't read it from there.

I don't think he backtracked. What he said was, and what we have said continually is, on the revenue side, if you're going to have a balanced package on the revenue side--this is his specific proposal: he's made a number of proposals on the spending-cut side already, as I said in Medicare more than the Ryan budget had in his budget. The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, you have no specificity on balance. Nor do you have any specificity, frankly, on cuts. There is no specificity on your spending cuts here. They're conclusions. So I'm not sure how you think one side ought to be specific, i.e., the President, which I think he has been specific, and the other side comes with five lines of dollars that add up to $2.2 trillion, none of which have any specificity. As you see, there are no individual items below those five lines saying where you want to cut or raise revenues.

Therefore, we need to get to an agreement, and this argument is not very helpful, I think. We need to get to an agreement; both sides need to get to agreement. But the reason we get into this conversation is we have agreement on a part of that, which will help give confidence to our people, and that is on the middle class taxes not going up.

I would again urge, and then perhaps we can get off this subject because I don't think we're really enlightening our public very much other than the fact there are obviously disagreements; but they expect us to, and we need to bridge these disagreements. I think the President has shown--you and I participated in discussions with the President of the United States. I've been here 31 years. No President in the 31 years that I've been here has spent as much time sitting in the Oval Office discussing with you and me and others, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. McConnell, and others, sitting in the office trying to get to specific agreements.

This President is willing to do that, and he has done it. He has shown that he's willing to do it in 2011, and you and I were in the room watching it happen. Now, did it result in what we wanted and that was an agreement? It did not. That's unfortunate. But this President is willing to do it. Hopefully, both sides are willing to do both sides of the ledger, which the gentleman points out are revenues and spending, a balanced package getting us to where we need to be.

Now I will move on to another subject unless the gentleman wants to make another point.

Debt ceiling. I'm very worried about the debt ceiling, Mr. Leader. I think the debt ceiling is something that you

and I have expressed publicly and privately ought not to be something that really we put at risk. I frankly think all the leaders I've talked to on the Republican side and on the Democratic side think that when you incur debts as the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, that you have every intention of paying those debts.

The debt ceiling theoretically says that you can't pay over a certain number, you can't go into debt anymore. You and I both know that sometime in February, maybe later, that debt ceiling will be reached.

Very frankly, both parties have played a game on the debt ceiling. When you were in charge, we played the fact that the debt was your problem because you had cut taxes and didn't pay for that. On your side, you said we spent too much money and we didn't pay for that. And so you voted against the debt ceiling when we were in charge. Neither one of us has, I think, covered ourselves with a great deal of glory on that issue.

The debt ceiling has to be raised because America will pay its bills. America will be creditworthy. And we saw the last time we had this political, I call it a charade or dance, the last time, for the first time in history, first time since you and I have served here--history is a lot longer than that--the credit of the United States of America was downgraded by one of the rating agencies, Standard & Poor's.

I would hope that the debt ceiling would not be a subject of disagreement. The President has proposed Senator McConnell's proposal so that the party in charge can take responsibility for it. The McConnell proposal said that the President of the United States would say, look, in order to pay our bills, we have to raise our debt ceiling. Most countries don't have a debt ceiling, of course, and most families don't have a debt ceiling. They incur debt and they expect to pay it. I would hope that this would not be a subject of political leveraging or political disagreement.

We know as an economic fact of life that we're going to have to increase the debt limit, and I would ask the gentleman if he has any thoughts on that and when we might act on that. I yield to my friend. I don't think I finished what, for the public, for anybody who happens to be watching us who is not bored stiff by this point in time, the McConnell proposal, as the gentleman knows, was that the President would propose a level, and then if that were not rejected by two-thirds of each House, that it then would go into effect, which would mean that the President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, would take the responsibility for making that judgment on behalf of managing the finances of our country.

I'll yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't think he answered my question about the debt limit, therefore, my presumption is unfortunately it will continue to be an item used as leverage, holding hostage the creditworthiness of the United States to this debate.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman, and the gentleman says spending is the problem.

If spending is the problem and spending obviously is one of the challenges we confront, as is revenues, if that is the case, then let me remind the gentleman that during the time that his party was totally in charge of spending, spending increased very substantially, otherwise known as an 86 percent increase from 2001 to 2008 in the national debt, an 86 percent increase. Under Ronald Reagan, it increased 189 percent. Under this President, it has increased 41 percent, and he confronted the deepest recession as a result of the economic policies in part pursued in the last administration, which I did not support and which my party did not support.

I hear this about spending all the time. We had a pay-as-you-go bipartisan process put in place by the first George Bush and Democrats in 1990. In 1993, that pay-as-you-go was continued. In 1997, a deal between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton continued that pay-as-you-go process. And for the last 4 years in a row of the Clinton administration, we didn't borrow a single additional nickel to raise the debt limit. We didn't have to. Why? Because we were paying for what we bought.

Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate for part of that time, so they deserve some of the responsibility for that. The President was in charge of signing bills and making sure that we made investments. He made sure we did that, and the economy exploded. Those three factors obviously resulted in the only President in the lifetime of either the majority leader and myself who ended up with a net surplus in his term. We don't need to be lectured about spending. As I said, spending does not cause debt. What causes debt is not paying for the spending you make, and that's exactly what happened.

I tell my friend his party was in charge from 2001 to 2006, totally and essentially until 2008, because we didn't change any economic policies and President Bush had to sign any bill that was passed here. So this circuitous discussion we have about, simply, spending is the problem--yes, you're right. But the problem is ultimately if we want to buy things--and what we do now, as the gentleman knows, is we are producing a product that costs $23 to produce, and we're asking people to pay $15 for it. Talk about small businesses; any small business that does that goes out of business pretty quickly. That's what we are doing, and we have to stop it.

The debt ceiling, however, as the gentleman knows, is about that which we've already done and whether we are going to pay those bills. All I'm saying

is we ought not to make that a part of the leveraging between our two parties.

Let me go quickly to the farm bill, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Sandy supplemental. Can the gentleman tell me which of those three, if any, might we see next week?

With that, I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his intent there.

I would simply observe that the gentleman observed and he was correct, obviously, that FEMA indicated it has some resources to go through the beginning of the year. There are, as the gentleman well knows, a myriad of agencies that will be involved in helping the victims of Sandy that do not have those resources and need them. I appreciate, therefore, the gentleman's focusing on this and trying to bring this forth as quickly as possible.

Last, the miscellaneous tariff bill. That expires, as you know, on December 31, as well. Can the gentleman give me a view as to where that stands?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I'll be brief.

I had the privilege many years ago to get on the telephone and call Leonard Boswell. Leonard Boswell was then presiding over the State senate. He tells the story about how his executive assistant came on the floor and said, ``There's a guy named Congressman Hoyer on the phone. Shall I tell him you'll call him back?''

Fortunately, for me, President Boswell at the time said, ``No, I'll talk to him now.'' He turned the podium over to one of his colleagues, and came on the phone and talked to me.

And I said, ``Senator, this is Steny Hoyer. I would very much like you to run for Congress. We think you'd be an excellent Member of Congress, we think you'd be a great candidate for Congress, and we think you could win this seat.''

He said, ``Well, what does Mr. Gephardt think about that?''

It so happened Dick was about 4 feet from me, so I said, ``Well, let me turn this over to him, and he'll tell you what he thinks about it.''

Of course, he echoed my comments.

Now, I didn't know Leonard Boswell at the time, but I'd heard wonderful things about Leonard Boswell, not only about his skill as a legislator, but of his decency and his character as a human being; not only his experiences in war, but his service at home as a farmer, as a businessman, as a public representative and as a Senate leader in Iowa. And I want to say that nothing that has transpired over the years that he and I have served together in this body have disabused in any way the extraordinarily positive things that were told to me of Leonard Boswell and why I ought to ask him to come to the Congress of the United States.

He has been a dear and close friend of mine every day he has served. He will remain a dear and close friend of mine until he and I pass from this Earth. He is a salt-of-the-Earth human being. He is someone that the American people, if they knew personally, would say is the kind of person they wanted representing them in the Congress of the United States; or, frankly, in any other body.

Leonard Boswell, thank you. Thank you for serving our country so well, so courageously, so ably, so conscientiously with so much character and decency. You have brought a greater degree of civility and understanding to this institution. It is better for your service. Godspeed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his efforts as well.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we talked a lot about, correctly, creating certainty, alleviating uncertainty, alleviating angst among our people and among our economy.

We have an opportunity to bring certainty to a large segment of the America that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. We have that ability because the United States Senate has acted on a bill which will allow us to do that.

Even if we don't take their bill up, we could take a bill that Tim Walz has introduced. Congressman Walz has introduced a bill which will say to the 98 percent that we've talked about, You won't get a tax increase. I think that we have agreement on that. As the gentleman from Texas indicated, we have agreement on that.

I think there's not anybody here--or very, very few at least, on either side of the aisle--who doesn't say that those who are making $250,000 or less as families or $200,000 as individuals, or less, shouldn't get a tax increase.

Now, there are some who say that those above should not get a tax increase either. I understand that. But we have disagreement on that.

The American people are frustrated by the fact that even that on which we have agreement we can't move. That's their frustration. They understand that we have policy differences, but they are hopeful that when, at least, we have agreement on an issue that we can move it. And if we did so, think of the confidence.

Mr. Cole, former--had your job as the chairman of the Campaign Committee, said let's pass this. Let's give the middle class, the working people of America, a Christmas present, a sense of certainty, a sense of self-confidence, a sense of well-being. That will be good for our economy, but certainly good for them individually and as families as well.

So I would urge my colleagues on the Republican side and my colleagues on the Democratic side, vote against the previous question.

Now that's somewhat esoteric, Mr. Speaker. Those watching us say, What does that mean, voting against the previous question? What's the previous question? That's some sort of political jargon that they use in Washington.

What it means is, if we vote against the previous question, we will then be empowered to bring forward the middle class tax cut bill and we'll put it on the floor, and Mr. Walz will be our leader on this because he's put it in the hopper.

We'll put that on the floor, and every Member of this House, all 435 Members, will have the opportunity to say to the American people, Yes, on December 12, we're going to tell you that on January 1 your taxes will not go up.

Give us that opportunity. Give us that opportunity to say ``yes'' to the American middle class. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes'' to certainty in our economy. Give us the opportunity to say ``yes,'' we agree on something, and aren't you proud of the fact that when we agree, your Congress can act? Let's say ``yes.''

Vote ``no'' on the previous question, and then vote ``yes'' for the middle class.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's never wrong to do the right thing twice.

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader, for his favorite 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of the week to inquire of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for the early notice on next Friday.

First, Mr. Leader, if I could, we have the ending as next Thursday. I want to clarify for Members so that they know: we will not be in session next Friday. Is that accurate?

Thank you for that information.

I also want to congratulate the gentleman for providing for the week of the 17th. I know none of us want to do that, but I appreciate the majority's focus on the business that has not been done. I also appreciate the gentleman's focus on the fiscal cliff and for indicating that we need to resolve that prior to leaving the 112th Congress. I think those are both positive announcements. I applaud him for that.

On the fiscal cliff--we discuss this all the time--but I want to inform the majority leader that there are now 175 signatures--we hope to have more, and we would obviously welcome people on your side of the aisle--on the discharge petition for the Walz bill, which mirrors the Senate bill, as the majority leader, I'm sure, knows, to ensure that no individual who makes $200,000 or less on net taxable income or that a family who makes $250,000 or less will see a tax increase on January 1. Hopefully, we will resolve the fiscal cliff and get an agreement.

I again ask my friend: the Walz bill will be compliant with the rules and will not have a blue slip problem, obviously, and hopefully we could move that bill. Again, for the purposes of giving confidence to the 98 percent of our taxpayers who are making less than the sums put forward in the bill--$200,000 and $250,000--I understand and anticipate the gentleman's response that we are all concerned with growing the economy and creating jobs and that we don't want to dampen that dam; and we understand the gentleman's concern about small businesses, particularly those 3 percent of small businesses that make more than this and report it on a personal income basis.

I would hope that we could give serious consideration to trying to act sooner than the end of the year and as soon as possible, frankly, on--as we call it--the middle class tax cut, the $250,000 and under.

I yield to my friend to see whether or not, perhaps, the actions that have been taken this week have any bearing on his thoughts on whether we could schedule that bill.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

He and I do share the view that we need to address both the revenue side and spending side of our budget. My view is, and I've said this on a regular basis, what we really have is not necessarily a taxing problem or a spending problem; we have a paying for problem. The actions we take, we ought to pay for them. We haven't done that through the years. Frankly, we haven't done it on both sides of the aisle. I don't want to get into that specific argument, but the fact is, if we pay for things, you don't create debt. And if you cut revenues and you cut spending, you don't create debt. If you cut revenues and don't cut spending, you create debt just as surely as if you spend money and buy things and don't pay for them. In either instance, you create debt, and we need to get this country on a fiscally sustainable path.

So I congratulate the gentleman--not the gentleman specifically, but I was pleased, and the gentleman and I would disagree on the specificity of the offer that was included or the suggestion that was included in your letter. For instance, the President has put forward, as you know, in his budget and in his further proposals, an extensive list of reductions in spending that he proposed. In addition, he has put forward very specific proposals vis-a-vis revenues. His most specific proposal, of course, has been widely debated and discussed, and there was a difference of opinion on whether or not we ought to cap the taxes on $250,000 and under families and $200,000 and under individuals. There was a very robust debate on that during the campaign. The voters voted, and that's a very specific proposal.

In the $800 billion that you suggest in the letter that you jointly signed with the Speaker and others, there is a suggestion of $800 billion in revenues, which I believe is insufficient to get us to where we need to be. But having said that, it is certainly a good start, but it is not a good start if all it is is conceptual.

The President, as I said, has made very specific proposals. He wants taxes on those making over $250,000 to go up. That produces a certain amount of revenue, somewhere in the neighborhood of the $800 billion of which you speak. The fact is, though, in your proposal, we don't have the specifics other than to know that you're focused on preferences or loopholes--describe them as you may--which would be a reduction.

The gentleman knows the three largest of those is the health care, the mortgage interest, and the pension benefits that can be taken off your taxes. I don't know whether the gentleman suggests reducing those specifically, and I don't ask him to respond to that now, but I do tell my friend that if we don't have those specifics, as you have very specifically from the President, he also recommended capping deductions at 28 percent, a very specific revenue-generating proposal. He has also, as I said, agreed to very substantial spending cuts which he has outlined in his budget. And, as the gentleman also knows, we've cut a trillion dollars, give or take some billions of dollars, in expenditures pursuant to the debt limit extension of 2011. So we have addressed very substantial reductions in funding for 2011, for 2012, for 2013, and for out-years after that.

So I would urge my friend, when he says he's given specifics, as far as I know, the letter essentially has five lines in it. The letter is longer than that, but five lines of spending and/or tax-cutting proposals, but they are all generic, not specific. And that is, I think, the problem we have in these negotiations, to the extent that they exist. Unfortunately, we're not doing as much as I think we ought to be doing. We don't have specifics, and, therefore, conceptually everybody can say, well, we want to get $800 billion. The President and, apparently, your letter agree on that. How you get there is the key. And if you don't have specifics--the President has offered specifics on how to get there. I would respectfully suggest you have not offered specifics other than we're going to deal with preference items. But they're very controversial: charitable deductions, very controversial; other deductions, controversial. We have to really get down to the nitty-gritty of, okay, how are you going to do it?

I would urge the gentleman, in furtherance of what he and his party have already done, to perhaps be specific in how we get the $800 billion. The President has said how we get the $800 billion. I think that would be very helpful, and I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to say two things. First of all, I want to clarify, and I think I did clarify, that $800 billion clearly is in your proposal. When I said the President agrees with that $800 billion, he agrees to getting to at least $800 billion. He thinks we need more. I agree with the President; we need more.

When the gentleman says the problem is wasteful spending, I disagree with the gentleman very substantially on that. The problem is not wasteful spending; the problem is spending. Whether it's not wasteful or not, if it's good spending, we need to pay for it.

Now, where the gentleman and I have a very substantial disagreement, I know, is that when the gentleman and his party voted to reduce revenues by over $2 trillion, they didn't reduce spending by $2 trillion. As I said at the outset, inevitably, if you reduce revenues by $2 trillion and you up spending, which is what happened, frankly, as all of us know from 2001 to 2008, and particularly 2001 to 2006, if you up spending and reduce revenues, inevitably you have debt, just as if you buy stuff and don't pay for it, you have debt. So whether you reduce revenues or don't pay for what you buy, the result is exactly the same--debt. So that's why I say paying for is the problem.

The gentleman and I have a very substantive disagreement on whether or not you ought to have to pay for tax cuts. You have to pay for it one way or the other. You're either going to pay for it by having additional debt on which you'll pay substantial interest, or you'll pay for it by reducing programs. It's not wasteful spending. I'd like to get rid of all wasteful spending.

But I suggest to the gentleman, and he knows the figures as well as I do because we've been through a lot of meetings together on this, the issue is not wasteful spending. The issue is we've decided to buy things, a lot of which I think we ought to be buying, including

Social Security, including Medicare, including investment in education, including investment in infrastructure, including investment in innovation to grow our economy, which, in turn, will help our deficit situation as the economy grows, without raising any taxes.

But the fact of the matter is, I know the gentleman has historically not felt that tax cuts ought to be paid for, either by cutting spending, which didn't occur, or by offsetting revenues.

So I want to make it clear the President does not agree with the $800 billion level because he doesn't think the math works. I share the President's view. The math doesn't work.

And ultimately, in my opinion, the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70 percent debt to GDP ratio, which most economists, or a little less than that, say is sustainable and will have us on a sustainable path.

If we all agreed on the objective and then, Mr. Majority Leader, simply made the math work to get there in a way that we could agree on, I think America would be advantaged, I think the economy would be advantaged, and we would see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000s.

I'll be glad to yield to my friend.

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement because the gentleman continues to want to focus on spending. I think that's right that we focus on spending. But again, debt is not caused by spending; it is caused by buying things that you don't pay for, or it's caused by cutting revenues that you don't offset either by cuts in spending, by cutting revenues. That's what causes debt. It's not buying things that causes debt. It's not paying for things.

The discipline, I will tell my friend, in the system for the American public is, if they want things, for us having the honesty to say, okay, if you want a tax cut or you want a strong defense, it costs money, both of them cost money. And if you're willing to pay for it, we will do that. If you're not willing to pay for it, we ought not to do it.

That's not been our practice, unfortunately, and we dropped the PAYGO requirement, as the gentleman knows, in 2001, actually 2003 legally. De facto, we dropped it in 2001, because we had substantial tax cuts without paying for them. We waived that requirement, and I think that, frankly, got us into the problem we have on either side of the aisle, whether it's spending or revenue reductions.

I don't think the President's changed his position. I think the positions have changed. Mr. Bowles indicated that. Others have indicated that. The situation has changed its dynamic in the sense that it's not the situation we were confronting in 2011.

But this is an important discussion because it really requires us to come to make a commonsense, math decision, not an ideological decision driven by debate about spending or taxes, but on how we have a budget that is a sustainable budget for our kids and for our grandkids and for our country over the long term. And I think that's what this discussion ought to be about. And if it is, I think we can get this challenge resolved, and Americans and America will say finally, finally, those representatives we've sent to Washington have sat down together with one another and made sense.

Again, I want to say to the gentleman, I can't read it either, and you certainly can't read it from there. But you can see that, perhaps, the five lines here, and then the very long lines the President has proposed in terms of cuts and revenues.

I think if you're expecting the President to come and say, well, we can get your $800 billion this way, that way and the other way, he's not going to do that because he's not going to negotiate with himself.

On the other hand, if you come to us and say specifically this is how we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the charitable deduction. This is how we're going to get the $800 billion, we're going to eliminate the mortgage deduction, that's something we can discuss. But if we don't have specifics on what you're going to do, but just a conclusionary ``we're going to get 800 billion,'' then it's hard to negotiate because we don't know what the negotiation parameters are.

I yield to my friend.

We agree.

The gentleman has indicated there is other business that needs to be done. Let me briefly address those.

The farm bill, obviously, continues to be not resolved, not addressed. The Senate passed a bill, as the gentleman so well knows, 64-35, two-thirds of the Senate voting for it. We would be hopeful that that Senate bill could be put on the floor. I've talked to Chairwoman Stabenow. She and her ranking member worked very hard on that. I know our committee's reported out a bill 35-11, but that has not come to the floor. That was passed out almost 6 months ago, 5 months ago.

So I would hope that the farm bill could be moved. I know I'm going to be talking to some of my ag community today. They're very hopeful that a--not a stopgap but a farm bill of a sufficient length--and I think they would opt--I don't want to speak for them before I meet with them--but for the Senate bill, we need to pass that. Milk prices, as you know, will spike dramatically on January 1 if we don't pass the farm bill.

Also, on the Violence Against Women Act, I know last week we had the sponsor in the chair. I didn't know that. I thank the gentleman for reminding me.

But the Violence Against Women Act has been passed by this House and by the Senate. I would urge the majority to get us to conference on that. Rather than go through why I think the Senate bill's a good bill and you think the House bill's a good bill, the way to resolve that is to go to conference. I would urge the gentleman to go to conference on the Violence Against Women Act.

I believe the President is going to come down in very short order with some preliminary numbers on the supplemental. I think I'm going to New York tomorrow to spend time with some of our Members there and see the devastation that has occurred. The gentleman, I know, is very aware of that as well. We need to do a supplemental, so we need to have time to do that.

And lastly, although we haven't discussed it very often--it's not a very sexy issue, postal reform, again, is another issue that we're talking about balancing. The postal department has not been able to balance its budget, as we know. Part of it is dealing with the retirement programs that they're funding.

But I'm wondering if the gentleman has any thoughts on any one of those four bills.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Obviously, we are coming here to meet and we're focused on the fiscal cliff, but there are other things that we could be, hopefully, resolving in the time that we have available to us between now and the end of the year, and I would hope that we would do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the former majority leader--I guess he still is the majority leader--the newly elected majority leader for the next Congress and congratulate him on his election.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate his observation with reference to a number of pieces of legislation that are pending, and as he mentions in his comments, the fiscal cliff, of course, is a concern, not only to us, but to the entire country. The negotiations, as the majority leader points out, are ongoing and hopefully will bear fruit--and hopefully will bear fruit in the short term.

Mr. Leader, there are, however, some steps that we could take, I think, that would alleviate some of the concerns and apprehensions that do exist in the country. As you know, we've discussed before, the middle class tax cut, that is, the under $250,000 that has been the object of discussion in the election and continues to be the object of discussion here. I'm wondering whether or not, given some of the comments that have been made, I know, by Mr. Tom Cole, your former chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, and others, as well as the President's comments, that I don't see scheduled but would urge consideration, Mr. Leader, of the Senate-passed bill which will assure 98 percent of Americans that they will not receive a tax increase on January 1. I don't see that on your list, and I'm wondering if the majority leader could comment on whether it is possible for us to take up that Senate bill to give assurance to the 98 percent of the people who will be affected by that bill.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Madam Speaker.

I would just observe that the Senate bill that I was referring to doesn't raise taxes on anybody. In fact, what it does is ensures that no taxes will be raised on 98 percent of Americans. It doesn't refer to the other 2 percent, as I understand the bill. It simply precludes taxes from being increased pursuant to the Republican-passed bills which sunsetted the tax rates that currently exist for those 98 percent of the people. From that standpoint, I think the bill that I have been referring to, Madam Speaker, and I think the majority leader probably knows this, does not refer to those over $250,000, which is what I presume he's referring to.

I might also observe, as it relates to his response, Madam Speaker, a quote of Bill Kristol's, who I think the majority leader probably knows pretty well and who obviously is a very strong proponent of policies put forward by the majority leader's party, said:

``It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,'' he said on Fox News Sunday. ``It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer.''

Now, we know the President of the United States, I want to tell my friend, the majority leader, has said he is not going to sign a bill. He disagrees with your conclusion, I disagree with your conclusion, and that's what democracy is about.

The President of the United States has been reelected. The President of the United States has made it very clear he will not sign a bill that reduces the tax obligations of those over $250,000 in the coming year. He's not going to sign that bill so that we can hold hostage the 98 percent. He believes, like you, that 98 percent of Americans ought not to receive a tax increase because it would, from his perspective, dampen economic growth in this country.

Now, we have disagreement on the $250,000 and above, which is a legitimate disagreement. We can debate it on the floor, we can vote on it on the floor, and every American can see where everybody stands. We believe that 60 percent of Americans or more agree with the President and with our proposition. But to say that we're not going to do something for the 98 percent because we don't want something to happen to the 2 percent--which, by the way, is not in that bill. But the gentleman's correct, nor are they included in that bill, the 2 percent.

But I would urge my friend, we're having trouble getting to an agreement. I think that's unfortunate. I think the gentleman, the majority leader, and I both want to get to an agreement. We don't want to go over that fiscal cliff; that will be bad for the economy. We both, I think, believe--I hope--that we need to have a balanced agreement so that we will not go over that cliff. That would be bad for the country, bad for the American people, bad for the growth of our economy. We don't want to do that. The gentleman, in my view, does not want to do that.

One way we can give some confidence, which is very important to the growth of the economy, is to assure, as Tom Cole, your former chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, said just the other day in, I believe, your whip meeting, that he believes that this ought to be done; we ought to give those 98 percent assurances.

So I tell my friend that we can debate the other part of it, we can vote on the other part of it and the prevailing side will obviously win, but I don't think there's disagreement on the 98 percent. I think we agree on that. As I said before the election and I say after the election, we ought to move forward on that because that is something on which I think you and I can agree, on which Republicans and Democrats in this House can agree, something which the Senate has already agreed to. And while there was not a bipartisan vote on passage, there was a bipartisan vote to let that bill come to the floor. It's the only way it moved ahead, on a bipartisan vote. I would hope that we can at least do that so that we can give at least that on which we agree the opportunity to move forward.

I yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, I don't know that I'm making myself clear: The Senate bill raises taxes on nobody. Nobody. The Senate bill simply says, for those making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a couple, they will not receive a tax increase. My friend, the majority leader, keeps responding that we're not in agreement on the over $250,000.

I'll be glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, again, the gentleman says that I'm technically correct. I presume that means I'm correct.

The bill that I'm asking to be brought to this floor to pass will not raise anybody's taxes. What the gentleman is saying is that, unless we deal with the 2 percent, the 98 percent are going to be held hostage until such time as we deal with the 2 percent. Now, the problem with that, in a democracy, we have a disagreement on that. As a matter of fact, it was pretty clear to the American public that there was a very significant and unclouded, not confusing, difference between the two candidates for President on the very issue to which the gentleman speaks, and the American public voted. And the President of the United States, who said, ``No, I don't agree with that,'' won the election. He won the election. And he is saying, I'm not going to sign the bill on the $250,000 or above.

Now, my problem, Mr. Leader, is I understand your conclusion is that if you pass the 98 percent, that you won't have a bargaining chip with which to press your point on the over $250,000, or over $200,000 individually as you correctly observe. I understand that. But, frankly, the bargaining chip is somewhat illusory in that the President said absolutely he will not sign that. Why? Because he wants to bring down the deficit. He wants to and has agreed to--and we've agreed to--over $1.7 trillion in spending cuts already for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and for the next decade--or at least until 2022. We've already agreed to that. You pressed that, you were successful. We agreed on many of those. Some we didn't agree on, but you had the votes we needed to reach an agreement and we reached an agreement. So we cut almost $2 trillion of spending already.

You're correct: we need to assure the fact that we pay for what we buy, and if we don't want to pay for it, my view is we shouldn't buy it. Frankly, that principle applies, in my opinion, to tax expenditures as well as to buying stuff because it all reduces your ability to pay for what you're buying.

So I tell my friend, it's not that I'm technically correct; I'm correct. The bill that I'm asking you to pass will simply give to the 98 percent of American taxpayers the assurance that their taxes will not go up on January 1.

If we don't pass it, they won't have that assurance. Their confidence level will not be good. The stock market will be concerned. And, yes, we'll have to deal with the other 2 percent. That is clearly going to be a part of the discussion, and hopefully there will be an agreement.

But my presumption is the reason the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, made that comment just a few days ago--and it's not like he's a backbencher. He is the former chairman of your Republican Campaign Committee--he said, We ought to do this. We ought to get it off the agenda so we give those people confidence. He called it a Christmas present to the 98 percent. I think it's a judgment that our economy will be better off if we do it.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Let me move on, if I can, because there are a couple of other issues.

I know the gentleman indicated that you didn't include one. I think you did include the farm bill. Could you tell me what you think of the status of the farm bill? Again, we have an issue where the farm bill passed 64-35 in the Senate; 16 Republicans voted for it. And very frankly, the farm bill in this House passed out of your committee 35-11 on a bipartisan vote. That's not been brought to the floor.

Could the gentleman tell me what he thinks is going to happen to the farm bill?

I thank the gentleman for that response; and I am hopeful that we can, in fact, proceed on that for the farmers of America.

Obviously if we don't pass something by December 31, on January 1 prices for the Federal Government will go up very dramatically, as the gentleman knows; and it will have an impact on spending. And I know the gentleman and I are both concerned about that.

The next to last issue--just two more issues, if I can, Mr. Leader.

As you know, we've talked about the Violence Against Women Act. We've passed a bill through this House that was passed essentially on a partisan basis. They passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate, Violence Against Women. And domestic violence is an epidemic, in some respects, in this country.

I am hopeful that we might consider taking up the Senate bill again because it got passed on such an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis in the Senate. I would suggest to the gentleman that it may well pass on a bipartisan basis here as well.

The problem, as you know, from my perspective and from our side, with the House bill is that you exclude a number of people. The problem with excluding people--for instance, undocumented immigrants from being able to come forward and having a sense of safety and security in doing so-- is that the abuser of the undocumented immigrant, left unaccountable, may well be the abuser of a citizen or a child in this country, either as a citizen or here illegally; and, therefore, we think there ought to be broader coverage. Apparently, the Senate shares that view. As you know, every Republican woman and Democratic woman voted for that bill in the Senate.

Does the gentleman have any idea whether we could either go to conference on that bill or whether or not we might bring the Senate bill up for passage?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank the Speaker for her leadership on this issue.

But I thank the gentleman for his assurance that he's focused on this and is going to work on it. I look forward to working with him on this bill, which I think is a very important bill for us to get passed before we leave here.

Lastly, obviously all of us know that Hurricane Sandy visited extraordinary damage on a large portion of the Northeast. I come from Maryland, and we were not very substantially damaged; but obviously New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, in particular, were.

Can the gentleman tell me--I know the administration has not come down with a number. That number, I presume, is going to be well north of $50 billion. In terms of the estimates that are being made, this is one of the five most damaging storms to hit the coast of the United States of America.

I am wondering whether or not the gentleman might have in mind doing some interim figure in the next 3 weeks, before Christmas, substantially below what we know is going to be the ultimate figure. And then would the gentleman tell me whether or not, if we could do that, whether or not the gentleman would require that it be offset.

And I yield to my friend.

Lastly, let me ask you: Mr. Nadler has a resolution. I'm not sure if Mr. Grimm and Mr. King are on the resolution, but I presume they're on the resolution as well. It's a bipartisan resolution expressing condolences to those who were devastated not only in terms of property but some, of course, lost family members and life, whether or not that resolution might be brought to the floor so that this House can express its regrets and condolences and sympathy with those who were so devastated.

I thank my friend.

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

Will the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I was in the cloakroom having some lunch, and I heard the gentlelady's comments. Most of us--a lot of us--went around this country listening to people as well as speaking on behalf of our respective candidacies and parties. What I heard around America was that they want people who will sit down together and try to solve the problems that confront America's families and America's workers.

I want to say to the gentlelady from Illinois, my experience with her, throughout her career, has been that she is one of those types of people. And I want to thank her. I want to thank her for her decency. I want to thank her for her hard work. I want to thank her for her commitment to country first. It's been a privilege to serve with you, Judy, and I look forward to being your friend for many years to come. I wish you great success in the future.

I wanted to say that because too often the public sees us confronting one another and sometimes being angry with one another, but you and I have had the opportunity to work together and I know the good heart that you have and the openness that you have displayed, and I thank you for that.

I thank the gentlelady.