Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2061, the Former Charleston Naval Base Land Exchange Act, introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham. Congressman Clyburn and I introduced the companion to this legislation in the House, and I want to thank both Mr. Clyburn and Senator Graham for their support on this land swap.

Our bill simply authorizes a land swap between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the South Carolina State Ports Authority. The 25 acres DHS would receive are in the middle of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center campus and are currently leased from the Ports Authority. In exchange for this land, the Ports Authority would receive 10.5 acres of vacant DHS land to build an access road between Interstate 26 and the new container terminal under construction.

This is a commonsense solution that is a win for both parties involved, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Thank you, Congressman Clarke.

Let me just thank Mr. Clarke for focusing on the issue of education and, specifically, the issue of literacy. I will say that as a kid growing up in a single-parent household myself, living in poverty, I did not value education as a youngster. And so by the time I was in high school, I was flunking out. I failed the ninth grade. I failed world geography, civics, Spanish, and English. When you fail Spanish and English, they don't consider you bilingual. They may call you ``bi- ignorant.''

And that's where I found myself, because I had lost hope in life. I had a mother who believed strongly in the power of education. And because of her discipline, her involvement, and her focus, I found the path back towards prosperity, which started with education. And as chairman of the county council a few years ago, I recognized that the incarcerated population of Charleston County was highly represented by young people, mostly men, who were functionally illiterate, coming from single-parent households and living in poverty, as I did.

So the value of education cannot be overemphasized enough, and the necessity of public-private partnerships to address this issue is an absolute necessity because our Nation faces a crisis.

Mr. Clarke, I would say that without any question the issue of education is not an African American issue; it's not an Hispanic issue. It is an American issue. It is an American tradition that for all access in this Nation, the power of freedom comes from the power of education. And we stand here together as one of the more conservative Members of the House and certainly one of the more liberal Members of the House focusing on the same problem. We may not even agree on all the paths to solving this problem, but we can agree on the necessity of addressing the issue of literacy. And if we can work together finding paths for the American people to focus their attention, finding paths for Congress to focus our attention, we find paths to the solution.

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my friends on the left need some clarification on why we are here this afternoon. This is not a good day for America, and it is certainly still not a good day for the Terry family.

My friends on the left continue to talk about this as if it were a witch hunt--a witch hunt. We have a slain Border Patrol agent, and my friends on the left want to politicize this by talking about a witch hunt when in fact we all know that this, Mr. Speaker, is about justice. This is about justice.

My friend on the left just said that we Republicans refuse to hear ``yes,'' we refuse to accept ``yes'' as an answer. Well, Mr. Speaker, we want a ``yes'' for Kent Terry, we want a ``yes'' for Josephine Terry, the parents of Brian Terry. We want a ``yes'' for the American people. We want a ``yes'' as it relates to the integrity of the process, and we want a ``yes'' for justice. And, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the left continue to consistently say ``no.''

We are here, Mr. Speaker, for only two reasons. The first is because United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is dead because of a Federal Government operation that allowed American guns to be walked across the border in the hands of drug lords and cartels. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because the Department of Justice; the Attorney General, Eric Holder; and now the President refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas that will give us clarity on these questions, give us clear answers for the Terry family and for the American people.

We have been trying for 18 long months to get to the bottom of this issue, and yet we are being stonewalled.

Yes, we hear that the Federal Government has provided 7,000-plus pages; but, Mr. Speaker, there are over 100,000 pages that we have requested. We are talking about a period from February 4, 2011, to December 2011, where we were given false information. It is our responsibility, it is our duty to find the truth for the American people and the Terry family.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying, how are we supposed to protect and ensure the safety of our Border Patrol agents in the future if we do not know who allowed the guns to walk across the border? How are we supposed to give Brian Terry's family any sense of closure, Mr. Speaker? This is why we have no choice but to be here today. The refusal of the Attorney General to provide answers regarding Brian Terry's death leaves us no choice but to be here today.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 679 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 679 provides for consideration of H.R. 436, a bill to repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices enacted as part of the President's health care law. It also provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The legislative branch appropriations rule is typically the only structured rule in the appropriations process, and we are continuing that bipartisan tradition here today.

We are voting here today to stand up for more than 423,000 American employees and the health of millions that their work protects. A new $29 billion tax on medical devices, passed as part of the President's health care package, threatens to stifle innovation in the health care industry. If medical device manufacturers are punished with this new tax, we are all punished. Our health is punished. Our parents' health is punished. Our kids' health is punished.

Yesterday, I talked with one of my constituents, Dan Denson, who owns a medical device company in Summerville, South Carolina. He shared two concrete examples of how this new tax will hurt his company, the health care industry, and most importantly, it will hurt those in need of medical care.

For Dan's home health company the profit margin is about 10 percent. That profit is used to pay their employees, improve technology, and expand when it's needed. So if you cut into it by 2.3 percent, you're cutting into their ability to create better devices that then provide better care for patients.

As Dan put it, ``I can assure you that any additional impact to our cash flow will reduce the money available for innovation.

Dan also talked to me about his fellow medical device companies who make the hoses for oxygen tanks and other devices which make life bearable for so many Americans. They are absolutely dependent on these devices. And what happens when we add a 2.3 percent tax to these smaller companies? Well, these companies work on a margin of around 3 percent. So you don't have to be a math major to figure out that when you have a 3 percent profit margin and you have a new 2.3 percent tax, you are pretty close to zero.

You simply cannot afford to run a business in this environment. You certainly cannot start a new business in this environment. We're not only hurting our medical device companies, we're also discouraging new entrepreneurs and innovators from being able to enter the ring.

I felt it was so important to share Dan's thoughts today, as it shows in clear terms how this new tax will not only affect Americans' wallets, but it could impact the health of Americans in this country.

If our medical device manufacturers cannot continue to adapt and move forward with new and better technologies, our medical care system will slow down right alongside it.

Because of innovation, life expectancy in the United States has increased by more than 3 years from 1986 to 2000, and the burden of chronic diseases representing more than 70 percent of the overall health care cost has been reduced. This tax affects devices ranging from cardiac defibrillators to artificial joints to MRI scanners, or, in plainer terms, the very devices that identify and treat patients in their time of need, and even those devices that could save lives. These days, technology is improving every single day.

Why in the world would we want to put our innovators at a disadvantage? Why in the world would we want to take another $29 billion worth of investments out of our future, out of our health care industry and put it in the hands of this government? There's no good answer to these questions, and there's no good reason for another new tax.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting and almost hilarious that my friend to the left would talk about tax increases when in fact embedded in this health care bill is $123 billion in new taxes on property owners. Really? $123 billion of new taxes on property owners in addition to the $29 billion new tax they were talking about today, in addition to eliminating $500 billion from Medicare in order to fund this health care plan.

I think the conversation about tax increases is a conversation we could spend a day on, and we'd be happy to have that conversation. But today, I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Sessions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing consistently that somehow a tax that isn't a tax is now considered a tax, so the notion of recapturing overpayments from health care subsidies should not be considered a tax. It should be considered being honest and fair. So let me say it one more time: that requiring people to return money not correctly given to them is not a tax increase; it is a matter of honesty and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

My assumption is my friends to the left truly believe if you say it often enough, it might become true. Even if it doesn't become true, if you say it often enough, perhaps someone watching will assume that the words being spoken are somehow true.

We've heard it several times in the last hour, things that have been said over and over again because we are obviously once again in an election year. After hearing the arguments made by the other side regarding the previous question, there is no doubt that we are in an election year.

To clarify, any future changes in benefits to Social Security or Medicare would also and always apply to Members of this body. There are no exceptions, Mr. Speaker, no, not one exception whatsoever. There are no carve-outs in the law giving special treatment to Members of Congress under Social Security or Medicare.

But if you say it often enough, perhaps someone, somewhere watching somewhere in this Nation will come to the conclusion that it must be right. Let me say it one more time.

Members of Congress will comply with the law as it is on Social Security and Medicare.

Secondly, we have heard consistently over and over again--and this is another part of that alternate universe that doesn't exist unless you want someone to believe something that is simply not true--that somehow recapturing overpayments of health care subsidies is now considered a tax. I would say that at a time when we face a $16 trillion debt, we cannot afford to not recapture all the money owed to the Federal Government.

My friends on the left want people to believe that if you recapture the dollars that were given inappropriately that somehow, some way this becomes a tax increase. Let me say it just in case folks listening didn't understand the words that I was speaking.

Requiring people to return money not correctly given to them, this is not a tax, and it certainly is not a tax increase. It is simply a matter of honesty and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the health care bill that took $500 billion from Medicare. We're talking about the health care bill that takes $500 billion out of the pockets of everyday, average middle class Americans in the form of tax increases. There is one tax increase on those folks who own property, $123 billion through a new 3.8 percent tax. Today we find ourselves in the position of repealing a $29 billion medical device tax because the people who need the medical devices will end up paying that tax.

I think we are in a position today, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that over 423,000 Americans who are employed in this country are able to continue to work. I believe that we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the

health care of millions of Americans continues to be a critical part of the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a place to make sure that new taxes, $29 billion of new taxes, don't continue to destroy American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to vote for the rule but to vote for the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on his inauguration on May 20th, 2012.

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is the first nation in the ethnic Chinese world where democracy has taken root. Today Taiwan celebrates freedom and democracy. We hope China will one day transform itself into a democratic and free country based on the example set by Taiwan.

For the past four years, under the leadership of President Ma, the relationship between Taiwan and China has improved dramatically, with increased economic and cultural exchanges as well as reduced military tension across the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan and the United States have always had a strong partnership, built on cooperation, trust and shared values. In 1979 the U.S. Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. While the U.S. and Taiwan do not have formal ties, relations between the two sides have continued to strengthen. For instance, the support of the U.S. Congress for Taiwan has never faltered. We trust that the relations will grow in areas including trade, science and technology, educational exchange, military sales based on the Taiwan Relations Act.

On the occasion of Mr. Ma's second inaugural, we celebrate with him and his people by affirming our appreciation for their successes and by expressing our continued commitment to Taiwan's security and well being.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 554 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 554 provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3630, a bill to extend the payroll tax deduction, protect Medicare payments for doctors, and begin responsible reform of the unemployment benefits system.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. Today, we are taking up legislation that does three things: extend the payroll tax deduction, reform our unemployment benefits system, and protect Medicare payments for doctors.

First, on the bright side, Republicans and Democrats were able to find a compromise to pay for two very important things: much-needed reforms to the unemployment benefits program and protecting Medicare payments to the physicians who serve our seniors.

In regard to the payroll tax deduction, unfortunately our friends on the left did not think it was important to pay for the extension. Spending without making the proper adjustments is a notion I am not fond of. My voting record makes no secret of that. This is what makes this vote so difficult today. You cannot always get exactly what you want; but, today, I applaud both sides for attempting to get fairly close to it.

We cannot continue to pay unemployment benefits for 99 weeks indefinitely. We cannot allow payments to our doctors to be affected, as that will only turn around and affect the care available to those in need.

And we cannot raise taxes on American families. By voting for this rule, we are signaling it is time to move forward, plain and simple.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend on the left, Mr. Hastings, talks a lot about taxes this morning, and that's probably an appropriate conversation to have.

I will say, however, that as we examine the facts around the capital gains tax, let us not forget that President Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, according to the American Thinker. But we also have to keep in mind that the most tax-driven piece of legislation in the last 3 or 4 years is, in fact, the folks on the left and the national health care reform, a $500 billion increase of taxes and fees on the middle class.

Let us not get lost on the fact that those on the left continue to find ways to tax the middle class.

When I think about the notion that we're going to have a conversation about taxation, it kind of gets me excited. I'm looking forward to this opportunity to debate the worthiness of the payroll tax deduction and how both sides have come together. This is a good thing; we've found some common ground on the issue of the payroll tax. But where we will not find common ground is on the issue of slicing taxes for the middle class.

My friends on the left, they talk a good game, but they don't walk the talk. Because when you look at the national health care program, you must concede that $500 billion of new taxes is a bit much for the middle class. You must say that the surtax on investment income-- another $123 billion to start 11 months from now--that is a pain for the middle class. It's a pain for the middle class.

When I think about the excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans--$32 billion just a few years away. When I think about the hike on Medicare, another payroll tax--$86 billion of new taxes starting in another 11 months. My friends on the left, they seem to have this concept that if we just wait a little while, the American people will forget who, in fact, is raising the taxes on the middle class.

I would say that my good friend from Georgia wants to chime in on the debate, so I'm going to yield, Madam Speaker, 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Chairman David Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Joe Barton.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I do not at this point.

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to move forward in this debate. The conference committee has done their job and brought us a compromise, which is exactly what the American people have been asking for from Congress, and that is for us to work together.

Supporting the rule for the conference report signals that we are ready to finish this debate and move on to the most pressing issue facing our Nation today, and that is creating the environment that creates jobs.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an article on behalf of Mallory Factor expressing his opinion regarding the need for transparency with respect to the different roles of our military.

``What's the Real Defense Budget?''

[By Mallory Factor]

The new Congress won the election by promising to cut

spending, and unsurprisingly the defense budget is on the

table for the first time in more than a decade.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently announced $78

billion in defense spending cuts over the next five years,

including reductions in troop levels for the Army and Marine

Corps. These types of cuts suggest that the military is

working to become leaner and more efficient. Still, many

Americans and congressmen are calling for deeper cuts.

Not counting the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

the Defense budget is expected to be $553 billion in 2012, up

from $549 billion in 2011. That outlay currently represents

19% of the entire federal budget and over 50% of U.S.

discretionary spending; cutting it would go a long way toward

reining in government spending. But before further slicing

the military budget, Congress must reconsider the military's

mission and what activities it should undertake.

The purpose of a large standing army is to provide for our

national defense. In essence, the defense budget is an

insurance policy that protects the U.S. against threats from

other nations and groups. But in recent years a growing

percentage of that budget has been spent on activities that

don't involve traditional national defense. These include

nation-building, policing foreign nations, humanitarian

missions and ferrying executive- and legislative-branch

leaders and their attendants around the globe. While these

activities may be tangentially related to our standing in the

world, they do not enhance our war-fighting capabilities;

rather they relate more to the success of our foreign policy

than to our national defense.

This increase in nondefense missions has been accompanied

by a dramatic shift from war-fighting to nation-building. The

official White House website now describes the function of

the Department of Defense as to ``protect national interests

through war-fighting, providing humanitarian aid and

performing peacekeeping and disaster relief services.'' Is

war-fighting just one among the many functions we want our

military to perform?

Rightly or wrongly, we give our military these various

assignments because we don't want to pay someone else to do

them, and other government entities currently can't. Yet just

because our military can do these jobs doesn't mean that it

should. Indeed, these assignments shift focus away from the

military's core missions: keeping America safe and winning

wars.

Right now it is difficult for Congress to determine how

much money is spent on protecting the U.S. The ``military''

budget gives an exaggerated impression of the cost of our

national defense. When Congress adds burdens to the military,

direct costs like fuel, food and relief supplies may be

calculated and expressed in the budget.

But these items are just a small part of these missions,

and the larger costs get buried. These hidden costs include

recruiting and training extra troops, purchasing and

servicing additional equipment, additional layers of

bureaucracy, and maintaining and enlarging bases, none of

which are separated out in the budget as relating to

nondefense missions.

The military's nondefense activities may or may not be

warranted, but their total costs must be transparent. If

Congress does not consider these costs separately,

traditional defense missions and essential equipment upgrades

will be crowded out.

America is a compassionate nation and would surely engage

in humanitarian activities even if their true costs were

known. But why charge these costs to the defense budget and

then hide them? Only by demanding that the military budget be

limited to legitimate defense activities can Americans know

how many dollars we are actually devoting to our national

security.

Some military leaders have privately estimated that if

these nondefense-related activities were eliminated or given

a separate budget, defense spending could be substantially

reduced and at the same time the military's war-fighting

capabilities increased. Given this uncertainty, before any

additional cuts are made to military spending, Congress must

demand transparency with respect to the different roles of

our military.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an article on behalf of Mallory Factor expressing his opinion regarding the need for significant reforms and spending cuts in spite of the social unrest they may cause.

``Occupy Wall Street . . . Next Stop, Athens?''

[By Mallory Factor]

In the past few weeks Americans have watched with interest,

bemusement and anger as protests and sit-ins on Wall Street

have sparked similar demonstrations around the country. With

vague goals of combating corporate greed and calls to rectify

all manner of social and economic inequality, this movement

seems, to the press at least, to capture a mood of deep

discontent among the American people.

But if you think a thousand protesters on Wall Street is a

trouble sign for our nation, wait until you see the civil

unrest that follows the reforms and cuts to government

programs needed to bring our national debt under control.

Just look at Greece, where government is being reformed,

drastic cuts are being made--and the society is unraveling.

In Greece a series of severe austerity measures has been

imposed as conditions for recent bailouts by the

International Monetary Fund and the other members of the

single European currency, the euro. Yet the economy continues

to spiral downward.

And with each new round of reforms in Greece, misery and

unrest are on the rise. Strikes and angry street protests are

a daily occurrence, as unions fight decreases in pay and

benefits for their workers, students protest the lack of

opportunity and ordinary citizens resist reforms and tax

increases. The confrontation with authorities is impeding

business and destroying tourism, deepening the crisis

further.

Some of that struggle is for naught. The Greek government

couldn't reduce austerity measures if it wanted to. Fiscal

policy is now out of its hands and likely to remain so for

decades, perhaps generations.

And while most Greeks agree the bloated state must be

streamlined, they're stiffening their resistance to reform.

That's why many in the euro zone believe Greece must default

in order to rebuild a more efficient government.

America isn't in that predicament--yet. But there are

cautionary lessons to be lifted from the outraged streets of

Athens. As the Greek example shows, government largesse is

easy to expand but difficult to cut back without inflaming

people.

For years our politicians have framed increases to

government benefits as compassionate and obligatory. Now all

that overspending must be pared back and government programs

reformed to curb the federal deficit. But each round of

needed cuts and reforms will likely cause misery--in an

amount substantially greater than the happiness generated by

spending increases.

Behavioral economics, which uses social and psychological

factors to predict a population's decision-making behavior,

captures this paradox in two fundamental principles.

First, the principle of ``loss aversion'' explains that

people hate to lose something more than they value receiving

something. So, even if many Americans don't value existing

government programs and spending very highly, they will

likely be very unhappy about the loss of those same goods and

services.

Second, even if you streamline our government and make

programs more efficient, the ``endowment effect'' predicts

that people will still oppose changes to the benefits they

receive. This is because people tend to value the goods and

services they have more than they do equivalent replacement

goods and services. The endowment effect makes it very

difficult to exchange existing benefits for new ones and thus

to ``reform'' government programs.

Whether we cut spending and make reforms now or later,

course correction will be difficult and even potentially

dangerous to our nation's stability. Just look at the

resistance of public employees in Wisconsin, Indiana and

elsewhere to relatively minor cuts to see how people will

contest vigorously any decreases to their benefits and

programs.

Behavioral economics teaches us that any time we make

changes and reduce government benefits and programs, we can

expect people to be very upset about those decisions--and

likely resist them. Still, we need significant reforms and

deep cuts to put the U.S. on track toward a balanced budget.

Paring back government will undoubtedly cause misery and

social dislocation. However, ``death'' by a thousand small

cuts will intensify civil unrest and may produce

revolutionary fervor unlike anything we've seen in America in

our lifetime. Our nation will be better off by reforming our

system radically, in a single dramatic turn, rather than

piecemeal--or face something very like the furious streets of

Athens.

Mr. Speaker, today is day 1,000; 1,000 days since the Senate Democrats last passed a budget.

To put that in perspective, I asked my Twitter followers and my Facebook friends to tell me what they've done in the last 1,000 days. I'd like to share some of the comments.

One says, Between my home and my small business, over 60 monthly budgets have been taken care of, and they are getting harder and harder to balance.

Another said, Cut our family debt by $60,000 in 1 year, removed two car payments, and finished my bachelor's degree while working full time being a father and getting ready for a business launch.

Another said, Finished 75 college credits, watched over 100 films, directed 16 hours of TV, and tutored over 1,000 hours.

Final one. My son made one overseas deployment, started his second one, finished his master's degree at Georgia Tech since the last budget.

Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear: The American people are working hard. The House of Representatives, we are working hard with 27 jobs bills and counting fast. The only question, Mr. Speaker, is when will the Senate join us.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 515 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

The Budget Control Act of 2011, which was enacted into law on August 2, 2011, authorized increases in the administration's borrowing authority subject to a joint resolution of disapproval. The law provides for consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval with 2 hours of debate. Amendments to the joint resolution are not permitted under the law. H. Res. 515 allows the House to consider the resolution of disapproval in the House today, rather than tomorrow, as currently contemplated in the law. Simply put, we are moving up its consideration by 1 day to better accommodate the House floor schedule.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you posing two very, very important questions. The first is an issue of scale.

Where I come from in North Charleston, South Carolina, we have a little trouble digesting exactly what $1.2 trillion really means. To help get my own head around the number $1.2 trillion, I did a little factfinding. A last-minute flight from Charleston, South Carolina, to Washington, D.C., is about $1,100. You could fly back and forth every single day for the next 3 million years in order to spend $1.2 trillion. I'm not sure about anyone else in the Chamber, but there aren't too many things I'm planning to do for the next 3 million years.

Now that we have a little perspective on what $1.2 trillion really means, the second question is a simple one: Why is it so hard to say we can't afford it? It's a simple question. Why is it so hard to say that we can't afford another $1.2 trillion of debt?

I asked the same question on my Facebook. Here are two responses to the question:

What's not to understand? Just cut the darned budget just like the rest of us have to do.

We the people, on an individual level, have got to demand less government. It's called courage, the courage to just say ``no.''

So, Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that through the national health care bill, the Democrats raised taxes on the middle class by $500 billion and then they raised another half a trillion dollars for Medicare, but now they want to borrow $1.2 trillion. From whom--it's a good question--from whom? Unborn Americans, unborn Americans and foreign nations in order to continue borrowing 42 cents on every dollar to spend in 2012.

It's just not right, Mr. Speaker. The American people will not stand for the blank check culture of the past and I, for one, stand with the American people.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting to hear Mr. Polis, who sounds like a good Republican over there, I must concede, sounds like a good Republican over there talking about excessive spending.

But here's the question, the Democratic-controlled Senate hadn't passed the budget, next Tuesday, in a thousand days, and it's laughable that someone on the left would talk about deficit spending since the three records on deficit spending have occurred in the last three cycles, FY 2009 a $1.4 trillion deficit and FY 2010, $1.294 trillion deficit. Under President Obama in 2011, a 1.299--let's just round it to $1.3 trillion in deficit spending.

No, sir, but I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments by my good friend, Mr. Polis from Colorado, was that Republicans were trying to end Medicare. That's a laughable comment. As a matter of fact, it is so laughable that hot off the press, the PolitiFact, which finds out whether or not there is truth or not in words: The political lie of the year is that Republicans voted to end Medicare. PolitiFact just named the political lie of the year the comment that Republicans voted to end Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I do remember that the Paul Ryan budget came in at a number of $1.19 trillion in overall spending for the annual year. If you're talking about the 10-year impact of the Paul Ryan budget--

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Tom Graves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Randy Hultgren.

Yes, sir. I suppose I have four or five.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dan Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman another 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close.

Hypocrisy is nothing new in the House of Congress, unfortunately, and even in this House.

My good friend from Colorado talks about what we're doing on the right-hand side. There's no question, however, that Mr. Polis himself voted for the Democratic Caucus budget proposed by Mr. Van Hollen, which would have increased spending by $4.5 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

There is only one way to reduce the debt at that level of spending, and that's higher and higher taxes on the middle class. It's bad enough that, in one bill under the Democratic-controlled House, they increased taxes on the middle class by $500 billion and at the same time raided Social Security, men and women on a fixed income, by $500 billion--or a half a trillion dollars.

It's unfortunate that not only were they increasing taxes, but they specifically targeted the middle class, creating a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income on folks who have a middle class income.

It is very unfortunate that the President went a step further than even the Democratic Caucus budget. He increased spending by $6.2 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

So everything we hear on the left right now about the spending and the debt, we need to frame it in the real conversation around what the left has already done under the Pelosi House $1.4 trillion annual deficit.

In addition to that, we need to think to ourselves and ask the question, do we need $49 trillion of spending over the next 10 years that's been proposed by some on the left? Can we afford taking our national debt from $16.3 trillion, $16.4 trillion with this credit card extension into the $27 billion range at

the end of this decade? The answer is obviously ``no.'' But the hypocrisy is just business as usual from the left.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is very clear. You either stand for reducing spending here in Washington or you don't. It is as simple as that.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 502 provides for a motion to go to conference on H.R. 3630 and for a closed ruled on H. Res. 501.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

To be honest, Mr. Speaker, being here today is almost ridiculous because last week the House passed a very good bill, and the three major components of it are very simple:

Payroll tax extension, a holiday--not a 60-day holiday, but a 1-year payroll tax extension that is paid for;

Unemployment insurance; we addressed unemployment insurance in a very compassionate way, working as the President has suggested. We need to cut it by 20 weeks over time. So our House, in a bipartisan fashion, is working to take it from 99 weeks to 59 weeks, holding in truth the spirit of our President;

Finally, the doc fix. If we're going to keep Medicare and the recipients of Medicare whole, we have to address the reimbursement rates of the doctors. This doc fix stops an almost 30 percent cut in the reimbursement rate.

But beyond that, we decided that it is time to create American jobs. So the Keystone pipeline that creates more than 20,000 jobs is in this bill. But not only do we want to create jobs, we want to save jobs, and so you think of the Boiler MACT that saves more jobs than the pipeline creates. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left want to continue to hold the middle class hostage because they have a plan to continue to raise taxes as they have over the last year.

As a matter of fact, in 2010, in one bill only, Mr. Speaker, they raised taxes on the middle class, and this year, because we're moving into an election year, they decided it's time to remember the American middle class. Last year, they were taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class.

Let me give you a few examples:

A new $123 billion of taxes on the middle class in investment income; a hike in Medicare payroll taxes with $86 billion passed through to the middle class.

I don't know why this year all of a sudden they want to talk about tax breaks for the middle class and only give them 60 days, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the middle class deserves certainty, and our bill gives them certainty. We say for 1 year we need to extend to the middle class, people who are struggling every day to make their ends meet.

Our friends on the left are getting ready for campaign season, so what they're really concerned about is themselves. But what we've said is, when you take into consideration that a person who needs a medical device must now pay a pass-through tax upwards of $20 billion, that's not compassionate. That's not fair, Mr. Speaker.

When you think about tanning services, a $2.7 billion pass-through tax to the middle class on tanning services. Now, I'm not quite sure what tanning services has to do with health care, but we find ourselves in the midst, sir, of another backdoor tax increase on the middle class.

Or if we need drugs in the future, let's go ahead and tax the innovating companies $22 billion and pass it to the middle class.

Or if you don't like those taxes, we've got another one on health insurers. Let's take $60 billion out of the pockets of the middle class by making the insurers pay more, which they know they will pass it through to the middle class.

But since that may not be enough, they decided that they would actually tax the health plans of the middle class, $32 billion on the plans of the middle class.

I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We must not only extend this tax cut for the middle class; we must also pay for it.

As I was talking to one of my constituents, a 57-year-old who makes $650 every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks she brings home $650, and she needs her $600 tax cut. But she's very close to Social Security so she says to me: Tim, please, as you provide an extension of the tax cut, please don't raid the Social Security funds.

So we on the right have decided, in a bipartisan way, to work with the President. Our offsets include 90 percent offsets that the President, himself, has agreed to. In a bipartisan way, we address the payroll tax extension. We keep Social Security as solvent as it can be today, and we continue to make sure that senior citizens have doctors who will see them because we fixed the problem of reimbursement rates. And unemployment is now a greater incentive for work than it has been in more than 2 years or so because we're taking 99 weeks and we're working in a bipartisan fashion with the President and taking it down to 59 weeks for some States.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm not quite sure if I heard the gentlelady from New York correctly, but she seemed to allude, or to suggest, that the President might not pass the omnibus bill because of this bill, which sounds like a reaffirmation of the fact that they are playing politics on the left while we on the right consistently look for ways to help the middle class.

In addition, when Republican Senator Jim DeMint and President Obama and Speaker Boehner and Democrat Senator Manchin are on the same page on the 1-year extension, we ought to act as a sounding board for those four, who are typically in opposite corners.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Dr. Rob Woodall.

Mr. Speaker, I will just simply say that if you are looking for a bipartisan approach to legislation, if you are looking for someone who wants to work with the White House, 90 percent of our offsets have been agreed to by the President.

And I will simply say that when the President is right--and I don't agree with him very often--he is right. The President said that Congress should not go home for vacation until it finds a way to avoid hitting 160 million Americans with a tax hike on January 1. It would be inexcusable for Congress not to extend this tax holiday for an entire year.

I think a bipartisan approach has been taken. I am assured by that fact because the President and I are on the same page, and that doesn't happen but once every year. It must be Christmas.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my friends on the left talk about how they need to get on our side and stop the tax increases. But the funny problem is that the American people may like what they say, but they don't like what they do. I would only suggest and ask people to check the voting record on the tax increases.

I would also say that our bill, our payroll tax extension bill, reduces the

deficit, the debt by $953 million, a $953 million reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Sheriff Nugent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, my cousin, Austin Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tom Reed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Jeff Landry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, the great chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the American people are afraid. They're afraid of the party on the left. They're afraid because the party on the left raided $500 billion out of Medicare to pay for a national health care Ponzi scheme. They're afraid because that same party who talks about tax cuts for the middle class raised taxes by a half a trillion dollars on the middle class.

After being held hostage, the middle class now hears from the party on the left, Trust me with a 60-day extension. No planning time, no time to figure it out. Trust me after I raised taxes on you in the last 12 months by more than a half a trillion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, regular order suggests for the last 200 years that when the House and the Senate don't agree, they go to conference so that the folks on the left and those fighting for freedom on the right have an opportunity to come together in a conference. So to Mr. Waxman and Mr. Levin and others on the left who want a seat at the table, conference is the way you get a seat at the table. What we're asking for is common sense, something America has not seen from Congress in the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 4 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 20, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following email from Mr. Lafe Solomon, acting chief counsel of the NLRB.

The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get

a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we

can tackle europe.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there's no question that the NLRB is not under attack. Employees' freedom is under attack. The workplace fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the NLRB.

There's no question that the NLRB was thought to be an impartial referee for our employers and our employees, but that has not been the case. They have been anything other than impartial. And their email trail will show that in just a few seconds.

But despite the fact that today we have 2 million more unemployed Americans, the NLRB continues to choose sides in the disputes, as opposed to being a referee. Their lack of judgment and common sense has been magnified, and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations within the Department of the NLRB.

Mr. Solomon apparently thought the following was funny, despite his current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great State of South Carolina and in my district in North Charleston. Emailing a colleague regarding criticism from a magazine article, this is what he said. I want you to hear this clearly. I'm going to say it slowly because we need to understand and appreciate that the NLRB has lost their marbles, without any question.

His quote: ``The article gave me a new idea. You go to Geneva and I get a job with Airbus,'' Mr. Solomon said. ``We screwed up the U.S. economy, and now we can tackle Europe.''

Let me repeat that because this is the chief counsel at the NLRB stating very clearly his intentions and his lack of humor. ``The article gave me a new idea,'' saying to one of his colleagues. ``You go to Geneva. I'll get a job with Airbus. We screwed up the U.S. economy and now we can tackle Europe.''

Only in an alternate universe is this funny or does it make any sense whatsoever. It is no secret that the NLRB's reckless actions have a direct impact on my district, without any question. But it is also no secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of those actions.

Earlier this year the House passed my bill, H.R. 2587, which removes the ability from the NLRB to destroy jobs because, simply put, they cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile recovery here in America. Unfortunately, Senator Reid has done with my bill what he has done with the other 22 job-creating measures: nothing.

Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

In an effort to appease the President and his union supporters, the NLRB has gone off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left, right, up, down. It is ridiculous.

One of these rules is why we're here today, an effort to allow for quickie union elections. This rule, quite simply, puts the rights of all employees at risk. By allowing as little as 7 to 10 days for employees to decide whether they want to join a union or not, the NLRB is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union.

Currently, the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of time. This is a significant difference. Going from 35 to 40 days down to 7 to 10 days is ridiculous.

Thank you, Dr. Foxx.

The new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to challenge the bargaining unit chosen by the union, dividing employees and raising employers' labor costs.

We stand here today with an opportunity. We can either allow the NLRB to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put America and the job creators back on the right track. The question could not be simpler, and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of the NLRB to do what they were chosen to do, which was to be the impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and I find that challenging.

Let me first thank Sheriff Nugent from Florida. Sheriff, you're doing a fantastic job with this rule, and I thank you for leading this important debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a simple question of my friends who oppose the whole concept of a balanced budget amendment: What makes us, the Federal Government, any different than the State and local governments

who have to abide under a simple balanced budget concept? But more importantly, what makes us any different than the 74 percent of Americans in a CNN poll who simply say a balanced budget amendment is in the best interests of the citizens of this country?

Simply put, Washington needs to stop this runaway train of spending. So often, too often even, it seems that this town has lost sight of the fact that taxpayer dollars don't just appear from some magical piggy bank but rather are paid by hardworking American families. We have a duty to spend these dollars wisely. And, unfortunately, in this town that simply doesn't happen very often at all. The last 3 years, not the last 30 years, not the last three decades, but the last 3 years we have seen the largest increase in the debt of this Nation, in the history of this Nation, and it is very clear that a constitutional amendment is the strongest option we have today to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

How can we expect to create a proper environment for job creation when we can't even keep the Federal Government's checkbook in balance? How does the current administration think we can continue to force small businesses to completely revamp their budgets under an onslaught of burdensome regulations while Washington does not have to do the same thing?

It simply doesn't make sense. We should get this work done. We should get this fixed today. I will say as part of the majority-making class of 2010, with 86 out of the 87 freshmen on the Republican side supporting some form of the balanced budget amendment, we should move forward now. The American people demand it, and they should get it.