[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 191 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8745-H8759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3630, MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND
JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 491
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Point of Order
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 491
because the resolution violates Section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act.
The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of
the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of
[[Page H8746]]
consideration. Following debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
Sadly, we're here once again with my Republican colleagues who are
trying to ram through this fat-cat tax extenders legislation, providing
mere crumbs from the master's table for working people that will
neither help the American people weather this economic malaise nor
create a single job.
{time} 1240
To add insult to injury, the Rules Committee has rejected all
attempts to allow any amendments to this horrible piece of legislation.
I proposed four amendments, which were not considered, and in fact, the
Republican majority rejected a Democratic substitute.
There is a song by the group Cameo--and I know Mr. Dreier will
appreciate this--called ``Talkin' Out the Side of Your Neck.'' The
lyrics are:
So you can see we're back into this same old mess.
Seems like every time we get out of one situation we're
back into it all over again.
All you people that watch you talk, you better get it
together or we won't get it done.
We sit down while you cuss and fuss. But guess who's
suffering. Nobody but us.
That's exactly what the Republicans are doing--talking out of both
sides of their necks. They talk and talk and talk, making false claims
to the middle class, false promises, when they're really trying to
protect the interests of the 1 percent; and like the song suggests,
those in the middle class are the ones who are suffering.
Once again, through this sham piece of legislation, the Republicans
claim to be creating jobs when the cruel thing is that, when 160
million workers are given a small payroll tax holiday, the cost is they
are held hostage with the tax breaks for the fat cats. Additionally,
the Congressional Budget Office reports that this legislation adds over
$25 billion to our Nation's deficit.
But those grinches don't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to
steal the holiday spirit from hardworking Americans. How? With this
legislation.
Our overall unemployment rate did drop recently from 9.1 percent to
8.6 percent, and I am happy to be joined this afternoon by some of my
colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus who will talk to you a
little bit more about how this pertains to black unemployment.
Briefly, though, while unemployment dropped for white men from 7.9 to
7.3 percent, black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent unemployment
to a disturbing 16.5 percent. Of course, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, unemployment declined for every demographic group
within the white community but increased for every demographic group
within the African American community. Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill
cuts the Federal unemployment program by more than half in 2012,
eliminating 40 weeks of benefits, cutting benefits so drastically for
those workers and communities that have been most hurt by this
recession.
One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is that it promotes
State drug testing for workers in order for them to qualify for
unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, did the authors of this provision
know about the Constitution of the United States? This bill also
imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting the
benefits that employees have paid for.
This is just outrageous. It is time to stop the doublespeak and to
give them real talk, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to one of my good friends
from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms.
Marcia Fudge.
(Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying
bill.
How in good conscience can we allow States to fund re-employment
programs with money that would otherwise be in the pockets of the
unemployed?
My amendment mandates transparency and accountability. It requires
States to make public the amount of money taken from the checks of
unemployed Americans. It's not that I am against re-employment, Mr.
Speaker, but I am against decreasing the amount of money that
beneficiaries get every month. I mentioned Karen from Cleveland on the
floor last week. Karen was laid off in March. Her unemployment check is
allowing her to keep her home and to pay for expensive prescriptions.
She relies on every single dollar.
Let's cut the partisan posturing, and let's extend unemployment
insurance without unnecessary riders.
Ms. MOORE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to my colleague from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this point of order on H. Res. 491.
Here we go again with another misnamed bill that is designed not for
middle class tax relief or for job creation but to hold a ``must pass''
vehicle hostage through some misguided Republican pet projects and
policy initiatives that harm the environment and threaten public
health. It is also a bill that is wasting time, time that could really
be used to create jobs and help the middle class because, with these
poison pills, it is going nowhere. Unfortunately, the good things in
the bill are threatened because of these other provisions.
The payroll tax deduction, the 2-year SGR fix, as well as one or two
other health care provisions are good parts of the bill that are needed
by our Nation's families, our doctors and Medicare beneficiaries, but
they should not be weighed down by the provisions that allow the
Keystone pipeline to bypass regulations, that allow industrial boilers
and incinerators to pollute, and that cut billions of dollars and,
therefore, important services that are in the Affordable Care Act. With
millions of our fellow Americans out of work, it also fails to provide
the full extension of unemployment that is needed in this time of
improved but still slow job creation--something the Republican
leadership has talked a lot about but has done nothing to help.
This bill is pure politics. And what is it that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle do not understand about drug addiction being an
illness?
One of the Republican Governors tried a similar proposal for food
stamps in Florida. Not only was it bad policy, it yielded nothing. It
unfairly targeted and branded poor people, and it wasted taxpayer
dollars. All of this is designed to deny unemployment benefits that
they have resisted and are still not fully funding. I hear a lot about
class warfare, but real class warfare is protecting everything for the
rich and punishing the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and the
unemployed. It has got to stop.
I urge my colleagues to support this point of order and to vote
against the rule and the bill. We need a clean extension of the payroll
tax, 99 weeks of unemployment, and a 2-year SGR fix. Yet it should not
be paid for by taking funds from programs that are needed to protect
public health and safety.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time on this
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am going to
be claiming time in opposition to the point of order that my friend has
raised, and I'm not going to consume the entire amount of time. So,
when I do that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend in the
spirit of the season and in the spirit of bipartisanship.
I would just like to state that for the record.
Ms. MOORE. That is very kind of you, Mr. Dreier.
I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Oakland,
California, Representative Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding
time and for her leadership on an issue so critical to extending a
safety net to those who are desperately looking for jobs and who need
this bridge over troubled waters at this point.
[[Page H8747]]
Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill would gut unemployment benefits to
the millions of Americans who are looking for work when there are,
roughly, four people for every one job. It would reduce unemployment
benefits down to 59 weeks from 99 weeks at a time when we are facing a
serious crisis among our long-term unemployed. It makes no economic
sense, and quite frankly, it is heartless.
The Lee-Scott amendment would have replaced these Republican
Christmastime cuts with real extensions of unemployment benefits, and
it would have added an additional 14 weeks of unemployment insurance
for the millions of Americans who have already exhausted their
benefits, but the Republicans did not make any amendments in order--no
fixes allowed to the heartless and senseless cuts that this contains.
This bill is really a sham. It's a shame, and it's a disgrace. It
will cost our Nation jobs, and it is a slap in the face to job seekers.
We should really be about the work of reigniting the American Dream,
not making it more of a nightmare for people as this bill would do.
Ms. MOORE. I would now yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
for yielding.
I rise in strong support of her opposition to this amendment. I rise
in strong support of the passage of the underlying bill.
This resolution fails to recognize that there are disproportionate
opportunities and a lack of opportunities for members of some groups,
such as minority groups who are African American and who are Hispanics.
There is no consideration given to these facts. Therefore, I must be in
opposition to the rule and to the bill.
{time} 1250
Ms. MOORE. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I would yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas,
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I will just
remind her that when I claim my time, I will be yielding an additional
minute to my friend. So she certainly can feel free to yield any of
that time once I do that.
Ms. MOORE. That is quite generous of the gentleman. And so I will
yield a minute and a half to my very eloquent colleague, the gentlelady
from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from
Wisconsin in thanking the gentleman from California for his generosity,
but I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin for her astute assessment
that causes me to pause.
Her point of order is whether or not this is what we call ``an
unfunded mandate,'' this bill that we will be discussing on the floor
of the House. And even though the rule says that the points of order or
the issues of being an unfunded mandate have been waived, please
understand that that is an action that can be taken. It doesn't mean
that it eliminates the truth.
And I raise a question, whether this humongous bill that we are going
to discuss, that does not answer the crisis of what we are facing--
which is 6 million people without unemployment insurance who will not
able to pay mortgage, rent, food, to be able to have a quality of life,
to create income, to create some 700,000 jobs on the unemployment end,
and to pull 3.2 million people out of poverty--is now going by the
wayside. And the payroll tax cut now is shackled with unwanted baggage.
So I rise to argue the point of order as to unfunded mandates and
argue to support the position of Mr. Levin from the Ways and Means
Committee, which is to declare the unemployment issue an emergency, to
do the payroll tax and a surtax on 1 percent of the American population
for 10 years starting in 2013, and adopt a fix, used and paid for with
Medicare savings. This is an unfunded mandate. This is not a bill that
should pass, and we should support the unemployed and those who need a
payroll tax cut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
point of order and in support of proceeding with the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. With that, as I said, in the spirit of bipartisanship,
which is the basis of the underlying legislation and the spirit of the
Christmas season, I am happy to yield not just a minute, Mr. Speaker,
but I would like to yield a minute and a half to my good friend from
Milwaukee, with whom I share an affection for our great, fine music.
Ms. MOORE. Again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing our side
to have some voice in this matter. He yielded me time in the name of
the season; so I will frame my remaining remarks in that frame.
The season is the reason;
'Tis almost treason to extend full benefits to corporations, who are
people,
And leave those who are unemployed feeble.
The season is the reason to extend full benefits to the unemployed.
It is almost a ploy to provide tax breaks to corporations and to leave
the people with no resources.
I ask my colleagues to support my point of order. It would be
egregious if we were to move forward on this bill, on this resolution,
without considering the plight that we would put the unemployed in.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, as I
have said, to speak in opposition to the point of order and in support
of our moving ahead with the resolution.
My friend is a very, very thoughtful poet herself, and I've been the
beneficiary of much of her fine work. She and I share an affection for
R&B music. She quoted Cameo and ``Talkin' Out The Side Of Your Neck.''
I don't really know that song, I have to admit, Mr. Speaker; but I'll
have to check it out.
But what I would like to do is, since we've heard of the eloquence of
Cameo and the eloquence of Gwen Moore, the great poet, I would like to
quote William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare said, ``In such
business, action is eloquence.''
Now we have before us a measure that is designed to do one thing and
one thing only, and that is to focus on getting our economy growing and
generating job opportunities for the American people. The American
people are hurting. We know that. There are people across this country
hurting. And as my friends have just outlined, there are individuals
who have suffered greatly. It is absolutely imperative that we do
everything that we can to ensure that they have job opportunities and
that those who are unable to find job opportunities have the assistance
that they and their families need to proceed, especially during this
time of year. Any action that my colleagues are proposing on the other
side will simply delay our effort that will ensure that we extend the
payroll tax holiday for an additional year, and it will prevent us from
providing those benefits to people who are unable to find work today.
So I will be discussing the underlying legislation when we proceed
with consideration of this rule, but I urge my colleagues to oppose
this point of order and allow us to proceed with consideration of the
resolution so that we can put into place a legislative package that
will get the American people back to work and ensure opportunity for
all.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 174, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 917]
YEAS--227
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
[[Page H8748]]
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--32
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Bono Mack
Burton (IN)
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Coble
Duffy
Filner
Fortenberry
Giffords
Gutierrez
Hirono
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Mack
Matheson
Myrick
Napolitano
Olson
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Rivera
Rogers (MI)
Rothman (NJ)
Schock
Scott (SC)
Shuler
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
{time} 1322
Messrs. CARNEY, GRIJALVA, BERMAN, RICHMOND, Ms. RICHARDSON, and Mrs.
McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WALDEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 917 I was unavoidably
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 917, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 917. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, H.
Res. 491, providing for consideration of H.R. 3630, to provide
incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time will be yielded for debate
purposes only.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 491 is a closed rule, which, as we all know, is
customary under both Democrats and Republicans for a measure that has
emerged from the Ways and Means Committee. But we have chosen in this
rule to expand the debate time so that both Democrats and Republicans
will have an opportunity to be heard. So we have expanded the debate
from 60 to 90 minutes, a 50 percent increase in the amount of time,
because of the gravity of this measure, because there are Members who
want to be heard. We will have this hour debate on the rule itself,
which clearly will get at the substance of the legislation, and then we
will have an additional hour and a half, so a total of 2\1/2\ hours.
Mr. Speaker, we all know what our job is here. Right now our job is
jobs. Our job is jobs. We have a responsibility to put into place
policies which will encourage job creation and economic growth, and
that's exactly what this legislation is designed to do.
Our fellow Americans across this country are hurting. Part of the
area that I represent in southern California has a 14 percent
unemployment rate, substantially larger than the national average. We
have people in my State of California and across this Nation who have
lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their
businesses.
We, today, are dealing, very sadly, with a chronic unemployment rate.
It has been sustained for a longer period of time than has been the
case since the Great Depression. And it seems to me that, as we look at
where we're going on this, we have to recognize what it is that gave us
this positive number of a reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to
8.6 percent. It was because, very sadly, hundreds of thousands of
Americans decided to give up looking for work, and that's what allowed
the unemployment rate to drop. But we know that it is not acceptable;
and especially as we go into this holiday season, Mr. Speaker, to have
so many Americans who are suffering is not acceptable.
And that's why we are here today, to take steps to ensure that we,
first and foremost, put into place job opportunities and, second,
address the needs of middle-income working Americans and those who are
struggling to make ends meet and don't have jobs. And that's why we
have chosen to not only extend unemployment benefits--and we're doing
so, I'm happy to say, with very important reforms, very important
reforms that deal with things ranging
[[Page H8749]]
from drug testing to encouraging people to qualify for their GEDs. It
doesn't mandate it. It gives States an opportunity to in fact waive it
if they choose, but it encourages people to move in the direction of
seeking opportunities. Our goal, as we extend unemployment benefits, is
to encourage reemployment of our fellow Americans who are having a
difficult time trying to make ends meet.
This measure also, as we know, Mr. Speaker, puts into place a policy
that will allow for the extension of the so-called holiday for the
payroll tax. Now, I will admit that I am a supply-side, growth-oriented
guy. I came here over three decades ago with Ronald Reagan, believing
very strongly that we need to put into place pro-growth economic
policies. The extension of the payroll tax holiday, based on analyses
from economists from both the left and the right, is that it's not
necessarily a pro-growth measure. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where
we're headed today, during difficult times, it's important for us to
realize that anyone who opposes what we are doing here today is
standing in the way and preventing us from moving ahead with providing
that payroll tax holiday for our fellow Americans.
{time} 1330
I know that there are a lot of people who will say--and as I look at
my friend from Worcester, I recall last night in the Rules Committee
when he said we've been doing everything under the sun here except for
focusing on job creation and economic growth.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone knows, Democrats and
Republicans alike, our fellow Americans know, there are 27 pieces of
legislation that have passed the House of Representatives, which
happens to be for the Republican majority. And at this moment, all 27
of those measures sit in the United States Senate, and they have not
passed. And the Senate, of course, has a Democratic majority.
Bipartisanship is what we want. That's what the American people want,
and I'm happy to say that this measure is a bipartisan bill. One of the
things that makes it a bipartisan measure, beyond extending
unemployment benefits, beyond extending the payroll tax holiday, is
this thrust towards creating jobs by proceeding with the Keystone XL
pipeline.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there has been some controversy around
this earlier, but while we look at the imperative of expanding the
payroll tax holiday and ensuring that the American people, who are
struggling, have the benefits that they desperately need, we need to
get at the root cause of the problem. And the root cause of the problem
is that we have not put into place policies, we've not been able to
pass out of both houses of Congress and get to the President's desk
policies that can immediately jump-start and get our economy growing.
I'm looking at my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) over here. He
and I have talked on numerous occasions over the past several years
about our shared goal of putting into place tax reform, reducing the
top rate on job creators from 35 to 25 percent, while closing
loopholes.
I know my friend from Worcester regularly talks about subsidies and
loopholes that exist for the oil industry and a wide range of other
areas. We want to do this in the context of overall tax reform, and I
hope very much that we can get to the point where, in a bipartisan way,
we can do that. That's a policy that both President Obama and former
President Clinton have talked about, this dealing, as Mr. Andrews and I
have discussed in the past, with this tax issue. These are the kinds of
policies that can enjoy bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans
working together to ensure that we can get this economy growing.
And I will say that this Keystone XL pipeline is one of those items,
as we all know, that enjoys bipartisan support. It would immediately
create jobs based on the projection of that construction. And while we
look at our quest, I don't think we're going to gain total energy self-
sufficiency in this global economy, but we would have greater energy
self-sufficiency working very closely with one of our closest allies,
our ally to the north, Canada, in ensuring that we can proceed with
this. We know that the question mark over whether or not we're going to
proceed with the pipeline has raised an understandable quest of the
Canadians to deal with the Chinese.
And so, Mr. Speaker, as we look at these challenges, this is a
bipartisan measure. Let anyone stand up and start pointing the finger
of blame at Republicans. But I will tell you that we have--90 percent
of the items in this measure have enjoyed bipartisan support. Many of
these are proposals that President Obama has made within his jobs
package. So that's why we've got an opportunity to do this. I believe,
Mr. Speaker, that we can do it.
Unfortunately, we can't simply legislate full employment in the
United States. Legislating full employment is not an option. I know
that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle might like to
figure that we could legislate full employment. If we could do that, we
wouldn't be faced with the difficulty that we have today.
What we can do is we can encourage America's innovators and
entrepreneurs with pro-growth policies, and that's what we have
repeatedly sent to the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the other
body will report those out.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to support
this very, very important, bipartisan legislation, get it to the other
body so that our Senate colleagues can consider this, and get it to the
President's desk so that the American people, who want to have a degree
of confidence that they're not going to see a tax increase take place,
and that they're going to, in fact, if they're struggling and don't
have a job opportunity, have their benefits continue, and to ensure
that we get at the root cause of the problem by putting into place
opportunities for private sector jobs to be created. I urge an ``aye''
vote.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how many Democrats have
cosponsored H.R. 3630?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry but may engage that point in debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. I raised the issue, Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman
said this was a bipartisan bill and I don't know of any Democrats that
are cosponsors of the bill.
First of all, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule and to the underlying bill. This bill and this process is so
lousy, I barely know where to begin today.
Let's start with the process. The bill, the way this bill was
conceived, drafted and brought up may be the worst yet under this
Republican-controlled Congress. Simply, this process is shameful. It's
an embarrassment. This 369-page monstrosity was presented on Friday
afternoon.
The gentleman says that this was reported by the Ways and Means
Committee. It was presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee. It was not reported out of that committee. I use the word
presented because it was introduced on a day when no committees met and
we had no votes in the House.
It was referred to 12 committees, 12 different committees. That's
more than half the committees in the House of Representatives. But not
a single committee held a hearing or a markup on this bill. It never
saw the light of day in any of these committees.
There are 348 Members who sit on the committees that have
jurisdiction over this bill. That's 348 Members of the House who should
have had an opportunity to offer amendments and question witnesses
about this bill in committee hearings or markups. Not one of these
Members had an opportunity.
And last night in the Rules Committee, Members came up, 12 amendments
were offered. Every single one of them was rejected.
[[Page H8750]]
Mr. Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, asked
for a Democratic substitute to be made in order. That was rejected too.
The gentleman from California says that it's traditional, when Ways
and Means bills are presented, that they be done so under a closed
rule. That's when it's a tax bill. This is a tax bill plus 1,000 other
things that have nothing to do with tax issues.
And this lousy process, I will say to my colleagues, leads to bad
legislating. Just look at this bill. It's long, and it's sloppy. The
Republicans who rushed to put this bill together have already found an
error which we're trying to correct in the rule. Who knows how many
other errors there are?
Last year Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy
and other members of the Republican leadership rolled out their Pledge
to America, their campaign pledge to run this House in a more open way.
Yet all year long they have been chipping away at their pledge, and now
we have this bill that flat out breaks their pledge.
In their pledge, the House Republicans promised to, and I quote,
``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must-pass'
legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we
will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' That's what they
said.
Yet we have three provisions--extension of the payroll tax cut,
extension of unemployment insurance, and SGR, or doc fix--that are must
pass by the end of this year. And do we have a clean bill that is free
from unrelated provisions? Of course not. That would be logical and
make too much sense.
No, Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is loaded up with goodies
to mollify the extreme right wing that is in charge of this House.
Along with the extension of the payroll tax cut and doc fix, this bill
includes the following: Requires the approval of the controversial
Keystone pipeline; requires millions of seniors to pay more for health
care; increases taxes on working families by forcing large, end-of-the-
year health care payments; slashes prevention funding that actually
reduces Medicare and Medicaid costs; undermines air quality,
endangering the health of children and families by blocking mercury
pollution reduction; cuts retirement programs for Federal workers; and
extends the pay freeze for Federal workers.
Each of these provisions are different. They have nothing to do with
one another. Why are they all bunched together in this one bill?
And these policies are bad for America. They are bad for the American
people. Yet the Republican leadership continues to push these extreme
and harmful policies.
And even though the unemployment insurance program needs to be
extended, this bill actually erodes the support program by cutting
unemployment insurance benefits for 1 million Americans who lost their
jobs through no fault of their own. And it imposes new limits on
unemployment compensation by restricting benefits employees have paid
for.
{time} 1340
Why is it so difficult for this Republican-controlled House to help
the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class? Why
do they throw roadblock after roadblock in front of middle class
Americans who are trying to make their lives better? Why do they
continue to make it virtually impossible for us to help average people,
while at the same time they do everything in their power to protect
subsidies for big oil companies and tax cuts for the Donald Trumps of
the world?
Extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of the unemployment
insurance program, and the doc fix should not be controversial. And
these extensions should have been done a long, long time ago.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are playing a very risky
game. We know this failure to extend the payroll tax cut will mean a
$1,500 tax increase on middle class Americans. We know that 160 million
Americans will see their taxes go up if we don't act before the end of
the year. So why are Republicans bringing a bill to the floor that we
know will not pass the Senate?
We know, by the way, the President will not sign it. I have a
Statement of Administration Policy, which I would like to place in the
Record, which basically makes it very clear that the President would
veto this bill.
Executive Office of the President Office of Management,
and Budget,
Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3630--Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011
(Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 5 others)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only
days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking
Americans, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle-
class families. H.R. 3630 breaks the bipartisan agreement on
spending cuts that was reached just a few months ago and
would inevitably lead to pressure to cut investments in areas
like education and clean energy. Furthermore, H.R. 3630 seeks
to put the burden of paying for the bill on working families,
while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big
corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies.
Instead of working together to find a balanced approach
that will actually pass both Houses of the Congress, H.R.
3630 instead represents a choice to refight old political
battles over health care and introduce ideological issues
into what should be a simple debate about cutting taxes for
the middle class.
This debate should not be about scoring political points.
This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle
class.
If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would
veto the bill.
So why are we wasting precious time?
The Republican leadership insists on playing chicken with the
American people just to score cheap political points. This is not a
time for political theater. This is the time for responsible
leadership. It's time to do the right thing for the American people and
drop these controversial provisions from this bill.
This is not the time to increase taxes on middle class Americans.
It's time to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and
the doc fix.
Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get back to doing the people's
business, and the people's business is jobs. It would be nice if my
Republican friends would allow the President's jobs bill to come to the
floor for a vote rather than bills that reaffirm our national motto or
make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one
State to another.
I say to my Republican friends, the American people are outraged.
They're outraged at Republican indifference to the middle class.
They're outraged by Republicans' callous attitude to the most
vulnerable in this country. They're outraged that Republicans are
playing politics with their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing,
to pass a clean extension of the payroll tax cut, properly extend
unemployment insurance and the doc fix. Do the right thing, and do it
the right way. That's all the American people are asking for.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
colleague that he has performed just as I had expected, pointing the
finger of blame when we're trying to work in a bipartisan way to make
sure that we get this done. We want the doc fix. We want to ensure that
people who can't make ends meet and are looking for work have access to
those benefits. We want to extend the payroll tax holiday.
We also feel it imperative that we get at the root cause of exactly
what my friend just said, Mr. Speaker, and that is creating jobs. And
everyone knows, Democrat and Republican alike, many leaders in
organized labor focus on the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is a
job creator and can go a long way towards doing exactly what my friend
and I share in common as a goal.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a
hardworking new member of your class, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Lawrence, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. There are but two points I want to
bring up in support of the bill before us today.
Thomas Jefferson said this: ``A wise and frugal Government, which
shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them
otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it
has earned. This is the sum of good government.''
I believe that America works better when hardworking Americans keep
[[Page H8751]]
more of the money that they earn, keep more of their paycheck. That's
why I support the payroll tax cut provision in this bill.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, is this: the administration can be for
jobs, or the administration can support a radical environmentalist
policy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are mutually exclusive and you
cannot support both.
The Keystone pipeline is a segue to job creation in this Nation. You
remember the jobs created in the 1970s with the Alaskan pipeline? I do.
The Keystone pipeline will create both construction jobs and long-term
jobs as our Nation refines the hydrocarbons into energy products here
in American refineries. Failure not to do this means the possibility
that this Canadian oil will be refined in and used by China.
Today, we can pursue North American energy independence by partnering
with our closest ally and largest trading partner, Canada. Or we can
continue the same failed policies of this administration which lead to
higher prices at the pump for Americans and the continuation of sending
dollars overseas for Middle Eastern oil.
This bill cuts taxes, it reduces spending, it ends the regulatory
quagmire for American businesses and provides a path forward for
American energy security.
I support its passage, and I ask that God will continue to bless
America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms.
Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his
presentation on why we are here today and why the rule that is being
brought to the floor is not the right one, because it does not allow
for us to have options for the American people to be considered.
One of those options I want to talk about has been described by the
President.
President Obama last week in Kansas made a glorious speech harking
back to President Roosevelt's speech about the middle class and its
importance to America's democracy, how it is the backbone of our
democracy. President Obama said last week we are greater together when
everyone engages in fair play, where everyone gets a fair shot and
everyone does their fair share. This isn't about one percentage and
another percentage. It's about all Americans working together.
President Obama put those words into legislative action with his
proposal for a payroll tax cut for middle income families, as well as
unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own.
Democrats have a proposal today which we cannot take up on the floor
because the Republican rule is perhaps afraid of the vote we might get
because it does so much for America's working families.
I want to remind our colleagues that for a long time the Republican
leadership did not support a payroll tax cut at all. Rhetoric coming
from the Republicans was, We don't believe in extending the payroll tax
cut; however, we do want to make permanent the tax cut for the
wealthiest people in America--those making over $1 million a year.
So the President taking this to the public and the reinforcement of
that message by our Democratic colleagues in the House and in the
Senate has made the payroll tax cut an issue too hot for the
Republicans to handle.
So they're bringing a bill to the floor today which says they're for
a payroll tax cut, but has within it the seeds of its own destruction
because it has poison pills, which they know are not acceptable to the
President and do not do the best effort for the American people.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. You have plenty of time, Mr. Chairman. You're the
chairman of the committee; I'm not.
Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to ask a question.
Ms. PELOSI. I'm not going to yield to you because you make your
points all day. I'm making mine now.
And one of the points I would like to make is about the Democratic
substitute which the chairman of the committee said we could not bring
to the floor. But it's important for the American people to know that
it mirrors what the President has proposed.
The bill would cut taxes by $1,500 for the typical American family.
It would secure a critical lifeline for those who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own. It would ensure that seniors still get
to see the doctor of their choice with a permanent doc fix that is
contained in the bill. Our proposal would protect and extend the tax
cut for 160 million Americans while asking 300,000 people, those making
over a million dollars a year, to pay their fair share.
{time} 1350
The Republicans not only said no to the bill; they said, no, your
substitute cannot even be considered on the floor.
The President has said--and the Democrats in Congress agree with
him--that we cannot go home unless we pass a tax cut for the middle
class, that we cannot go home unless we pass the unemployment benefits
for America's working families.
Across the country, families are sitting at their tables. Christmas
is coming. I say it over and over that Christmas is coming. For some,
the goose is getting fat, and for others, it's very slim pickings.
Families are sitting around their tables, having to make difficult
choices: Can we put gas in the car and still afford to put food on the
table? As the holiday season comes upon us, can we buy toys for our
children during the holidays and be able to pay the bills when they
come due in January?
As families gather around those tables, making those decisions,
Democrats have put our ideas on the table. We are willing and ready to
reach across the aisle in order to complete our work and give 160
million Americans the gift of greater opportunity and security, of hope
and optimism during the holiday season and the New Year. You cannot do
this by saying, We're going to put something in the bill that the
President says he will not sign.
It's hard to understand how you can say you're for something except
you're going to put up obstacles to its passage. The macroeconomic
advisers have said that the proposal the President has put forward will
make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy. If we fail to do
this, we are, again, risking those jobs and we're missing the
opportunity. As the previous speaker said, let's put the money in the
pockets of America's workers.
Welcome to the payroll tax cut, I say to our Republican colleagues--
what you have long resisted but what the President has demonstrated
there is public support for.
Let's reject this rule so that we can have a fair debate on the
President's proposal, which is fair to America's workers and stronger
in terms of the macroeconomic impact it will have to inject demand into
the economy, which will create more jobs and make the holiday season a
brighter one for many more Americans.
Let us put the Republican proposal on the table and the President's
proposal on the table, which has the full support of Democrats and
Republicans in the House and Senate, as opposed to the Republican
proposal they put forth in the Senate, which didn't even win the
support of a majority of the Republicans. Let's come together; let's
find our common ground; let's get the job done; but let's understand
that we cannot leave Congress--that we cannot go home--until we meet
the needs of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to
fully support the best possible payroll tax cut for the middle class,
unemployment benefits for our workers, as well as for our seniors to
have the ability to have the doctors of their choice.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership on
this important legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I'd be happy to yield to my dear California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, if
she would want to respond to anything I'm about to say here as I was
looking forward to getting to debate.
First of all, my colleague from California began by saying that there
was no opportunity for Democrats to have a proposal that is considered.
Members of the minority, the Democrats, are entitled to a motion to
recommit. That is provided in this measure, although we often were
denied that when we were in the minority.
[[Page H8752]]
Second, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) did, in fact,
propose that we have a substitute made in order; but, Mr. Speaker,
since last Friday, when this bill was made available, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the committee, never
came forward with a substitute for us in the Rules Committee. We only
received one just a few minutes ago.
Then to the important point about the so-called ``poison pills'' that
my California colleague mentioned, the distinguished minority leader:
The idea of saying that we want to encourage those who are unemployed
to move towards GED qualification does not seem to me to be a poison
pill.
Mr. Speaker, the idea of saying that we should have drug testing--and
that's, again, optional drug testing--so that people who are receiving
these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase
drugs is obviously not a poison pill. Then the idea of having
millionaires benefit from the program, which we eliminate in this
proposal, should not be a poison pill.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to another hardworking member of the freshman class, the gentleman from
Bryan, Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about options for
American middle class jobs and American energy security. In this
regard, I want to talk about two real-world examples that highlight the
differences between President Obama's plan and the GOP plan for
America's job creators.
Option A is Obama's plan. Option B is the GOP plan. Here are the
examples: Under option A, Solyndra. Under option B, the Keystone XL
pipeline.
How many part-time jobs were created under option A? One thousand.
They have come and gone. Under the Keystone XL pipeline, there were
over 20,000.
How many full-time jobs from Solyndra? None. They're gone. How many
full-time jobs from option B, the Keystone XL pipeline? Thousands.
What did option A do for America's improved energy security? Nothing.
How about for option B? Yes, we get improved American energy security.
In reducing the demand for Middle Eastern oil, Solyndra provided
none. The Keystone XL pipeline will offset Middle Eastern demand by
700,000 barrels per day.
The cost to American taxpayers for Solyndra? Over $1.5 billion
wasted. For the Keystone XL pipeline? Nothing. Nada.
What was the taxpayer return on Solyndra? There was none. What is the
taxpayer return on the Keystone XL pipeline? It's infinite.
Who benefited from Solyndra? The President's political contributors.
Who benefits from the Keystone XL pipeline? The American middle class.
How do you get more information? Go to jobs.GOP.gov for more
information about the GOP plan for America's job creators.
Mr. Speaker, we can't wait for more middle class, Main Street jobs,
so I urge my colleagues to vote for both the rule and the underlying
bill. H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2011, is just the answer that we need at this critical time.
I also wish all Americans a very Merry Christmas.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee,
Ms. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, there are no Democrats on this bill. I don't know what
all this bipartisan talk is about. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) didn't even see it. None of us knew.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. No. If you don't mind, I'd like to get through my
speech. We've heard this all day.
I understand that there is great hope for a number of Democrat
votes--and I don't know how that will turn out--but, frankly, I don't
think that this bill will ever see the light of day anyway. There is
not much support for it in the Senate, and the President said he won't
sign it. So what I am hopeful for is that, when we really get down to
business here, we can have a bipartisan bill. It is possible to do
that. Just invite the Democrats to take part in it.
Let me make it clear that you cannot call anything ``bipartisan''
when there is not a single Democrat on it. Also, a motion to recommit
is nowhere near a substitute bill, which we were not allowed to do.
Instead of extending tax cuts to the middle class and giving
assistance to the unemployed, this majority is holding the middle class
hostage in order to extract concessions for their friends in Big Oil.
Furthermore, instead of asking those with the most to help those with
the least, which is what we are supposed to do, today's bill asks
millions of seniors to pay more for health care. In exchange, the
majority will graciously continue the Federal unemployment insurance
programs, although they are grievously cut; and 10 States will get
waivers not to have to pay unemployment insurance at all. So that's a
sort of Russian roulette idea.
They cut the maximum number of weeks as Christmas approaches, which
is the time of goodwill toward men, women, and children who are out of
work through no fault of their own. In a country where there are four
persons applying for each and every available job, that gives us some
idea of how dire it is to face this Christmas and the rest of this year
without jobs.
{time} 1400
Why can't the Grand Old Party help the middle class without demanding
a quid pro quo?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Why can't they serve the middle class without playing
Secret Santa for special interests like the Keystone XL?
In addition to the misguided brinksmanship of the majority, today's
bill flies in the face of regular order and makes a mockery of the
majority's CutGo rules for all bills. We've seen in the Rules Committee
the fact that it has been waived many times today. It is waived yet
again. And it says to the Office of Management and Budget and the
Congressional Budget Office that they count the savings in this bill
but not the cost. If only middle class families could use that kind of
accounting.
This is hardly the deliberate and thoughtful legislative process that
the majority promised us when they assumed office almost 12 months ago.
So because of the rushed process and the legislative acrobatics used to
mask the true cost of the bill, I strongly oppose today's rule and the
underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Ninety-eight days ago, the President of the United States came to
this Chamber and proposed to create jobs by cutting taxes for middle
class families by about $1,500 per year. For 98 days, the majority
refused to take up legislation that would enact that jobs plan. So
finally today we have their version of it, which unfortunately does not
cut taxes for middle class people the way we proposed but at least
avoids a tax increase on those families which is looming on January 1.
But I can't support this bill because of how it pays for that middle
class tax relief. First let me say this: I agree as a general rule when
we cut taxes here on anyone, we ought to pay for it, not increase the
deficit. But the majority has never subscribed to that principle until
today.
So when the wealthiest people in America got an enormous tax
reduction in their tax rates in 2001 and again in 2003, there was no
requirement that we offset that in order to pay for it. But now that
middle class families are getting some relief, all of a sudden, there
has to be.
Let's talk about what that offset is. One major portion of it
essentially reduces unemployment benefits for Americans down the line.
And as I understand this, there are some reforms that really ought to
take place. When I hear about GEDs and drug testing, I think that is
fairly sensible. But it
[[Page H8753]]
isn't sensible to say to someone, If you've been looking for work day
after day and week after week and trying your best to find your next
job, it's your fault if you didn't find it. But that is essentially
what this bill says. If you are unemployed, look in the mirror. It's
your fault.
I don't think the authors of this bill know many unemployed people. I
know they don't know that for every four unemployed people in America
today, there is one job. For every one job that's listed as being open,
there are four unemployed people for that job. I don't think they
understand that even though there is a law against age discrimination
in this country, age discrimination in this country is an everyday
painful fact of life for a lot of people over about 40 years old in
this country.
So I would say to all those who are about to vote to extend middle
class tax relief by blaming the unemployed for their own plight that
they ought to walk for just a day or a week or a month in the shoes of
a 50-year-old man or woman who has been out of work for a year and a
half, who has circled every want ad, gone to every Web site, taken
every job interview he or she could get, and still cannot find a job.
We should vote against this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee who was denied his right to have a substitute when he was at
the Rules Committee, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. You know, when there is an issue as serious as this, you
would think that the majority would let us introduce a substitute.
Instead, the answer is a stone wall. So I am going to explain what is
in my substitute. I want the American public to know what would be in
it.
A 1-year extension and expansion of the employee payroll tax cut to
3.1 percent, as the President proposed; a 1-year extension on the bonus
depreciation; and a 1-year extension on unemployment insurance is in
the bill that Mr. Doggett and a lot of us introduced, H.R. 3346--and a
10-year SGR fix.
I want the American public to understand what's at stake here and how
we pay for it. This chart shows very vividly what the Republicans
essentially are doing. I want everybody to look at it. Under their
proposal, seniors sacrifice $31 billion. Under their proposal, Federal
employees sacrifice $40 billion. Under their proposal, unemployed
Americans--unemployed, looking for work--sacrifice $11 billion. And
under their proposal, essentially people earning over $1 million
sacrifice nothing, nothing. They don't pay for this bill, while seniors
and everybody else indicated here, Federal workers and the unemployed,
do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I will just say to the majority, get in the shoes of the
unemployed. If you don't, I think those who deny it deserve their
unemployment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from the Committee on Financial Services, the
gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. This is a
question, as it relates to this Keystone pipeline project, of whether
we're serious about an economic recovery in this country. And frankly,
it's a question about whether or not we're serious about our national
security.
Now, we have a shovel-ready project here, the Keystone pipeline, that
will create tens of thousands of jobs. By the Chamber's estimate and by
the estimate of the unions involved in supporting this, it's actually
hundreds of thousands in terms of the consequences of developing this
resource and bringing it down from Alberta, Canada. These are good
jobs, good jobs for men and women in this country that are involved in
manufacturing pipe and earth movers.
And frankly, when you think about it, why, why do we keep delaying
this at a time when unemployment is as high as it is? Because I can
tell you, the Canadians aren't waiting. The Chinese are not waiting.
Make no mistake about it, the Canadians will develop and export the oil
they're developing in western Canada. The Prime Minister met with Hu
Jintao of China, and the deal that they're talking about striking is
one that accrues to the benefit of China at the expense of the United
States. If this energy does not transit the United States and go to
refineries here, it will go to China, and it will fuel their
manufacturing sector.
{time} 1410
That is what we are concerned about. We are concerned about throwing
away this opportunity. I don't know about you, but it sure bothers me
to see China playing in our hemisphere and the administration does not
seem to care.
Americans have been told about the importance of energy independence.
We have been on the hook, my friends, to Middle East producers for
decades now; and we're sending billions every year to that cartel. And
these countries in that cartel are unstable. They all collude to
control prices, and we have a chance instead to get this oil from our
allies, and we're being told by this administration and by the other
side of the aisle that despite the jobs that this would create, that
this is going to be stopped.
Well, today we have a chance to develop an energy resource in the
Americas, working with our Canadian allies, creating good jobs,
creating access to cheaper energy here. Energy in China is 20 percent
higher than energy here in the United States. Why would we want to
inverse that? Why don't we want the cheaper source of energy here? Yet
the administration stalls and gives the advantage to China.
I just want to tell you, colleagues, support this rule, support the
underlying legislation. Take a stand for jobs. Take a stand for
American security and consider the fact that China has already
advantaged itself in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere at our
expense.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I rise today in strong opposition to this act and in opposition to
the rule. It's a shame that the majority is playing legislative chicken
with middle class tax cuts on a bill that will never be signed into
law.
I'm open-minded on the Keystone pipeline, but it has no place in this
bill. It's mixing apples with oranges. It's a poison pill. It's
designed to kill it. The President has already said that he won't sign
a bill like this. So what do my Republican colleagues do? They give us
more so they can score some political points with their base.
The American people want us to meet in the middle. The American
people want us to approve things to move the country forward. We need
to pass a simple extension of middle class tax relief. We need to pass
a simple extension of unemployment insurance. This is what we should
do. This is what the American people want us to do. Unemployment is
hovering around 9 percent. People need help, and we're not helping
them.
This bill also forces millions of seniors to pay more for health care
while giving the 300,000 wealthiest Americans another free pass. That's
not right. This is unacceptable. We cannot solve our debt problem on
the backs of working families.
Mr. Speaker, I have always prided myself as a moderate and someone
who wants to work across the aisle. The chairman knows that. We have
spoken many, many times. I plead with my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, I think the American people want us to do some good work
in the closing days of this session. We need unemployment extension. We
need a middle class tax cut extension. Let's not mix apples with
oranges. Let's pass a clean bill and go home and say we did something
good for the country.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would be
happy to engage my friend if he'd like to. Let me make a couple of
comments.
First, I think that as we look at the issue of the Keystone XL
pipeline, the notion of saying that somehow we're trying to appeal to
our base when we
[[Page H8754]]
know the most outspoken and enthusiastic supporters of the Keystone XL
pipeline happen to be the labor unions, organized labor in this
country. We know because they want to create jobs, and they are
supportive of this so that we can create jobs.
People throw around terms like ``poison pill,'' why are we using this
issue. Because as we extend unemployment benefits to people who are
unable to find jobs, and as we extend the payroll tax holiday, we feel
that it's absolutely essential that we get at the root cause of the
problem. We have protracted unemployment in this country. Very, very
sadly. We know it has gone on for an extended period of time--the end
of the last administration into this administration. We all know that
we were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill that the
unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Now it's at 8.6 percent.
I'm gratified that it went from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. But why did
it do that?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
Because hundreds of thousands of Americans have chosen to give up
even looking for work. And so we're saying, yes, we will agree to
extend unemployment benefits; yes, we will agree to extending for
another year the payroll tax holiday. But let's get at the root cause
of the problem. So that's why we see these as being very closely
intertwined.
It's true the President did say that he would reject this; but I
believe if we can pass it through this House with bipartisan support,
pass it through the United States Senate and get it to the President's
desk, that extending unemployment benefits at this time of year
especially, and that payroll tax holiday, with a measure that the
President has indicated support for, dealing with the XL pipeline, that
the President will, in fact, sign it.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a
letter from William Samuel, the director of the government affairs
department at the AFL-CIO, in strong opposition to H.R. 3630.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing
to urge you to oppose the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630), which would replace a
modest surtax on income over $1 million with drastic benefit
reductions for jobless workers, pay cuts for public
employees, reduced premium assistance for low- and middle-
income individuals buying health insurance, cutbacks in
preventive health services, and higher premiums for many
Medicare beneficiaries.
H.R. 3630 would cut the federal unemployment insurance (UI)
program by more than half in 2012, reducing benefit
eligibility by 14 weeks in every state and by 40 weeks in
states with the highest unemployment rates. These benefit
cuts would reduce economic activity by $22 billion and cost
140,000 jobs.
Even more troubling, H.R. 3630 would fundamentally change
the nature of unemployment insurance and erode the
unemployment safety net for the future. Unemployment
insurance (UI) is a social insurance program, to which
workers make contributions in the form of reduced wages. H.R.
3630 would change the nature of UI by allowing states to
require jobless workers to ``work off'' their benefits, in
effect allowing UI to be transformed into a workfare program.
H.R. 3630 would further undermine social insurance by
introducing means testing, which would surely be used to
restrict UI eligibility to fewer and fewer workers over time.
The authors of this legislation do not seem to understand
that America faces a continuing jobs crisis, and they seem to
think that jobless workers--rather than Wall Street--are to
blame for high unemployment and the lack of jobs. In addition
to cutting unemployment benefits, H.R. 3630 would allow drug
testing of all workers before they can receive benefits;
require workers without a high school degree to be enrolled
in classes before they can receive benefits; and make jobless
workers pay out of their own pockets for reemployment
services offered by the government.
In order to spare millionaires from having to pay one more
penny in taxes, H.R. 3630 would also require federal
employees to sacrifice even more than they have already. Not
only would H.R. 3630 extend the current pay freeze for
federal employees, but it would also raise $37 billion in
revenues by increasing federal employee pension contributions
and reducing their retirement income.
H.R. 3630 would also have a substantial negative impact on
the health care of working families. It would impose daunting
subsidy repayment requirements on families whose economic
circumstances improve, which would deter 170,000 people from
accepting premium assistance under the Affordable Care Act,
according to the Joint Tax Committee. As a result, thousands
of middle- and lower-income families would be unable to
afford health insurance. In addition, H.R. 3630 would
increase Medicare premiums for at least 25 percent of all
beneficiaries, requiring many in the middle class to pay
substantially more, and would reduce federal support for new
preventive services.
H.R. 3630 would protect the most privileged one percent of
all Americans from having to pay one more penny in taxes, and
it would do so by demanding still more sacrifice and pain
from jobless workers, federal employees, and low- and middle-
income families. The authors of H.R. 3630 obviously have more
sympathy for millionaires than for the victims of the
economic crisis caused by Wall Street. We urge you to vote
against this cruel and selfish piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, unrelated, partisan riders
often have received scorn in the past. In 2008, for example, now-
Speaker Boehner mentioned his strong distaste, stating: ``Attaching
these riders is the sort of stunt that has made Americans extremely
cynical about Washington.'' But when finally agreeing to vote on a
payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, this bill is riddled with
riders.
Preventative health care, for example, improves wellness and lowers
costs. When provided the opportunity for free preventative services, 70
percent of Medicare recipients enrolled. But this bill cuts that care.
Why? It's a rider.
What do payroll tax cuts and shipping more gasoline to China have in
common? Republican Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged this political
gamesmanship saying: ``I think we should debate the Keystone pipeline,
and we should debate tax policy separately.'' Sadly, it's another rider
in this bill.
Finally, Republicans included a poison pill with actual poison--
mercury, arsenic, and other toxins. What does gutting the Clean Air Act
have to do with payroll tax cuts? Nothing. It's a rider.
I strongly support extending the payroll tax cut to help 160 million
Americans; but first we need to cut the partisan riders.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the
underlying bill. This rule rejected all attempts to amend the bill,
limits the general debate time, and contains egregious provisions which
allow States to apply measures such as drug testing; you've got to have
a high school diploma or be enrolled in a GED program. Well, I can tell
you, Mr. Speaker, that people who are addicted to drugs don't need
testing. What they need is treatment. People who are sick need health
care. People who are unemployed need a job and the opportunity to work,
or they need benefits until such time as they can receive it.
This bill goes in the wrong direction. I strongly oppose it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very
good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think coupling--putting the unemployment extension, the tax
holiday, the doc fix, and a real jobs bill together--which is what the
American people have been telling Congress for the entire year, that
they want to see tangible job creation. There's no better job creator
in the pipeline--pun intended--than Keystone XL.
{time} 1420
It's a 1,700-mile, $7 billion, shovel-ready project--not the fake
shovel-ready in the stimulus, but real, ready, earnestly ready to start
digging right now. The only holdup for Keystone pipeline's permit is
the politics of the 2012 election. The process sits in the State
Department.
[[Page H8755]]
So what we say is in this bill, State Department, use the information
that has been sitting on your desk collecting dust. You said you would
make a decision by December 31. We just want you to make it 60 days
after the permit's again requested, with the carve-out for the Nebraska
exemption.
Why is it so important? Well, it really does displace 700,000 barrels
of imported oil, almost the entire amount from Venezuela or about half
from Saudi Arabia. It creates 20,000 jobs nearly instantaneously,
20,000 new jobs.
It seems to me that as we're talking about putting food on the table
and Christmastime that this is meat and potatoes. The potatoes will
sustain you like the unemployment insurance, but what people really
want is the red meat of good, high-paying jobs, labor that they can go
to. And I bet you that the AFL-CIO wants this Keystone pipeline built.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, the AFL-CIO still opposes this
bill.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I
don't think anyone disagrees with my good friend who discussed the
Keystone pipeline that it would create jobs. There's nothing that has
been said that would suggest that at the appropriate time of review
that that project would not go forward.
But what we're talking about today is a crisis in the American public
dealing with two major issues: continuing a tax relief and tax cut for
working and middle class Americans, number one; and, number two, to
keep 6 million Americans from rolling into the street and falling on
their own spear for lack of unemployment insurance being extended,
disallowing them to pay their mortgage, disallowing them to pay their
rent, and, in essence, saying to them there is no light at the end.
It is also about Republicans and their commitment to the American
people. In their pledge to America, the GOP leadership indicated in
September that they would end the practice of packaging unpopular bills
with must-pass legislation. This is must-pass legislation. And look
what they're doing besides the pipeline provision that has been
supported in a bipartisan manner yet this in the wrong process; they
have got broadband spectrum; they are ending jobless benefits to the
extent that they are requiring burdensome drug testing on college
persons who can't find a job; they are suggesting that if you can't
find a job, it's your own fault; changes to Medicare that are burdening
senior citizens; and, on top of that, we've got an appropriations bill
to deal with.
My friends, there is a simple way of doing this. The Payroll tax can
be increased by the surtax on just the 300,000 top 1% of America for 10
years, allowing 160 million Americans to get payroll tax relief.
How do we help the 6 million persons who need unemployment insurance?
We call it an emergency. It is an emergency.
How do we fix Medicare reimbursement for our doctors? We use the
savings from the ending of the Iraq war. It's a simple, clean process,
a simple vote to help Americans.
How can they violate their pledge, Mr. Speaker, of not putting
everything under the Christmas tree on a bill that must pass on behalf
of the American people? That's the challenge today.
I'm against the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers
he has on his side?
Mr. McGOVERN. I have at least two more speakers.
Mr. DREIER. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The President has announced that we cannot leave Congress without
passing an extension of the middle class tax cut and an extension of
unemployment benefits.
Now, originally, the ``no new taxes'' folks in the GOP Republican
Senate said that they couldn't do that, that they were going to let the
middle class tax increase expire, they were going to let the taxes
increase on the middle class, but they were going to refuse to raise
taxes on the superrich. Now, if you were not superrich, this was bad
news for 99 percent of all Americans; and they spoke out, and they said
they would like this tax cut.
Now the Republicans have come back with all types of riders that the
President does not support. We need a clean bill.
The payroll tax cut that the Democrats are supporting would mean that
a typical middle class family would have 1,000 extra dollars to spend.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. MALONEY. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that
the payroll tax cut is one of the most powerful tools that we could use
to increase the number of full-time jobs. The other policy option that
they supported for stimulating the economy was extending the
unemployment benefits.
So it's time for our colleagues across the aisle to get with the
spirit of this season. Pass the tax cut without the harmful riders;
pass the extension of unemployment benefits; and--excuse my Dickens--
stop with all the humbug and let's get forward with helping the economy
and helping the American people.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman and I thank the House.
There is a time, a place, and a season for everything. I would argue
to the House that this is not the time for us to be playing around with
the financial fortunes of 160 million Americans that are enjoying a tax
cut today that we'd like to extend and the President would like to
extend going forward over the next year.
Now we've had some 21 consecutive months of private sector job growth
in this country. Now, I know that the President has almost had to lift
this economy single-handedly since the GOP has decided they don't want
to do anything to help move the American economy forward; but the idea
that you would actually stand in the way of, at a minimum, keeping this
tax cut in place, and to do it in the holiday season--as we prepare our
Christmas tree at home and my wife and daughters have been decorating
it--we all need to understand that in this Christmas season that it is
wrong for us to approach the holidays and to create this uncertainty.
We've got so much concern about uncertainty in the business community
but no concern about uncertainty in the homes of 160 million Americans.
Now, if we want to pass any bill on any day, you have a majority, you
can do it. You don't have to merge the pipeline with this tax cut. You
don't have to tie the fortunes of 160 million Americans' economic
fortune together with the pipeline.
We could move this today. The President is prepared to sign it. I
would urge my colleagues, let's do this in the appropriate way.
Mr. McGOVERN. I advise the gentleman from California that I am the
last speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman does.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record an
article from Politico entitled, ``GOP takes packaging path,'' talking
about how my Republican friends have broken their Pledge to America.
[From Politico, Dec. 11, 2011]
GOP Takes Packaging Path
(By Jake Sherman)
The year-end rush to extend the payroll tax holiday has
House Republicans struggling to keep up with a key promise
from last year's election as they bundle together a
hodgepodge of issues before skipping town for Christmas.
In the Pledge to America, released by GOP leadership under
much fanfare in September 2010, Republicans said they would
``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-
pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American
people. Instead, we will
[[Page H8756]]
advance major legislation one issue at a time,'' they said.
They'll be doing the exact opposite this week.
The year-end legislative package centered on extending the
payroll tax has turned into a holiday tree filled with
legislative ornaments ranging from the Keystone XL oil
pipeline, the sale of broadband spectrum, an extension of
jobless benefits, changes to Medicare and easing of certain
environmental standards. On top of that, the House will also
try to clear a nearly $1 trillion catch-all year-end spending
bill--the type of appropriations package that Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) himself has decried as inadequate.
Republicans bristle at the comparison, insisting they're in
full compliance with their election-season promises, but the
manner with which they're passing the legislation underscores
larger issues Congress has to contend with as a winter chill
settles on Washington: Republicans want to score political
points from Democrats; the Senate is split; President Barack
Obama is in reelection mode; and tax provisions are slated to
expire as the Christmas recess looms.
A GOP leadership aide said the comparison is ``a half-assed
attempt at a `gotcha' story--and it's weak even for POLITICO
on a quiet Friday afternoon.''
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said the extension
bill ``does not fit the definition of `must-pass'
legislation--which generally refers to funding bills, or an
increase in the debt limit--nor does it contain any
`unpopular' provisions. Therefore, it is entirely consistent
with the Pledge to America.''
Any number of Republicans, though, have said that the tax
holiday must be extended, saying its expiration would amount
a tax increase when it's least needed.
Whether it's a ``must pass'' or not, the package of bills
is seen as critical for both parties: If Congress doesn't
act, taxes will go up on more than 100 million families,
jobless benefits will expire and doctors who treat Medicare
patients will have their fees slashed.
Over the past week, the narrative has shifted
significantly. Both Republicans and Democrats now say they
want to extend the provisions, recognizing both the political
and economic peril that would come from allowing the measures
to run out.
The argument is now over how the government will pay for it
and what will ride alongside it for Republicans to say they
tried to create jobs.
It's all pretty familiar to Capitol Hill onlookers and
could help explain Congress's 9 percent approval rating. The
year-end dash--Boehner says he wants the House to be done by
Friday--mirrors Congress's work during the previous 10
months. There's political posturing on both sides and
panicked legislating, all set against the backdrop of a
looming holiday deadline.
Here's where things stand: Top GOP aides say the
Republicans' Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
represents their last offer. The legislation extends the
payroll tax holiday, jobless benefits and the ``doc fix,'' in
addition to other sweeteners. To blunt conservative angst
about the bill and to offset its cost, GOP leaders tacked on
language to force President Barack Obama to restart the
Keystone XL pipeline project, in addition to easing
environmental standards on boilers and slashing money from
the Democrats' health care law.
It will hit the House floor this week. Senate Republican
leaders say it has enough steam to sail through the upper
chamber. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said
on ``Fox News Sunday'' that Democrats such as Sens. Barbara
Milkulski of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon support rolling
back the boiler regulation. Some Democrats, including
lawmakers from labor-friendly districts, support the pipeline
construction.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said flatly
that the House bill with the pipeline won't pass--and
Democrats are weighing what bill to put on the floor this
week.
``It's the highest priority of the president and the
Democrats in Congress,'' Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of
Illinois said of the payroll tax extension on NBC's ``Meet
the Press.''
But there's still blowback on the pipeline issue.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also appearing on NBC, said
flatly that the ``pipeline is probably not gonna sell.''
``At the end of the day, the payroll tax will get extended
as it is now,'' Graham said. ``It won't get expanded; it'll
get extended. And we'll find a way to pay for it in a
bipartisan fashion.''
Senate Democrats say that's what they're trying to do.
Democratic sources suggest the party might abandon its plan
to institute a surtax on millionaires, eyeing instead a
package with more palatable spending cuts to attract
Republican support.
There are a few question marks on the House side. When the
package was rolled out, the conference rallied behind
Boehner. But should it fray, so might its support. Boehner
told members in a closed meeting he wants all 242 House
Republicans to support the bill.
If the Republican support does not stay intact, House
Democrats will again be necessary for passage. It's an open
question what they would support to offset the cost of the
bill.
On Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
was cool on changes to Medicare--including means testing for
millionaires--and cutting unemployment benefits from 99 to 59
weeks.
``Some things [that] might be acceptable in terms of a big,
bold and balanced plan are unacceptable if we're not only not
going to the place where President Obama wants to go on the
payroll tax cut, have a more modest proposal and on top of
that, have consumers of Medicare pay the price,'' Pelosi
said.
She minced no words when talking about the Keystone
pipeline.
``This is not about the Keystone pipeline,'' she said.
``The Keystone pipeline is a completely separate issue.
People on both sides of the issue agree that this shouldn't
be on this package. It's just not polite; it's a poison pill
designed to sink the payroll tax cut.''
Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have designed a bill to fail, and
it contains poison pills which will result in tax hikes for 160 million
workers and the loss of hundreds of thousands of existing jobs. They
say they're for extending the payroll tax cut for middle class
Americans, they say they want to help the unemployed, but yet they
demand a ransom in order for us to get this passed. And the ransom that
they are demanding is quite high.
You've heard from Members on our side of all the poison pills that
are in this bill. I have introduced into the Record the statement from
the administration saying that they would veto this bill, because it is
so awful, if it comes to the desk of the President. We know that the
United States Senate will not move on this bill.
So why are we wasting our time with precious few days left in the
session? Why aren't we doing what most Americans want us to do, and
that is to extend the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and
extend unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are out of
work, through no fault of their own, because it's the right thing to
do?
My friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem with
bailing out big banks on Wall Street, but when it comes to helping
middle class families and working people, they squawk.
{time} 1430
You've heard over and over that this is the Christmas season; we're
supposed to be generous in our hearts. I don't feel the generosity on
the other side. I don't feel the compassion. I'm not sure if my
colleagues understand how Americans are struggling, what it feels like
to be out of work. People who are in their 50s and 60s who have lost
their job and can't find another job, and my colleagues are trying to
make it more difficult for them to be able to get benefits so they can
keep their homes and put food on the table.
My friend from California talks about, well, Mr. Levin, the ranking
member of the Ways and Means Committee, didn't submit a substitute, he
only asked for one. Well, this bill, I will again remind everybody, was
presented to us on Friday when Members were home. And we had an
emergency Rules Committee--which bypasses the normal procedures and the
normal time given for Members to be able to offer amendments. So, I
mean, everything was stacked against anybody offering an amendment in
advance.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Levin's amendment in the
nature of a substitute, which extends middle class tax relief,
unemployment benefits, and the doc fix the right way.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will just close again by urging my
colleagues to stand with working people in this country, to stand with
those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I mean,
it's so easy for the other side to stand with big oil companies and
protect tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country. Let's have a
little justice in our tax system, a little fairness.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question
so we can amend this bill and make it actually address these urgent
issues in a thoughtful and reasonable way, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8757]]
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
There is a way to ensure that President Obama will sign this
legislation. There is a way to ensure that he will sign this
legislation, and that way is if we have Democrats join with Republicans
in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
Now, the message that we've gotten is that they're poison pills--
``hostage'' is the term that both the President and my colleague have
just used in trying to move forward the important provisions of
expanding the payroll tax so that working Americans can keep more of
their own money, and the doc fix to ensure that doctors are reimbursed
and that Medicare beneficiaries are able to have access to the health
care that they need. And of course for those at this time of year who
are struggling and need their unemployment benefits expanded, there is
a way to get that done. Our goal is to get at the root cause of the
problem.
As I said in the opening, Mr. Speaker, right now our job is jobs. Our
job is jobs. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. Tragically,
tragically we are dealing with a protracted unemployment problem in
this country. You know it's been going on for an extended period of
time. The only reason that we saw the unemployment rate drop from 9
percent to 8.6 percent is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have
given up looking for work.
Now, as we listen to people say that at this time of year we need to
make sure that we create jobs, we have to make sure that there are
opportunities out there. My friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was
talking about the fact that there are four people looking for one job.
Let's put into place the kinds of policies that will allow us to see
the private sector create jobs. We cannot legislate full employment. We
cannot legislate full employment, but what we can do is we can pass
legislation that will lay the groundwork for America's entrepreneurs,
for America's innovators to have success by creating job opportunities.
There are 27 pieces of legislation that we have passed from this
House that is in the Republican majority that are now sitting in the
Democratic-controlled Senate. Those measures--increasing access to
capital for small business men and women to create opportunities,
making sure that we decrease the regulatory burden, which we all know
has undermined job creation and economic growth in this country--these
are the kinds of measures that are out there that we hope very much
will be considered in the Senate.
Now, as we look at the issue of so-called ``poison pills,'' which my
California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, the distinguished minority leader,
talked about--and I tried to engage in a discussion with her on the
House floor. I yielded to her and she chose to walk off the floor
rather than engaging in a discussion. I guess the reason is that it's
sort of hard to claim that encouraging an individual to move towards
GED qualification is a poison pill. Isn't it kind of hard to claim that
saying that we should allow States to engage in drug testing for people
who are on unemployment is a poison pill? Making sure we reimburse for
overpayments to recapture those hard-earned tax dollars, how can that
be a poison pill? These are commonsense proposals to deal with the fact
that we have a $15 trillion national debt.
And the American people know that Big Government is a problem. Just
this morning I read the Gallup poll which shows that we are at near-
record levels with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents being
suspicious of Big Government. What we need to do is we need to unleash
this potential that is out there, and this measure will do that.
Now, we keep hearing that politics is being played with this. Well,
Mr. Speaker, we've gotten the word today that the majority leader of
the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has chosen to prevent Members from
signing the conference report for the absolutely essential spending
bill that is out there, the minibus spending bill, because of this
issue that's before us right now. If that isn't playing politics, I
don't know what is.
Right now we're faced with the threat of a government shutdown on
Friday. If the Democrats don't sign that appropriations conference
report--which has been negotiated in good faith again between both
Democrats and Republicans with the House and the Senate--we're going to
be faced with a government shutdown that Leader Reid will in fact have
created by preventing Members from signing that conference report.
We need to come together and do that, sign that conference report,
get that work done. This measure, this measure, once again, Mr.
Speaker, will get at the core problem that we face, and that is the
lack of jobs that exist.
The Keystone XL pipeline will create, as has been said, 20,000 to
25,000 jobs, if not more, immediately--immediately--and it will allow
us to decrease our dependence on overseas oil. And it will allow us to
work closely, as my friend Mr. Royce said, with our close ally to the
north, Canada, rather than see them--understandably--engage in a
stronger relationship with China.
There are so many benefits to this, so many benefits all the way
across the board that I believe that, since roughly 80 to 90 percent of
the provisions in here have been proposed by President Obama--many of
which were discussed in his jobs bill that 98 days ago he proposed here
in his address to the Joint Session of Congress. We are bringing these
items up. We keep being told, bring up the jobs bill, bring up the jobs
bill. This measure does just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with Republican
colleagues so that we can do what the American people want us to do,
especially at this time of year. As we go into the holiday season
dealing with these issues, it would be a very important message to send
around the United States of America and throughout the world.
I began, as we were debating the point of order, by raising the
famous quote of William Shakespeare, and I'll close with that, Mr.
Speaker: ``In such business, action is eloquence.''
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 491 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
(1) Strike ``The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without
intervening motion except:'' and insert the following:
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except:
(2) Strike ``and (2)'' and insert the following:
(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII
and numbered 1, if offered by Representative Levin of
Michigan or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, and which shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3)
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the
[[Page H8758]]
vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to
proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . .
[and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative
Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th
edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the
previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is
generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority
Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 491, if
ordered; and motions to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 3246, if
ordered, and S. 384, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 182, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 918]
YEAS--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--182
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Brady (TX)
Coble
Duffy
Filner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Hanna
Larson (CT)
Mack
Myrick
Napolitano
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
{time} 1504
Mr. LUJAN, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. CLARKE of New York, and
Mr. BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 918, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 918. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question of the rule, H. Res.
491, providing for consideration of H.R. 3630, to provide incentives
for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13,
2011, I missed rollcall 918. Had I present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 180, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 919]
AYES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
[[Page H8759]]
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--180
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Coble
Duffy
Filner
Giffords
Gohmert
Griffin (AR)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Myrick
Napolitano
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Scott, David
Tsongas
{time} 1512
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 919, my battery
went out on my beeper, and so it never went off. As a result, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 919, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have vote ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 919. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 491, providing for
consideration of H.R. 3630, to provide incentives for the creation of
jobs, and for other purposes.
____________________