Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, for yielding.

I, unfortunately, have not been able to listen to all of the debate, but I've listened to enough of it. This week we're playing let's pretend. We're playing the game of let's pretend that if we solve the process, we'll solve the problem.

There's an excellent article that I think everybody ought to read. Stan Collender, who is a real expert on the budget process and who has been involved in this budget process for a long, long period of time, quotes in an article that he wrote--that I hope most of you read--in Roll Call. He quotes Rudy Penner. Rudy Penner was the Director of CBO-- not a partisan individual, in my view--that I've had the opportunity of dealing with for some period of time. And his quote is: A process, no matter how well designed, cannot make difficult problems easy.

I think my friend, Paul Ryan, would agree with that. It's not the process that's the problem. The problem is we don't have the courage to make decisions which are clearly necessary for us to make, and no amount of jiggering around the edges is going to change that.

Now, as all of you know, I'm a strong supporter of a Bowles-Simpson approach to bringing our country to a fiscally sustainable path. Unlike many of you, I believe that revenues have to be part of that process and cuts have to be part of that process and restraints of entitlements have to be part of that process. I've been saying that for 2\1/2\ years now. It's somewhat controversial, but I have three children, three grandchildren, two great-grandchildren. If we don't do that, they're going to be hurting.

But, frankly, we ought not to pretend that the process is the problem. The problem is the problem, as Rudy Penner's said. The problem is the problem, and we ought to address it. And we ought to have the courage to tell the American people that it's not a question of process, not a question that we don't have the right process in place in Washington. The problem is we don't have the votes in Washington.

This Congress is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean we don't pass things. We do. But this week, frankly, what we're dealing with will not affect any of the significant problems that we have, whether it be jobs or fiscal responsibility.

So I'm opposed to this bill. Why? Because I think it's a let's pretend. It's a let's pretend that if you have $100 to spend on defense this year, that you can get that same defense for $100 next year. You can't.

You can't, and the American public knows that.

We talk about, well, we ought to operate like a family. Family understands that. They know their electricity bill goes up, and they know they can't get the same kind of heat this year or next year that they got last year because they know their electric bill has gone up, and they need to know what that is.

So what we said, the Congress said, we want a baseline budget. What does it cost to get that $100 of value next year? And so we get that.

The previous speaker I heard speaking--I don't know who it was; I apologize for that--said, you know, we ought to have an honest budget. Well, you can argue it's honest both ways. Either it's honest that that's what we spent last year, 100 bucks, or it's honest that, in order to do next year what we did last year, you need $101.50. Both of those are honest answers. Nobody ought to think that that's a dishonest answer.

The answer is: Do you want to know what you spent last year? Look at the budgets. Do you want to know what it would cost you to do the same thing? Then you get the baseline. So either one is honest. It's just a judgment.

But you're pretending that you're saving money by having that kind of budget. Baloney. Baloney. The only way you're going to save money is to have the courage to vote to do so.

My friend, Paul Ryan, is shaking his head. He and I have some significant disagreements, but very great respect, I hope, for one another. I know I have great respect for him.

I think we are advantageous as a country having Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Ryan, who are both very bright, able, committed people dealing with this. The trick is coming to agreement irrespective of process. It's substance that matters. The American public will be affected by the substantive judgments we make, not about whether we do it with a baseline budget or a static budget or dynamic scoring.

I don't believe in dynamic scoring. I think dynamic scoring is a liberal, radical idea. Why? Because it pretends something you don't know.

George Bush said we had $5.6 trillion we could rely on and therefore have very deep tax cuts. Didn't work out. I would much prefer to not use dynamic scoring and have more money than I thought I was going to have that I could apply either to reduction of the deficit or some other priority that I thought was important, rather than find out, oops, I was wrong on dynamic scoring, I have less money and I'm deeper in the hole. Now, you can differ on that, but that's my view.

I'd rather be conservative and say, Gee, I hope investing in infrastructure, cutting taxes, doing whatever you think is going to get better education is going to get you better results; I hope it does get better results. That's the purpose of investing in it. If it does, you're benefited if you didn't count on it because you have more than you thought you would. That's the place to be, not having less than you thought you would.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, to adopt reality. It cost us to do this yesterday, and now it cost us to do it today. I think that's a responsible, smart way to budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your light touch.

Will the gentleman yield?

I was just going to kid him that he's just now trying to get to things that we can all agree on.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Frankly, this issue is of such importance, it is a shame we don't have a lot of time to discuss it because I think in many respects we do agree.

Where we disagree, however, is when you say that body that is dysfunctional--the gentleman just referred to that. I kidded about it. Both parties are dysfunctional to the extent that we are not making determinations to spend just the money we have. We haven't done that for some period of time.

Yes. Not spending money we don't have.

From my perspective, we did that when we cut taxes. We didn't pay for that. It wasn't like we had a real surplus. We had a projected surplus. We banked on that; and as I said earlier, we lost on that proposition.

I suggest that whether or not, as I said, you use what you think is the bias towards not spending as opposed to a bias for spending, as someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we all know what will happen. The agency will come in and say this is what we are doing for 100 bucks, and this year we need 150 if you want us to continue to do that.

My point is the Congress has the authority to say, no, we want you to do less. It is the Congress' role to make priorities. I suggest to the gentleman it won't be easier for us to do it under either scenario because it is hard to do. I agree with the gentleman that we ought to do it.

I simply don't think this bill or any other bill will get us to that end if we do not have the courage and, your word, ``discipline,'' to effect that end.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the gentleman's comments. The gentleman is new to the Congress and probably doesn't have the background in terms of how this developed as to how we pay Federal employees.

As the sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990, signed by George Bush who worked with President Bush's OMB and OPM on this legislation, obviously one of the things we did was to say if the private sector doesn't get an increase, the public sector won't get an increase. We keyed the increases to the economic cost index, which is all to say that we need to tighten our belts when the private sector tightens their belts.

Which is why, as I think I caught the gentleman's reference, that over the last 2 years, Federal employees have in fact received cuts to existing law which will result in a $60 billion savings. I think the gentleman said that, but it bears repeating. It's not as if the Federal employees haven't tightened their belts. They have. In point of fact, the pay council to which he referred believes on average that Federal employees are in fact behind, not ahead.

Now, I'm aware of the CBO report that was just issued. Mr. Cummings has responded to that. Clearly, what they said is there is a disparity. Those on the lower end of the scale are doing better. Those on the upper end of the scale aren't doing so well. None of them are getting paid as much as the gentleman is who made this speech or that I'm getting. None of them are making as much as we are.

Now, what we have here is a very clever political effort to have Members vote either for their pay or against their pay being adjusted by a cost-of-living adjustment.

I'm going to vote against this bill. I am for bringing a bill to this floor which will freeze our salaries, and I would hope that a unanimous consent to do so would not be objected to on your side of the aisle. I've been for that for the last 2 years, and I have worked in a bipartisan way over the years not to demagogue Members and have Members get cost-of-living adjustment. The sponsor of this bill, as a matter of fact, is quoted as saying how much difficulty he's having supporting his family on his salary.

Now, the fact of the matter is we ought to put a bill on this floor and freeze our salaries. Federal employees have already contributed $60 billion of benefits to which they otherwise would have been entitled because we, for the last 2 years, with my support, have frozen their salaries at the cost-of-living adjustment.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would hope that the bill that is sponsored by Mr. Van Hollen, that there would not be an objection to a unanimous consent request to bring that bill to the floor so that Members could express that, yes, we're prepared to tighten our belts one more notch.

But what we should not do is pretend that we're going to balance the budget by undermining middle class workers, middle class workers who work for, in my opinion, the finest country on Earth and who give excellent service, extraordinary service to the people of this country, and who, per capita, are fewer than they were 20 years ago per capita.

The fact of the matter is that we ought to have a bill, we ought to pass Mr. Van Hollen's bill, we ought to take the politics out of this.

Then I tell my friends what we ought to do is we ought to pass a big deal. We ought to pass a $4 trillion to $5 trillion to $6 trillion big deal to get the fiscal house of the United States of America in order. It ought to include all things on the table including Federal employee pay and benefits, including the military pay and benefits and expenditures, and domestic expenditures, as well as entitlements. I've said that. That's what we

ought to do. We ought not to piecemeal it as this bill reflects.

I hope that we'll support Mr. Van Hollen's bill.

I thank the leader for yielding. I thank the Speaker for ensuring that we would have this opportunity to speak to our friend, Gabby Giffords. I thank the majority leader for his comments.

None of us on this floor are talented enough to summon the rhetoric that all of us feel in our hearts. We have young men and women arrayed on the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan and other troubled spots in the world. They are fighting for freedom and democracy, and too many of them are injured on those fields.

Our beloved colleague Gabby Giffords was injured on the field in the exercise of that democracy, and in being injured, she has become an example for us, for all Americans--and, indeed, all the world--of courage, of clarity of purpose, of grace, of responsibility, of a sense of duty, which she exercises this day.

I love Gabby Giffords. I was honored when she first ran for office, before she was elected, to go to her district, as I have done for so many others in this country, to stand by her side, to walk down the streets of her community with her, to see in her the beauty not only of person. Many of us see the outward visage of us all, but Gabby's beauty is in the heart, in the soul, in the spirit.

The House of Representatives of America has been made proud by this extraordinary daughter of this House who served so well during her tenure here, who felt so deeply about her constituents and cared so much for her country.

Gabby, we love you. We have missed you.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you were able to hear that response. As Gabby looked with that extraordinary smile, the twinkle in her eyes, she said to me and to all of us, ``I miss you.'' Do any of us doubt that that is the case?

Pia, we are blessed in this House to be served by extraordinary people, of which you are a perfect example, by people who love us but love their country even more, who serve our constituents so extraordinarily well, who evidence every day care for us and care for the work that we do, which we could not do, Pia, without people like yourself and all of your colleagues that we call staff. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, God has blessed Gabrielle Giffords, and he has sent a blessing to all of us in the person of Gabrielle Giffords. And God blessed Gabby as well with an extraordinary mom and dad and an extraordinary partner in life.

Mark, we owe you a debt of gratitude. Our country owes you a debt of gratitude. I look forward to the day when you and Gabby will be returning here, returned to full health and full ability to serve.

Gabby, America thanks you. It thanks you for the example that you have given of overcoming adversity, and doing so with a spirit unparalleled. God bless you and Godspeed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, according to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News, 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. I don't know that the other 16 percent are paying attention, because we're not doing our job well. And this certainly is not doing our job well. The reason it is not doing our job well is because it is a pretense, a sham. This legislation is to pay bills that we've already incurred. Whether, as the gentleman said, it was incurred with your votes or whether it was incurred with our votes, we have incurred those expenses. This is about whether America is going to pay its bills. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, the previous gentleman said nobody had done anything about the debt. In point of fact, we did do something about the debt. We put revenue at levels commensurate with our spending. As a result, in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 and 2001--in 1997 we brought the deficit down to $25 billion, and for the next 4 years, we had a surplus. Now a couple of those years were not real surpluses because we counted on Social Security revenue. But two of those years were real surpluses.

This is about whether we pay our bills that we have incurred. Not doing this would be irresponsible, and would lead, I think, to further disrespect by the public, and properly so. One of the reasons for this feeling by the public is that Americans are tired of political games. This is a political game. This is a game that will say, see, I voted against debt.

Now, let me tell you how you can vote against debt. When you cut taxes in 2001 and 2003--and I agree with my friend, it's not about blame. It is about learning, however. When we cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 under George Bush, we didn't pay for them. We pretended they would pay for themselves. They didn't. Alan Greenspan says they won't. We ought to learn from that.

Learning from that, we ought to say yes, we'll pay our debts. The President doesn't want this money. It's not for the President; it's for bills that we incurred in fighting two wars, in giving tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest in America, to passing a prescription drug program that frankly all of us now support, but we didn't pay for it. And as a result, we got deeply into debt. And we have to get out of that debt, and we have to show courage, wisdom, and hopefully intellectual honesty in getting to that.

The American public is tired of seeing Republicans spending time on votes simply because of electoral positioning. And, frankly, they'd be tired of us doing the same thing. But that's all this is. It's so we can say: Look what we voted for. This is not our debt, we voted against it. But that's not responsible, and it's not honest. And I think most of you know that.

The resolution before us today is simply another waste of time. More than that, it undermines confidence here and around the world. Some of that debt, of course, we owe to people around the world. It is the essence of political gamesmanship, and does nothing to reduce the debt or create jobs. And we spend a whole day on it. As a matter of fact, this is the only full day we are going to spend in January debating any issue.

Americans know that we ought to pay our bills. They know we reached a deal in August that said both parties will work together to address our deficits in a way that will provide certainty to our businesses, markets, and families around the dinner table.

Agreeing to this resolution would only provide more uncertainty at a time when our people need to see us working together on a big, balanced deal to meet our fiscal challenges. My friend and I are both for that effort. I am very much for that effort. But I don't pretend that not paying the bills that we have incurred is going to solve that problem. The only thing that's going to solve that problem is we're going to ask everybody to contribute their fair share. Yes, we're going to have to make some cuts. And we're going to have to make some cuts that neither side will like, and we're going to have to raise revenues that neither side will like.

But I will tell my friend who is waiting for his grandchildren, I have three grandchildren now, and I have two great grandchildren, and he's right; they are the ones who are going to have to pay this bill.

And I saw my young friend, a new Member from South Carolina, and I can't recall his name right this second.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I saw my young friend passionate about not passing these bills along to his children. I thought to myself, I could give that speech. But, very frankly, I voted against cutting taxes without paying for them. I voted against the AMT without paying for it. We paid for it when we set the AMT. I think it needs to be fixed, and we paid for it.

I will vote ``no'' on this resolution, which comes as no surprise after you've heard me talk, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. Why? America is disheartened because they do not believe we are honest in dealing with them. They believe we play political games. They believe that we are not addressing the issues they know are of importance and they know do not have easy, simplistic answers.

I hope Democrats who vote ``no'' are joined by a large number of Republicans, not because you like debt, not because any of us like debt. And, very frankly, I voted for the Clinton revenue increases in 1993, and the prediction on your side of the aisle was that it would destroy the economy, unemployment would spike, and the deficit would explode. None of that happened. You were wrong. All of us are wrong from time to time. Dead wrong.

As a matter of fact, we enjoyed the best economy I have seen in my adult life in the 1990s. And we have seen the worst recession in my life after pursuing the Bush policies for 8 years. Yes, we were in charge for the last 2, but we couldn't change policies because the President had the veto and a majority of the votes to sustain that veto on this floor.

So ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with the American people. We've all incurred a debt. We all spent the money. We drove on the roads, we were defended abroad, we invested in health care, research. We all incurred these debts. We know we need to solve it. We know that medicine will be tough. But honesty will make it easier, honesty between ourselves, honesty with the American people, and honesty, integrity and courage.

I hear around this country talk about Greece has a real problem. They are 128 percent, I think, in debt; we're only at about 100 percent. If you count our internal debt, it's less than that. But the problem that Greece has is they don't have the resources to solve their problem. America, the good news for us is we have the resources to solve our problems if we have the courage and political will to do so. This vote is a small token of showing that we have the courage, the wisdom and the political will to do so.

We need to pay our bills. Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Show the American people that we have courage, that we have wisdom, and we can have the political will to make America the continuing strongest country on the face of the Earth.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I want to thank him for his participation in addressing this issue. And frankly, in my opinion, he was one of the 100 signatories that we had saying let's get a big deal, we have to get a handle on this debt. I want to thank him. But I want to assure him as well, I've been here just a little longer than he has, this debate

has been going on for some period of time. This is not a new debate. With all due respect, it's been on this floor--I've been raising this issue for some 20 years, very frankly, others have as well on both sides of the aisle. The debate has been going on, but as I said, we need to summon the courage and political will to not just debate it, but to address it and address it effectively. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I know that the American people are pleased that we have come together to agree on this extension to give certainty and peace of mind to the 160 million Americans who are concerned about losing their tax cut, the 48 million seniors who were concerned about their Medicare, and the 2.3 million people who are unemployed and seeking work who were fearful of losing their benefits.

I thank the Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, and I withdraw my reservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

It is December 20, and the Republicans are using it as a day to dissemble, pretending to support a tax cut for working Americans while making it uncertain and delayed.

We, of course, as we all know, could pass the Senate bill by 2 o'clock today, send it to the President, and provide certainty to working Americans come January 1 that their taxes will not go up.

The choice, I suggest to all of you, is not between 60 days and 1 year, because at least we all say we're for 1 year--we are for 1 year, we will support a 1-year extension--but we know the Senate has been unable to agree. So they sent us back an agreement that they could agree on to give us 60 days to get to that 1 year.

Instead, House Republicans refuse to even bring the Senate's bipartisan compromise to the floor. Eighty-nine U.S. Senators voted for a compromise, and you will not bring it to the floor. You create uncertainty and anxiety among the public.

That is shameful and disappointing.

As a result, on January 1, if there is no agreement, those of you who vote to send this to conference today and against this motion to instruct will be responsible for 160 million Americans seeing their taxes increase next year, for 2.3 million people seeking jobs who will lose their unemployment lifeline by mid-February, and for 48 million Americans having their access to doctors placed in jeopardy.

Those are the stakes.

America thought we had an agreement this weekend. John McCain thought we had an agreement this Saturday--and yes, Speaker Boehner thought we had an agreement on Saturday. America thought there was reason to hope that middle class Americans would be spared this entirely preventable tax increase.

I tell you, my friends, if this were about the upper income tax increase, it would pass like lightning in your conference--like lightning. But no. This is about putting in jeopardy a middle class tax cut, and we could play political games with that. We're now witnessing the concluding convulsion of confrontation and obstruction in this most unproductive, Tea Party-dominated, partisan session of Congress. As a result, Speaker Boehner decided he wasn't for the agreement.

Now let me tell you what Speaker Boehner said 6 months ago, because there was a lot of talk about this 1-year extension. He called proposals to extend or expand the payroll tax cut at that point by a year ``another little short-term gimmick.''

Same rhetoric. Different circumstances. But both put at risk the middle class.

I yield myself an additional minute.

In Senate Republican Leader McConnell's own words, ``The compromise that you are rejecting today was designed to pass.''

In fact, the bill that you passed you knew was designed to fail. Because you knew it was going to fail, your Republican leadership in the Senate objected to its being considered on the floor of the United States Senate, just as you have refused to consider the Senate's compromise on this floor.

It did so in the Senate. That bill that was designed to pass, according to Senator McConnell, did so in the Senate with overwhelming support from 83 percent of Republicans and from every Democrat, including the entire Senate Republican leadership and the entire Democratic leadership.

Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are fighting to prevent a painful tax increase for the middle class. The way to do that is to pass the Senate compromise while we continue to work on a yearlong extension. That's what Senator Reid said he'll do, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're prepared to do, Mr. Speaker. But we don't want to put at risk January 1 coming and that tax cut disappearing. If they fail to pass the compromise, House Republicans will have to answer to the American people whose taxes will go up.

I yield myself an additional minute.

To the innocent unemployed and to the Medicare seniors who are seeking services from their doctors, we must not leave this work unfinished just days before the holidays and New Year. That's what the Senate did. They gave us time. They gave the American people time. We ought to be bringing relief to middle class families who are increasingly anxious about their futures during what should be a joyful and hopeful holiday season.

We ought to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. That's what this motion to instruct says. That's what the American people want to happen in Washington: to see us work together, come to agreement, act, bring certainty, stop the blame game. We can send the bipartisan agreement to the President today, and he will sign it.

Vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Vote for the American workers, the Medicare recipient, and the unemployed. Vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend from New York, Joe Crowley, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute for the purposes of inquiring of what the schedule will be as we go forward.

I thank the gentlelady for withdrawing her objection.

I have just been handed a--it may have been sent out earlier--a Members' advisory which says:

The House will be in session as necessary to consider a

conference report on H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief

and Job Creation Act of 2011.

The House's request for a conference will be transmitted to

the United States Senate this afternoon where it will await

the appointment of their conferees. To be clear, H.R. 3630

will physically reside in the Senate by the close of business

today.

It goes on to say, ``Members will be provided with at least 24 hours' notice prior to the House's next recorded vote.''

What I wanted to ask the majority leader is, does he expect his Members to go home this afternoon?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I understand the majority leader's position, but he didn't answer my question as to whether his Members intend to go home this afternoon.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's observations. I don't think I got an answer to the question. But having said that, if in fact an agreement is not reached prior to, say, the middle of next week, is the House prepared to preclude the eventuality of 160 million people losing their tax cut? Are you prepared to preclude the possibility of 48 million people losing their Medicare benefits? Are you prepared to preclude 2.3 million people losing their unemployment insurance by acting on an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement that was reached in the United States Senate?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, while there is clearly a difference in this House on a number of things, one of the things that I don't think we differ on is a lack of confidence that the Senate will do its job. I don't think we differ on that greatly because our experiences show us differently. So that what I'm asking the gentleman is that we do not put at risk the 160 million people who are expecting their tax cut to continue, the 48 million seniors who want access to their doctors, and the 2.3 million people who are going to go off unemployment, contingent upon whether the Senate acts as the gentleman wants it to. I will tell you my experience has not been great confidence that that will happen.

I will tell the gentleman further, we have tried to prepare for that contingency. We have introduced a bill with 170 cosponsors which adopts the compromise agreement so that we will give that certainty of which the gentleman speaks, allay the anxiety which we know exists, and give to those 160 million people the certainty that they will get the tax cut, the 48 million the certainty they will have access to their doctors, and the 2.3 million the certainty that they will not be kicked off the unemployment rolls so they won't be able to support themselves and their families.

I ask my friend if he will be prepared to bring that bill to the floor if in fact the Senate doesn't act.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago the Speaker said that he thought the 1-year extension of the middle class tax cut was a short-term gimmick. He said that 6 months ago of the year extension. So we're somewhat concerned about the commitment to a 1-year extension. But that aside, let me say to my friend that one of the problems I'm worried about is, A, whether we can get this work done in the next 14 days because we know that even if we had a conference, they take a long time. There are very significant differences between us. In fact, we have compromised on something that you indicated in our colloquies about a week ago was very important, and that was the Keystone bill, which your side believes will create a significant number of jobs. That of course is in the bill that the Senate

sent us, because even though the Democratic majority was not for it, they cared enough about the middle class tax cut to compromise.

Unfortunately, I will tell my friend, too often we have seen on this floor unwillingness to compromise, even on your bills. We had a CR on the floor on March 15; unfortunately, 54 of your Members walked away from that. On April 15, we had a continuing resolution to keep the government open; 59 Republicans walked away from that. On June 23, you left the Biden talks. On July 22, Speaker Boehner walked away from the debt limit negotiations with he and the President. On August 1, 66 Republicans walked away on the debt limit extension, which was your bill--not ours, your bill. On November 17, some 101 Republicans walked away from passing an appropriations bill which would keep three agencies funded. On December 16, 86 Republicans walked away from the bill to fund the balance of government. So I might say to my friend, it seems to me what we're doing today is walking away today from those 160 million people, walking away from those 48 million seniors, and walking away from those 2.3 million unemployed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we walked away from 160 million Americans and put their tax cut at risk. We walked away from 48 million Americans and put their access to doctors at risk, and we walked away from 2.3 million unemployed.

Frankly, when President Bush asked us to stabilize the financial markets, two-thirds of his own party walked away. On December 3, they walked away from Bowles-Simpson. On March 15, 54 Republicans walked away from continuing government funding. On April 14, 59 Republicans walked away from their bill to continue funding of the government.

On June 23, their majority leader walked out on the Biden talks. On July 22, Speaker Boehner walked out on the talks he had with President Obama. On August 1, 66 Republicans walked away from making sure America pays its bills. On November 17, 101 Republicans walked away from the appropriation bill for three of our Departments. That was a Republican bill they walked away from.

On November 21, Republicans walked away from the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

The Walkaway Caucus should not have put at risk working Americans in this country today.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding.

I rise in support of this legislation.

This ought to be a lesson for us in some humility. I was the majority leader. Had I, as majority leader, brought that bill that sits on that floor, 1,207 pages, within the last 24 hours to the floor, I think the response from that side of the aisle would have been harsh, accusatory, and not helpful.

Now, why do I say that? Because it happened. And it ought to be a portion of humility for all of us to understand the legislative process is difficult. We bring different views and we represent different constituencies and we have different priorities.

I rise in strong support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. None of them have read it. Not one of us has read every page of this bill. I see the chairman raising his hand, and I take him at his word. That means 434 of us will have to rely on his advice and counsel. And I'm sure Mr. Dicks has read it as well. My point is we work by committees, as President Wilson said, and we've worked hard on this bill through the year.

My Republican colleagues, during the course of the last election, said, We're going to bring bills one at a time to the floor and consider them. The Labor-Health bill that is included in a substantial portion of those pages, not only has it not been brought to the floor, it didn't pass the subcommittee. Nor the full committee. Nor this floor.

But this bill has been worked on carefully, and I want to congratulate Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks and all of the subcommittee chairs for working out the differences that we had so we could do what the American people expect us to do--come to agreement on a bill that none of us perceives as perfect but perceive as a positive step for our country.

I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Yes, it will keep government open, which is essential; but it will also do the most fundamental job that this Congress has to do every year, and that is to fund appropriately the priorities that this Congress puts before the country.

In closing, let me congratulate my friend, Hal Rogers from Kentucky, with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee for over two decades, and Mr. Dicks, with whom I have served every day of my congressional career. Both are decent, hardworking, conscientious Representatives. They and their subcommittee chairs and ranking members have come together to present this product.

It is time to act. It is time to act positively. I will, when the roll is called, be supporting this piece of legislation.

Will my friend yield?

Just to clarify, it is my understanding, therefore, that we do intend, before we leave for the year, to address the House-passed bill or a Senate version thereof.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to join her in saying that there were some minuses in this bill, and the minuses in this bill historically have been, as it relates to the District of Columbia, that the Congress has treated the District of Columbia as its own possession as opposed to an independent political jurisdiction that has been granted home rule, and the Congress ought to honor that home rule.

As we urge democracies around the world or dictatorships around the world to honor the views of their people, the Congress of the United States ought to honor the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia. I always lament when we put in these individual provisions.

I also want to say to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia how outstanding a job she does representing this jurisdiction in which we have the Capital of our country, the only capital of a free world country whose citizens do not have a representative in their parliament who has the authority and privilege of voting.

It's a lamentable fact that Mrs. Norton, who is speaking to us this afternoon, does not have that vote, and all of us ought to recognize that it's a blight on our democracy. But I congratulate her on representing the District of Columbia in such an extraordinarily positive fashion even without the vote. And it would be awesome what she could do, in addition to that, with the vote.

And I rise, as well, to make a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, about the business that is pending before this Congress. We have passed an omnibus appropriation bill, this bill that is on the desk here, 1,207 pages, reported out last night, a conference report. I urged support of that bill. But it was not, of course, consistent with the pledges that were made to do appropriations bills discretely, that is, one after another. It's difficult to do that, unfortunately. It's the way we should do it, but we didn't do it this year, and we haven't done it in years past under Democratic and Republican leadership.

But I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we have some critically unfinished business pending in the Congress of the United States. We passed a bill here through the House some days ago which provided for the extension of the payroll tax cut that we gave to 160 million Americans last year. Our economy is still not as robust as we want it to be, and the President of the United States has said let's continue that tax cut for middle-income Americans. We have not done that yet. And, unfortunately, the bill that we passed through the House had items in it that obviously the Senate did not agree with. The majority leader tried to put that bill on the floor for consideration by the Senate, and the minority leader objected to that consideration, so it has not moved.

In addition to the middle class tax cut, we must not leave Washington without providing for an extension of the unemployment insurance. This great Nation, this wealthy Nation, should not abandon those who cannot find work through no fault of their own. If we do not act, then a million Americans may go off unemployment insurance and not have money to feed themselves, to assist in feeding their families, pay their housing bills and continue to afford to look for work. In the month of February, another 2 million will find themselves similarly situated.

Lastly, we must pass an extension of the compensation of doctors who are serving Medicare patients. That is critical to do so that we can assure medical treatment for our seniors. There's not a Member of Congress who wants to see that happen, or at least none who say they want to see it happen.

So I want to join Ms. Norton as we stand here today as we are leaving for the weekend, but I also want to call the House's attention to a concern that I have. The majority leader, Eric Cantor, announced to us the schedule this afternoon and said that we would not be meeting today, later in the day, after our business, which is now concluded, that we would not be meeting on Saturday or Sunday, and that we may come back on the 19th, which is Monday.

Now, one of the things I was concerned about is that he said on the floor that it is difficult to predict if or when we need to return. Now, he meant by that that he wasn't sure when the Senate was going to act. I understand his meaning. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the American people will demand that we return and that they will demand that we act before we adjourn sine die, before we conclude this first session of the Congress.

Yes, Christmas is coming, Hanukkah, Kwanza and other celebrations, but there will be no celebration for those people who cannot find work and who believe that the support system that this country has extended to them will be ripped out from under them.

So I am here on the floor to join my colleague in talking about the omnibus appropriation bill to say that I'm pleased that we passed it. It will keep our government operating. It has not yet passed, but hopefully in the next 48 hours the Senate will have acted--hopefully in the next 24--on the conference report, and we'll get it ready to send it to the President.

I am very hopeful that all 435 Members of this House and that all 100 Members of the United States Senate are committed to the proposition that we will not leave this town and that we will not abandon our responsibilities to assure the adoption of the three measures which I have referenced.

The middle class tax cut will affect 160 Americans. I frankly think we should pay for that with a slight surcharge, not a sacrifice, just an additional contribution by some of the best off in America, not because of class warfare but because they want, I'm sure, to help their fellow citizens who need help.

We are committed to the proposition that we will not leave here without making sure that that middle class tax cut continues, that unemployment insurance is available and that doctors will be compensated.

So I thank the gentlelady for yielding for this comment. And in closing, let me say that I wear a yellow ribbon. There's a great song called ``Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Ole Oak Tree.'' We wear that yellow ribbon for the troops that have been overseas defending freedom in harm's way. We wear that yellow ribbon to remind them of how pleased we are that so many of them are coming home.

The President has met his commitment to end our participation in the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. We welcome them home. We honor them for their service. And we pledge to them our continuing care for their needs resulting from their service.

And I thank the gentlelady for yielding this time to call our attention to the important work that is yet to be done in this first session of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, yesterday we passed a Defense authorization bill. That Defense authorization bill had a 1.6 percent increase for our military personnel. That was an appropriate thing for us to do.

However, at the same time we are looking at reducing very substantially the pay and benefits available to our civilian Federal employees. Madam Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern that this Congress continues to ask one group to sacrifice to bring down our Nation's deficit while not asking others to contribute as well.

That one group are average working Americans. Now, they work for the Federal Government, some perhaps the State and local governments. And there is an antipathy towards government by many, many of the public, many Members of this House. That antipathy is, therefore, focused on the workers. But we have substantially fewer Federal employees today than we had 20 years ago, not only in terms of real numbers but in terms of per capita, where the population has substantially expanded and the number of Federal employees per person to be served has been substantially reduced.

With all of the challenges we face today on a national scale, we ought to ensure that those who help devise solutions and carry them out receive the recognition they are due. We talk a good game on this floor; but, very frankly, we turn it over to employees to carry out our policies. We don't do that. They do it.

They should not be constantly subjected to the kind of verbal attacks and legislative assaults we have seen over the last couple of years and that are included in the bills that have passed this House just this past week. I am speaking, of course, about America's public servants.

Those who work in civilian government positions are no less important to our safety, health, prosperity, and general well-being than their military counterparts who protect our freedom.

I honor our troops. I will be wearing a yellow ribbon later today to welcome home those troops who have fought to protect country, defeat terrorists, and stabilize the international community. They have blessed America with their courage and their commitment and their service.

But Federal civilian employees make certain that the products we buy and the prescription drugs we use are safe. They perform critical research to advance the fight against cancer and other diseases. They help our farmers and ranchers access new markets for their goods. They see millions of passengers travel safely across our skies and keep watch over our ports and border crossings. They ensure a fair playing field for banks and businesses and enforce the rules we have in place to preserve the health of our air and water from pollution.

So many of the public functions we often take for granted are the purview of the hardworking men and women who constitute our Federal workforce. They're middle class Americans, working Americans, who have, in many cases, chosen to serve their country by lending their talents and skills--some for a short time, others for their entire careers.

As an American, I am proud of the work they do, and as a Member of Congress from Maryland, I am proud to represent a great number of them in this House. But for those who believe that most or even a significant number of our Federal workers live here in Washington, Maryland and Virginia, let me set the record straight. Eighty-five percent of Federal employees live and work somewhere other than the Washington metropolitan area--85 percent. They provide essential services to neighbors and communities in all 50 States and every single one of our districts.

Everything must be on the table when addressing the budget. And by the way, I put on the table a zero COLA adjustment 2 years ago sitting in the White House around the table, having talked to leaders of our Federal employees. I said, look, we need to tighten our belt. Americans are having trouble, we have a lot of our neighbors out of work, we need to tighten our belt, and we took a zero percent. We have taken it 2 years in a row, a $60 billion contribution already by Federal employees--$60 billion. We say we can't raise a nickel of additional taxes from the most well off in America, but we can take $60 billion from average working men and women in this country. Everything must be on the table.

I'm deeply disappointed, however, that we continue to attack these public servants unfairly and single them out. Now when I say ``we,'' I mean the Republican bills that have been offered on this floor and have been discussed.

When middle class families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, Federal employees have already accepted a 2-year pay freeze. That was appropriate. That was acceptable. But continuing assault on just one segment is not. This comes on top of salaries that are already lower than those for comparable private-sector jobs. Let me repeat that because there is a prejudice that somehow Federal employees are vastly overpaid. In fact, the Federal Salary Council's annual report last month found that Federal workers are paid, on average, 26.3 percent less than comparable private sector jobs.

Now some people don't understand that because what we ask our Federal employees to do requires for the most part high skills. We have a lot of engineers, scientists, and doctors at NIH, at Goddard NASA and in the FBI, highly skilled, highly educated people, a 26.3 percent differential in pay for comparable work that is done in the private sector.

Now most of you who, many of you are sitting there, and perhaps our viewers, are saying, oh, no, that's not true, I know it's not true, because I see what the average salaries are. What they don't see are the average requirements for skills.

Madam Speaker, America's public servants are already making a contribution because they loved this country and recognized that when times are tight, everyone--everyone--everyone has to pitch in, even the best off in America. A belief in smaller government does not grant one license to diminish the contribution made by those who serve in government. If we cut government and need less people to run it, that makes sense.

But what does not make sense is to undermine the ability to recruit and retain the quality of people that we need to continue to make this country, in partnership with the private sector, the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We must always remember that we are blessed, as Lincoln said, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people, that this is us together, the one who serves and the one who benefits from that service. It is the bond of a neighbor and that of a fellow American. Let us remember that. Yes, we need to tighten the belt in a notch. We need to make sure that we are on a fiscally sustainable path. But let us do so in a way that has everybody contribute, not just an unfavored few who serve us well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill.

We are now in overtime. The scheduled date for ending this session was December 8. That date, of course, was substantially later than we normally suggest ending the session. Notwithstanding that fact, we did not meet that deadline.

In the Pledge to America, our Republican colleagues, when they were running for office to seek the majority--which they got--they pledged to America that they would not put nongermane items in must-pass bills. That, apparently, was a campaign pledge not to be honored in practice. In the Pledge to America, they also said that we needed to do appropriation bills one after another. That, apparently, was a pledge to be honored during the campaign but not in practice.

So we have ourselves confronted with a bill that must pass. We must not leave this city and our responsibilities without extending unemployment insurance. We must not leave Washington, D.C., for this holiday season, delivering a block of coal in the stockings of our constituents by failing to continue the tax cut from their payroll taxes. And we must not leave Washington, D.C., without affecting a continuation of the proper reimbursement of doctors to ensure that Medicare patients will be able to get their doctors' services.

We have three items to focus on to get done and nine appropriation bills. Now one of those appropriation bills has not even been reported out of subcommittee in this House, the Labor-Health bill. It hasn't been considered by the subcommittee. It hasn't been considered by the full committee. It hasn't been considered by this House. So we have a lot of business to do in essentially the next 72 hours.

What are we confronted with? We are confronted with a bill of over 350 pages, filed just a few days ago. We have heard a lot about reading the bills. I would be shocked if any Member has read this bill, shocked.

By contrast, the bill that was so criticized, the Affordable Care Act, was up for review for over a year, hundreds of hearings and essentially thousands of meetings around this country. This has not had a single town meeting, a single hearing, and a single perspective around this country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So, my Tea Party friends, I am sure you lament the fact and think this bill ought not be passed. But I haven't seen you. I haven't heard you. I haven't gotten a letter from you.

I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I have demonstrated throughout this year that when we had the opportunity to work together, I worked to get the votes so that together, we could pass legislation that was necessary to run this country. So I don't take a back seat to anybody in this Chamber willing to work together in a bipartisan fashion. But this bill was not worked together in a bipartisan fashion. This bill seeks to poke a finger in the eye of the President of the United States, who has said, I will veto this bill, not because of the three things that I said were absolutely essential but because of something that is not essential to pass. Now the majority leader lamented last week that this would create 5,000 jobs if we passed the Keystone pipeline project. But a bill that would create at least a million jobs, the American Jobs Act, lays languishing in the bowels of the committee.

So I can conclude. Yes, the gentleman asked for regular order. I lament the fact that we are not pursuing regular order. We could act in a responsible, bipartisan fashion to accomplish the three objectives I set forth and the appropriations bills; but, no, we're playing politics. We're pandering to a base. We're having a pretense that this bill can pass. It cannot.

Let us defeat this bill and then let us come together in a responsible fashion as the American public wants us to do and act on their behalf, not on the behalf of our politics.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for yielding. I also want to thank him and my dear friend Ileana Ros- Lehtinen for their leadership on this bill. I know that Mr. Berman, in particular, is very focused on the central bank and sanctioning of them, and so I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, last month the IAEA released a report on Iran's covert nuclear program that was troubling, to say the least. Not only is Iran continuing to enrich uranium, but they're also believed to be pursuing the development of delivery technologies to create a warhead that could threaten Israel and our allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf, not to mention the over 200,000 Americans that are in the region.

On top of these dangerous risks, Iran's continued nuclear development runs the risk, of course, of launching a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Indeed, just last week, a former Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, confirmed our worst fears, suggesting that his country might begin to pursue a nuclear capability in response to Iranian nuclear development.

Iran has continued its sponsorship of terrorism against our ally, Israel, and carries out gross human rights abuses against its own people. Sanctions against Iran's energy, transportation, and financial sectors are intended to, and I believe, will make clear to Iran the steep costs of its choices. That is why I am in strong support of this resolution, the Iran Threat Reduction Act and the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both.

We know from history that ignoring the threats of leaders, ignoring their building up of capabilities to threaten the rest of the world, is done so at great peril and at great cost.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation. I thank Mr. Berman and Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader to inquire about the schedule for the week to come, let me say I join with the gentleman from Virginia, and I know certainly Mr. Cantor, who also represents Virginia, but the entire country as

well. We don't know the facts yet. We don't know exactly what's happened. But the information I have is that two people may well have lost their lives at this point in time. We certainly want to send our deepest sympathies to Virginia Tech and to the families that are affected by this incident and hope sincerely that there is no further loss of life.

On that issue, let me yield to the majority leader, who I know will want to say something as well.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership on the Hackathon event that occurred yesterday.

He and I both had the opportunity to address a large number of--over 250, I think--individuals who were there who will, in fact, bring their expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman referenced as making our institution more accessible and transparent to our citizens. We all believe, I think, that doing that will make the products that we produce better and make citizens better able to make judgments on the work that we do.

So I want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership on this effort. We were glad to join in that.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the unemployment insurance, the payroll tax issue, which will continue to give the middle class tax cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment, which will keep millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the physician adjustment are scheduled next week. It's my understanding that that bill has not been filed yet.

Can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be filed?

I thank the gentleman for that comment.

I have had discussions with the gentleman, and with Mr. McCarthy in particular--and also briefly with the Speaker--that we are certainly prepared to participate in discussions leading towards a successful passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension, which we believe are critical before we end this year. So we're pleased to see that legislation moving forward. But I will tell my friend that I would be pleased to participate in discussions with him so that we can assure that that bill will in fact pass and, hopefully, pass in a bipartisan fashion.

I want to tell the gentleman that I'm a little bit concerned, and I want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. I think I used this quote last week, but it bears repeating. Speaker Boehner said:

We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

That was in the Republican Pledge as well, and the Speaker has reiterated that at the beginning of this session.

Now, I am concerned because Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio is quoted in The Washington Post as saying the following:

``The fact the President doesn't like it''--the ``it'' referring to the Keystone pipeline provision, which we understand is under discussion. I'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded. But he again quoted, ``The fact that the President doesn't like it makes me like it even more . . . said of the GOP leadership proposal as he left Thursday morning's closed-door meeting.''

I will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session. We are hopeful, as I have said--and as we have demonstrated on the two CRs and the debt extension and on the minibus appropriation bill that we passed--that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to assist in passing must-pass legislation and would hope very much that we don't put controversial items in that. The President has clearly annunciated that he will veto a bill that has the Keystone pipeline.

I will say, as my friend clearly knows, there is bipartisan concern-- as a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska, a Republican, and the Republican legislature, which although nominally nonpartisan, as the gentleman knows, is two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, have all voted to delay this project because of their concern about the aquifer and the impact that the Keystone pipeline, as currently platted, will have in reference to the aquifer, so that there is a bipartisan concern.

As the gentleman knows, as a result of Nebraska's passing legislation which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative siting of the Keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them 5 to 6 to 7 months, as a result, the President indicated they would give time to the Nebraska Governor and the Nebraska Legislature--again, Republican organs--to look at that, has given them

additional time and said he won't act until the beginning of 2013.

I ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision--I understand what Mr. Jordan says. It may be a nice political gesture, but I would hope that that would not be the kind of provision that would be included in the legislation, whether it's individual bills or a comprehensive bill, including those three items that hopefully we can pass in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield to my friend.

If I may, I thought I did make the point.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

I will say this, though, it seems inconsistent, when the President of the United States yesterday said he would veto such a provision, that we would include it in legislation that is must pass.

By the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will provide for 100 times as many jobs; so, therefore, we're for that. Some 500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance.

In addition to that, I tell my friend, the President has offered a jobs bill. I know that you're concerned about jobs. The pipeline bill, in and of itself, is about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs over the lifetime of the pipeline. The jobs bill, economists tell us, is 1 million jobs, or 200 times as many jobs. Notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been languishing since September and not brought to this floor.

So it seems to me that, if we are really interested--and I think you are--in extending unemployment insurance and providing for a continued tax cut for middle-income Americans and for providing for the payment of doctors who are serving Medicare patients, that we not include in that bill an item that apparently is popular on your side just because the President doesn't like it, according to Mr. Jordan.

I think that's not the way we ought to be operating. The last 7 days of the session, or 5 days, 6 days, 7, assuming we went through Sunday, we shouldn't be doing that, I suggest respectfully to my friend, the majority leader, because it will simply put us back into the situation the American public doesn't want us in, and that's confronting one another, playing chicken with one another, bringing us to the precipice of defeat and lack of success.

The public doesn't want us there. We shouldn't want us there. And I would urge the gentleman not to include items, as I have urged you with respect to the appropriation bills that also must be passed. That's not in this list, but you did mention it, of course, in the announcement, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks have been working hard, and others have been working hard to get our appropriations bills done.

We have urged that we not put controversial items in that, and we showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the minibus, and 165 Democrats joined 135 Republicans to pass that legislation.

So, again, I would urge the gentleman to, if he feels strongly about that, and I know that he feels--he said labor is for that bill. Labor is for that bill. I think I'm for that bill, I want the gentleman to know. So this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill.

I am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. I think that's a legitimate concern. But I think that that oil is going to be drilled no matter what we do. It seems to me that it's better for us to have it than for others to have it and have that availability.

But having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the President has already said I don't agree with that is simply playing chicken on legislation that's very important.

If the gentleman wants to comment on that, I would be glad to yield to him.

I thank the gentleman. I was quoting, not imputing. Mr. Jordan's comments seem to be pretty clear.

Before we conclude, the STOCK Act, Tim Walz had a bill that was ready for markup in the committee. We understand that was pulled.

As you know, that bill has 220 cosponsors and is a bipartisan sponsorship. It simply says that Members should not use insider information to trade with, information the general public may not have about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the floor. And I understand that was pulled. I think that was unfortunate.

Can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of legislation is?

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

As he knows, Congressman Walz has been working hard on this, and I know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the committees of jurisdiction; and I will certainly be able to work with you as well on this issue because, as I say, Congressman Walz has worked very hard on this.

I think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no Member of Congress ought to be using insider information to trade in the stock market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock market. So I thank the gentleman for his comments, look forward to working with him and, again, in closing, hope that we can reach bipartisan agreement on so many major pieces of legislation that we need to pass prior to leaving this.

I will tell the gentleman I hope his side agrees, my side will not want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment, until such time as we act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts.

I yield back the balance of my time.