Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 472. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 472.

I thank the chairman for yielding the time.

It took 19 Presidents and 100 years dating back to President Teddy Roosevelt to open the door to all Americans, to quality health care that is centered on the patient-doctor relationship; 105 million Americans who will fall ill will no longer have a lifetime limit on the coverage they receive from their health insurance company.

Up to 17 million children today who have preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage by an insurance company; 6.6 million young adults under the age of 26 today can stay on the health care policy of their parents; 5.3 million seniors today received an average $600 to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they fall into the so-called doughnut hole; 360,000 small businesses in America, men and women who own their own businesses, got assistance through a tax credit to help provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Thirteen million Americans will benefit in insurance premium rebates from insurance companies, who must now show that they are spending the premium money they get from those Americans for health care, not on paying CEO salaries or not on profits--$1.1 billion national rebates for 13 million Americans.

Perhaps the most important thing that most Americans don't recognize, the thousands of dollars that those of us who do have health insurance throughout America that we pay premiums to our insurance companies to cover care, not for us and our families, but for those of us who don't have insurance, the free-riders, that will start to drop. Those are the things that are at stake.

Yet while it took 100 years for us to get to this point, it has taken our Republican colleagues only a year and a half to vote over 30 times to try to repeal these patient rights and protections, patient rights and protections that President Obama promised, this Congress delivered, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

My Republican colleagues say that to repeal and replace these patient rights protections is the right way to go, but the only thing we have seen from them on this floor is all repeal and no replace. It's time for this Congress to get to work on the most important thing before us, getting Americans back to work. Let us vote this down and get to work.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, the ``WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of 2012,'' which would support Americans with severe disabilities who want to attempt to

work and potentially reduce their need for Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. It does so by ensuring the continuation of two important community-based programs that assist individuals who wish to transition off of benefits by seeking and maintaining paid employment.

These programs have in the past been extended with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, due to lack of action by the majority, the programs are today on the verge of expiring, and disability beneficiaries who want to try to work will be without the assistance they need to move ahead. We have worked extensively to find another solution, but we have reached an impasse.

I have received many letters, calls and emails of support for extending WIPA and PABSS. I'd like to submit three of these for inclusion in the Congressional Record--the endorsements of the bill by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on Social Security, the National Disability Rights Network, and Easter Seals.

Helping individuals with disabilities who want to return to work should not be a partisan issue. I encourage all Members to join me in support of this legislation, and I hope we can move forward promptly, so Americans who are disabled are not denied the support they need to return to work.

More detailed information about WIPA and PABBS, and a description of the bill, follows.

``Work Incentives Planning and Assistance'' (WIPA)

When Congress passed the Ticket to Work Act in 1999, we recognized that beneficiaries needed help in navigating the work rules for DI and SSI recipients, which can seem like a complex maze. The Social Security Administration (SSA) lacked and still lacks the resources to be able to provide the kind of individualized assistance beneficiaries often need in order to use the work incentives. Moreover, Congress recognized that beneficiaries may be reluctant to discuss with SSA their interest in trying to work despite the obstacles, out of fear that they may lose their benefits even if their attempt to work fails. WIPA was created to fill this vacuum.

WIPA funds community-based programs through which trained benefit counselors help beneficiaries understand how to use the SSA work incentives. These counselors help people with disabilities in a number of ways:

They provide basic information on how disability beneficiaries can test out their ability to obtain and sustain employment, using work incentive provisions in DI, SSI and other programs to transition off of benefits.

They provide intensive, individualized guidance on the operation of these complex benefit rules and help beneficiaries report their earnings to SSA.

Their guidance helps reduce the likelihood of overpayments and increase beneficiaries' confidence that their attempt to work will not risk a catastrophic loss of basic economic security.

Recognizing the reality that SSA cannot always adjust benefit payments quickly in light of an individual's earnings, WIPA staff also counsel clients to set aside any overpaid benefits so that they are prepared to repay the overpayment once SSA processes their case.

Since their inception in 2000, WIPA programs have served nearly half a million SSA beneficiaries. SSA currently funds 140 WIPA grantees, using $23 million included in its overall annual operating budget. However, funding for more than half of the WIPA programs will expire on June 30, 2012, unless Congress or SSA is able to extend them.

``Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security''

(PABSS)

During consideration of the Ticket to Work Act, Congress also recognized that Americans with disabilities who can work may need legal advocacy in order to be able to obtain a job or maintain employment, so that they eventually won't need disability benefits. The PABSS program was established to assist such Americans.

PABSS organizations provide a wide range of services in support of work by persons with disabilities:

An individual with an intellectual disability was told that the job- coach assistance that enabled her to work would be terminated. Her local PABSS program intervened and the client was able to maintain her employment.

A blind individual had accommodations in place at work, but a software change at his company made it impossible to use them to perform his job. The PABSS office helped the employer upgrade the accommodations and worked with the Commission for the Blind to split the cost.

An individual with muscular dystrophy who lived in a rural area needed car repairs so he could get to his job. PABSS helped him resolve the issue with his warranty company so that his car could be repaired and he could keep his job.

A disabled individual was able to drive a taxi, but needed prompt payment of his past-due DI benefits in order to purchase a vehicle. PABSS helped the client obtain his past-due benefits, and he was able to purchase the cab.

PABSS operates through the protection and advocacy agencies in each state and territory. Since its inception, PABSS has assisted more than 80,000 individuals. The $7 million annual cost is included in SSA's annual operating budget. Funding for PABSS expires September 30, 2012.

Status of WIPA and PABSS

Both programs are permanently authorized, and SSA uses its annual appropriation for the agency's overall operating expenses to fund the grantees. To reinforce and clarify the underlying law, Congress has several times adopted legislation, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to extend SSA's specific authorization to use already- appropriated operating budget funds. However, in the 112th Congress, the majority has not been able to pass an extension and has not introduced any legislation on this topic.

We have been working to find an administrative solution, since the programs are permanently authorized in statute, but the issues are complicated. The simplest way to address the problem is to pass legislation.

The WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of 2012

The legislation would clarify the existing law by removing any ambiguity about SSA's authority to continue WIPA and PABSS grants. The bill removes a conflicting provision from the statute that authorized a particular amount and time frame for funding of the WIPA and PABSS programs. It leaves in place the underlying provisions that permanently establish the two programs, including the standing authorization for SSA to use its annual operating budget to fund them.

I urge all Members to support this legislation. I hope that Congress will act promptly so that we can keep these programs in operation and continue to serve Americans with disabilities.

National Disability Rights

Network,

June 27, 2012.

Hon. Xavier Becerra,

Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Social Security

Subcommittee, Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member Becerra: On behalf of the National

Disability Rights Network (NDRN), and the 57 Protection and

Advocacy (P&A) agencies we represent in every state and

territory, I write to express our strong support for the

``WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of 2012'' that

you are introducing.

NDRN is the national membership association for the fifty-

seven P&A agencies that run the Protection and Advocacy for

Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program in every

state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories.

Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of

legally-based advocacy services for persons with disabilities

in the United States. NDRN strives to promote a society where

people with disabilities have equality of opportunity and are

able to participate fully in community life (including

employment) by exercising informed choice and self-

determination.

Every year, the PABSS program and the Work Incentives

Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program help thousands of

people with disabilities enter or stay in the workforce, and

to progress towards independence and economic self-

sufficiency. Ensuring that these programs continue is

critical to addressing the high unemployment and low labor

participation rates for people with disabilities in this

country, while simultaneously helping beneficiaries of Social

Security disability benefits attain economic self-

sufficiency.

The PABSS program was created in 1999 as part of the Ticket

to Work and Work Incentives Act to protect the rights of

beneficiaries as they attempt to go to work. PABSS provides a

wide range of services to Social Security beneficiaries. This

includes information and advice about obtaining vocational

rehabilitation and employment services, information and

referral services on work incentives, and advocacy or other

legal services that a beneficiary needs to secure, maintain,

or regain gainful employment. Advocates funded by PABSS can

investigate and advocate to remedy complaints of employment

discrimination and other civil and legal rights violations.

These advocates also address deficiencies in entities

providing employment supports and services to beneficiaries.

Authorization for both the PABSS and WIPA programs expired

on September 30, 2011. Fortunately, the Social Security

Administration (SSA) was able to set aside funding to sustain

the WIPA program until June 30, 2012, and the PABSS program

until September 30, 2012. However, without the passage of a

new authorization bill, like your legislation, the Social

Security Administration says that the funding for these

programs will end, which will cause many Social Security

recipients to go without services to help them return to

work. Additionally, layoffs and long-term disruptions to the

ability of grantees to provide these services will occur with

the loss of experienced personnel.

Failure to reauthorize these programs will mean that the

following success story, which

repeats around the country every day, will no longer be able

to occur:

PABSS staff represented a 57-year-old female and SSDI

beneficiary, diagnosed with bilateral blindness and

orthopedic disabilities. She had not been employed since

losing her eyesight several years ago. She sought to return

to work, and applied for services from the Division of

Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). DVR took her application,

disregarded her statutory presumptive eligibility, and sent

her a letter stating that she was ineligible for DVR services

because of ``transferable job skills.'' As a direct result of

PABSS advocacy, DVR reopened this woman's case, found her

presumptively eligible, conducted an appropriate

Comprehensive Assessment of Rehabilitation Needs, and

negotiated with her former employer to allow her to return to

her previous job. As a result, this woman has returned to the

workforce.

Examples, such as the above story, demonstrate that losing

the PABSS program will hurt efforts to encourage people with

disabilities to return to work, which in turn leads to

further depletion of the Social Security Disability trust

fund.

Again, thank you for introducing the ``WIPA and PABSS

Continuation of Services Act of 2012.'' We look forward to

working with you and your colleagues to enact this important

legislation into law.

Sincerely,

Curt Decker,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights every Congress since 2008, and today I am proud to introduce the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2012, legislation that contains important provisions to improve services for and protect the rights of American taxpayers, particularly those with modest incomes. Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, a dedicated advocate for taxpayer rights, is introducing companion legislation in the Senate. Many of these provisions are based on proposals from the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, who has long been a champion of improving taxpayer services and tax administration at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

As former Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon said, ``The nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.'' As we look for ways to restructure the tax code to make it fairer and more transparent for all taxpayers, it is critical that ideas to help improve IRS service and accessibility are included in this conversation. Every year, millions of taxpayers file their returns with the IRS and inevitably issues of tax administration come to the forefront. These issues range from taxpayers not knowing their legal rights when interacting with the IRS, to taxpayers enlisting unscrupulous or poorly-trained preparers to help them complete one of their most important financial transactions of the year. This legislation aims to help prevent taxpayers from finding themselves in these avoidable situations, and to build on and improve taxpayer services provided through the IRS.

The centerpiece of this Act is the requirement that Treasury publish a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will be be a simple and straightforward statement that enumerates all taxpayers' rights and obligations, as well as reference their location in the tax code. As the National Taxpayer Advocate explained in her 2011 Report to Congress: ``In a time when the IRS will feel pressure to bring in additional tax revenue, it is crucial to provide taxpayers with strong protection for their rights.'' Currently, these rights and obligations are scattered throughout the tax code and Internal Revenue Manual, making them neither accessible nor written in plain language that most taxpayers can understand.

This Act also helps improve the quality and accessibility of tax preparation services and advice available to taxpayers in several different ways. First, it builds on the IRS's initiative to regulate unenrolled tax preparers through examination and continuing education requirements, for which I have been a long time advocate. Implementation of the IRS tax return preparer framework is well underway, and this legislation will simply codify the existing authority of the IRS to regulate tax return preparers. The Act also helps ensure moderate income taxpayers have access to qualified tax assistance by supporting a grant program for free income tax assistance services, and by allowing IRS referrals to Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics, which provide representation to modest income taxpayers in their disputes with the IRS. The Act also provides for oversight over facilitators of high cost tax refund anticipation loans and other tax refund delivery products, and significantly increases penalties on preparers of fraudulent tax returns.

Finally, this bill includes several provisions that would improve IRS taxpayer services. One important provision provides greater protections for taxpayers when they are faced with a Notice of a Federal Tax Lien filing (NFTL). Filing of an NFTL can result in significant, long-term hardship to a taxpayer, and may adversely affect the taxpayer's credit, thus impairing his or her ability to conduct financial transactions or secure employment. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act requires the IRS to make individualized determinations before the filing of an NFTL, and also requires consideration of hardship factors and a taxpayer's history of compliance before these determinations are made.

Many of the problems identified in this bill have gone unaddressed for too long, causing confusion and undue hardship for taxpayers across the country. I encourage all of my colleagues to support these common sense provisions to promote taxpayer rights and services for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 438. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 438.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 390. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 390.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 315, 316, 317, and 318. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 315 and 317, and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 316 and 318.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, 2 out of every 10 women in America will be a victim of rape in her lifetime. More than that will experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner. Madam Speaker, which one of those women is not worthy of protection or support as a result of this legislation?

H.R. 4970 is opposed by tribal governments because Native American women will have less protection under this bill. H.R. 4970 is opposed by groups that support immigrants because immigrant women will find themselves victims of these crimes without the support that they need. And the community of LGBT Americans will find themselves without the support they would get under the Senate version of this legislation.

Once again, the House majority demonstrates the dysfunction in Washington, D.C. Instead of applauding the overwhelming vote in the Senate with a bipartisan vote that passed just recently by 68 votes in the Senate for a Violence Against Women Act to be reauthorized and putting that bipartisan bill on this floor, our Republican colleagues in the House went the other way.

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to put the Senate bill on the floor, get this work done, follow the lead of the American public that says: Get to work, make it happen, and protect women who are the victims of violence in this country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When you hear of small business, what comes up in your mind first? The corner drug store? The tech troubleshooting startup? My daughter's martial arts instructor? How about Donald Trump? How about Trump Sales and Leasing, or Paris Hilton Entertainment? What about Larry Flynt Publications? Not that any of these latter companies have volunteered to show me their tax returns, but by all accounts, these are the businesses that will devour the lion's share of the tax breaks in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 3 percent of the businesses in America will get 56 percent of the tax breaks provided. The rich and famous will get most of the money. 125,000 millionaires in America will get $58,000 in tax breaks this year alone, which is the first year of this tax break. That's how targeted this particular bill is.

More than that, what we find is that most Americans don't believe that our tax system is fair. They believe that it is skewed towards the very wealthy. H.R. 9 proves that they are right. Seventy percent of Americans believe that the tax system is skewed against them and favors the very wealthy. If Paris Hilton, who has what we understand are about five employees based in Beverly Hills, can take advantage of this tax cut, or if Donald Trump or Larry Flynt or Kim Kardashian or Oprah Winfrey--all small business people--can take advantage and get, maybe, $58,000 in tax breaks while most small businesses will get barely anything, then I think the American public is correct.

Remember, most businesses in America are sole proprietorships. Most of those sole proprietorships have no employees. Under this bill, if you're a sole proprietor and have no employees, you get zero of the tax break benefits.

I have another example. Two companies, both have 500 employees. One company decides to hire more Americans; 10 more Americans are put on the payroll. The other company of 500 employees decides, I think it's easier for me to make more money if I take some of those jobs and put them overseas, so I'm going to fire 10 Americans here in America, and I'm going to start those jobs overseas, outsource those jobs.

Guess who gets the tax break--the company that hires 10 new American employees? No. They get nothing. The firm that fires 10 American employees here and outsources those jobs to another country, that company will get the benefits of this tax break.

The American public is correct. Today's tax system is skewed towards the wealthy, and that's why we have to vote against this legislation. Let us have job creation legislation. Let us focus on small businesses. This does neither.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 9.

Will the gentleman yield?

What the gentleman Mr. Levin is saying is correct, and I want to correct Mr. Cantor because he misspoke about the Democratic alternative.

The Democratic alternative requires that a small business make an investment in a plant or small machinery. If Paris Hilton wishes to invest in a plant and machinery, then perhaps she will qualify. If Larry Flynt would want to invest in plants and machinery for his business, perhaps he would qualify. Otherwise, this is a giveaway. Ours requires you to make investments in America.

I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut, my good friend Rosa DeLauro, for not just this evening, but for the years of work that she has done in committee, for her district, and simply in Congress as being one of the champions of not just children and families who are in need, but the fight to make sure that all these families have an opportunity to have access to real nutrition, not just food, but real nutrition. Because there were days when ketchup was called a vegetable. And some people made the fight to make sure that nutrition really meant good food, so that if we were going to help Americans--as we want to, as good Americans, help our fellow Americans--then let's be sure we're doing it so that they end up healthy Americans as well.

So we're here to talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. SNAP is the acronym. But really what we're here to talk about is the fact that in America children still go to bed hungry. It's hard to believe, but that's the way it is for too many families in our country.

Now, the numbers are staggering. They're staggering because of the Bush recession which left so many Americans in a place they had never been before. In fact, you had to go back some 70, 80 years to find a situation similar, when we saw the Great Depression in America.

We went from somewhere in the mid-twenties, some 26 million Americans who qualified for SNAP assistance, to over 45 million, around 45 million families during the height of this Great Recession who qualified for benefits. Most of those folks who qualified included families with children, or seniors, or persons with disabilities. It should come as no surprise. But what's really disheartening is to see how many

Americans live in extreme poverty, a life that most of us would not recognize.

When we talk about extreme poverty, we are talking about Americans who are living on less than $2 a day. The number of Americans who were living on less than $2 a day doubled during the Bush recession. The number of poor children who were in extreme poverty doubled during the Bush recession. Most of the people we're talking about, as my colleagues have said earlier, are living on less than $22,000 a year as a family of four. Those in extreme poverty are living on, obviously, far less. With an individual, not a family but just an individual, we're talking about someone who would have to have an income of $11,000 or less to be able to qualify for any assistance with the SNAP program.

What probably makes it the most difficult for many of us here in Congress and for most Americans to really grapple with as to this issue of food insecurity and children in America going to sleep hungry is the fact that this Congress is taking on legislation which would actually provide tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this very moment that we speak about food insecurity. So it is difficult to comprehend how we could say to Americans today, who are working hard but earning very little and who are trying to figure out how to keep their kids from going to sleep hungry at night, that we still have the money to provide tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires but that we can't figure out a way to continue a great program called SNAP that relies on our farmers to grow this food and then to make some of it available at a discounted rate to American families who are having a tough time.

This is all about values. This is all about the American family. It's all about whether we believe in the better days still to come for our country.

I happen to be someone who grew up in a very tiny house--about a 600- square-foot home--with my three sisters. My father got about a sixth grade education. My mother came from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, when she married my father at the age of 18. They came to Sacramento, California, with only the money they had in their pockets. They never once had to ask for assistance. They worked very hard. They were fortunate that they always found a way to make ends meet. I never had the Converse or the Keds or the Levi's jeans. My first bike was a bike that my friend was willing to sell to my father and me because he had just gotten a new one, but I never went to sleep hungry.

So I will tell you right now that it's a different thing to experience something where the thing you want the most before you go to sleep is a bite to eat. Too many of our kids are upset that they didn't get to watch that television program or didn't get to play on the computer very much at night. There are still too many American children who are concerned that, when they go to bed, they wish they'd have something else in their stomachs. I believe America has the moral fiber to say that we're going to deal with this problem.

I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for, once again, continuing the fight, because the reality is that we could figure out a way to help millionaires and billionaires continue to be successful and create the next wave of wealthy and successful Americans. At the same time, we should be able to figure out a way to make sure that the SNAP program is there for Americans who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without work and who, through no fault of their own, are trying to figure out how they will let their children go to bed with full stomachs. If we do this the right way, we'll get it solved.

I sat on the Bowles-Simpson Commission a year and a half ago, which found a way to save $4 trillion in our budget. It did not touch the SNAP program. I sat on the supercommittee, which was supposed to also fashion a budget deficit reduction deal, and that task force was also going to come up with a deal that would not have touched the SNAP program. We can certainly do far better than what we see in the House Republican budget, which is going after the SNAP program. I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up, not just for the SNAP program but for Americans today, because there are some families who tonight are trying to figure out how they can keep their children from going to bed hungry.

So I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for all she has done for so long to champion this issue.

Some people don't believe that that's the case. That is America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the legacy of an American icon, Cesar Estrada Chavez, leader of the United Farm Workers, born on March 31, 1927. This Saturday, we celebrate the 85th anniversary of his birth.

Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma, Arizona, to a life filled with early hardships, poverty and racial and social injustice. These experiences were his first lessons in what our nation should not be for millions of Americans.

As a result of his family's losses during the Great Depression, Cesar Chavez's family, like so many others, migrated to California to work in the farm fields picking crops in hopes of economic stability. They eventually settled in San Jose where they lived in a barrio called Sal Si Puedes, ``Get Out If You Can.''

Cesar Chavez often recalled the early injustices he experienced in school, and later as a farmworker. He vividly remembered throughout his life the prohibition of Spanish in school and being punished for speaking it. . . or even the signs in his community that said ``Whites Only.''

His experience was universal for many in that era, whether they were Latino, African-American, Asian American or others facing discrimination. My own father encountered signs that read ``No dogs and Mexicans Allowed'' during this time.

It was on account of this type of blatant discrimination and racism that Cesar Chavez devoted his life to fighting for social and economic justice in our nation. Events around our nation remind us that the need for such a champion is still present today.

In 1962, alongside Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers, an organization that came to be known as the driving force of the organized labor movement for farmworkers in the U.S.

This movement, or ``La Causa'' as it was known in millions of homes including mine, taught us that solidarity, even in the face of brutal adversity can lead to victory. The ``No

Grapes'' campaign and boycott led by Cesar Chavez and UFW was an omnipresent part of my youth and of many of my colleagues serving here today.

We knew what it meant to not buy grapes and not eat them, to feel proud of being part of something bigger than ourselves, even if it meant going without something we loved, or answering curious questions from friends or classmates. And for me, when victory came, it was sweet--literally and figuratively--and my small sacrifice seemed like the most powerful thing in the world.

On the 85th anniversary of Cesar Chavez's birth, we are reminded that his personal story is one of transformation and legacy. He transformed his early experiences from Sal Si Puedes into ``Si Se Puede'', ``Yes, we can.''

Those words still ring true today, and serve as a mantra of hope for millions of Americans who seek fairness and equal treatment. Just ask the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today we reflect on Cesar Chavez's lifetime of advocacy in the pursuit of social justice. Let us hope our legacy will be as enduring as that of our beloved leader and brother Cesar Chavez.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I stand in strong opposition to the Republican budget that we are considering here today.

How easy it is for some to forget that when President Bush took office, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and when President Bush left office, we were left with a deep pool of red ink.

My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the urgency of reducing our deficits, but where were my deficit-concerned colleagues when Congress passed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, adding trillions to the deficit? Where were my deficit-concerned colleagues when President Bush took us into two wars without paying for either?

I find it hard to believe that after voting time and again to add trillions to the deficit, that the only solution they offer to create economic growth in this country is to end Medicare and to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthiest among us.

The Republican vision in this budget doesn't reflect the America that I grew up in, and their vision of an America that can't is not the country that I want my children to inherit.

Budgets are about choices, and this Republican budget chooses billionaires over seniors and oil subsidies over college dreams for our middle class.

The same Republican budget that replaces the Medicare guarantee and gives us ``coupon care'' that immediately and dramatically increases seniors' health care costs and that cuts college aid for over 9 million students and slashes investments in our K 12 schools, turns around and showers hundreds of thousands of dollars on millionaires and billionaires. You can't make this stuff up.

What's most astonishing to me about this budget is the absence of any talk about real Americans, those fighting to hold on to their jobs and their homes.

America has always been the land of opportunity, where those who work hard and play by the rules have a chance to succeed and to achieve the American Dream.

Instead of turning America into a can't-do country where you begin by dismantling Medicare and Medicaid and dismantling our programs to help our children trying to go to college and all of those institutions that we rely on, the Institutes of Health and all of those that do all the science research for us, we should recognize that this is still a great country.

We need to come together in this debate with the conviction that America's best days are yet to come.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this can't-do Republican budget and for the Democratic alternative.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In December, this Congress gave 20 conferees three tasks to achieve by February 29: to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million middle class Americans; to ensure Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own receive their unemployment insurance benefits; and to guarantee our seniors on Medicare have access to the doctors of their choice and the care that they need.

We achieved this goal. But let's be clear, this agreement is by no means free of controversy. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) eloquently illustrated that. Our Republican colleagues succeeded in extracting a pound of flesh from middle class working Americans who also serve ably in our Federal Government.

But what was the alternative that we faced? A House Republican bill passed in December that quadrupled the cuts to workers in their salaries and their benefits; that increased the cost of Medicare for millions of seniors; that eliminated and restricted access to physical speech and occupational therapy in hospital settings for Medicare patients; that eliminated the child tax credit for millions of modest- income families; and that eliminated unemployment insurance benefits for nearly 3 million Americans who had lost a job through no fault of their own.

This agreement represents a rejection of the approach in the House Republican bill of December. It is a compromise, free of the controversial and extraneous measures in that Republican bill in December. But it is a bill of controversy because we are asking American workers who work very hard, who give their all and just happen to work for the Federal Government, to pay the cost of helping other Americans who are unemployed.

We could have made this a good bill. We could have asked every American--especially those most able to contribute--to help out. We didn't in this bill, and that's why it's a compromise. It could have been much better, but we faced a deadline by February 29 where 160 million American families would have seen their taxes increase. We would have seen a situation where millions of Americans would have lost their unemployment insurance. We needed to act, and we did.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this compromise measure.

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 2012 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54. If present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 50 and 51, and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 52, 53, and 54.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My friends, we've seen this movie before. House Republicans, once again, are driving our government and our economy to the edge of the cliff, and this time they've placed 160 million workers and 48 million seniors in the front seat of that car.

House Republican leaders are refusing to allow 435 Members of this House

to vote on a bipartisan proposal that was passed by 89 out of 100 Senators next door. My Republican colleagues know that this bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would pass on this floor and that it would save working Americans from having their taxes increased during the holidays.

The truth is the Republicans are feuding amongst themselves. House Republicans are fighting with Senate Republicans, and quite frankly, they're fighting with Republicans throughout this country, because a majority of them supports the President's payroll tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the people--Republicans and Democrats alike--are way ahead of the politicians. They want us to get our work done and get it done now. Let's stop showing the American people B- rated movies on the floor of the House, and let's pass the Senate bipartisan legislation.