considered on the house floor in the first nine months of this year than we did the entire last congress. we're trying to make as many amendments as possible. i'll admit it hasn't been perfect, but i'm trying my dog gone best. >> mr. chairman, you made my point, and that is that you've broken your pledge. that's your prerogative. you made my point when you spoke of the things that are imperative, and those imperatives we all know and i think we all agree, are that they are must-pass measures. this congress in the 20 years i'm here -- again, if i've learn ared edd edd nothing i've learned that it has a bad case of deadline i deadline-itis. we can't get anything done. all of us knew everything that was in this measure. those that may have are passed the house of representatives and footnote right there the measure that passed the house of

representatives is not the measure that is the keystone provision that is in this particular 369 pages. is there someone that can tell me something different? perhaps you it can mr. chairman. is the keystone provision in here the one that passed the house of representatives? >> that issue is not in the jurisdiction of our committee. >> i understand. but, mr. chairman you're bringing -- dave, you're bringing this to us. i consider you to be one of the most thoughtful people in congress an i know when you come here -- an the same goes for mr. levin -- that you come here with an honest assessment of your legislation. i know the committee had that it came from. it came from commerce and energy. but this is your bill, this is no longer their bill. >> will the gentleman yield? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask -- >> i just. >> i'd like my question

answered. >> this is not within his jurisdiction if you're still talking about the keystone pipeline. i've just been informed by staff that the measure in here on the pipeline is what passed the house. >> mr. chairman, when we go to vote, i will come back and ask you for time to point out to you that it is not the provision are. it's easy to say something but let's go back and we'll go and get the provision that came in here and then we'll deal with it. but before too much more time goes, my good friend mr. bishop pointed out his lack of wealth, abdomen he and he and i don't agonize about that. we are glad to have a good job and we do have as far as pay is concerned a good job. but he and i are categorized as among the poorest people in congress. as a matter of fact -- no. poorest people in congress is what they say.

that's what the hill and all them people that write about it say. but i don't mind that. as a matter of fact, if i reedad the book as i did over the weekend, throw them all out. it kind of is interesting that a lot of people came here as poor as you and me and somehow or another in the course of time those that are not here and a few that are did pretty good. but i guess the point that i want to make is more important and that is that when we address things we should do so differently. for example, there's been a harangue about wealth and the need for wealthy people to pay, and it comes to play here in this particular measure with reference to medicare as one thing and pay-for. and those pay-fors democrats

believe should be directed toward wealthy people. and i think rightly so. and i believe most wealthy people would agree. let's use, for example, the wealthiest person in congress is reare putr reputed to be worth more than $350 million. that's money that he has today all right? i don't know what he paid in taxes, but i'll make it even more personal. last year i paid $41,000 in united states income tax. now, all i have is the little deduction on my mortgage. i used to have a lot of deductions when with mymy mom was alive because of her end stage medical circumstances. all my children are grown so i don't have any of those deductions. and i don't own a single stock

or bond. it all goes up and down and i go around and around and around. only stock i have areis in over-the-counter and that's grocery. so when the deal goes down here, the wealthiest man in congress is worth more than 350 million, if his next year let's assume it's a pittance is only $10 million and we return him to the clinton tax period where the tax rate was 39.6% then he pay about $3 million and would still have $350 million. what's wrong with asking that person to do that? and guess what? i would not mind, even though i paid $41,000 paying $50,000 if it meant that there are waswas going

to be some more availability for pell people to get a job opportunity. chairman camp, is there a direct ed method that you have required or asked cbo to undertake in this measure? and if i'm correct, it address ses the cuts but does not address are spending? >> there is a cbo analysis that basically in summary says that the bill reduces the deficit by about $1 billion. if the flood insurance provision is also included it's about a $6 billion reduction in the deficit. >> but isn't there at the end of the bill, a directed scoring provision telling omb and cbo that they have account savings in the bill but not account

spending. >> well, the directed scoring is for a ten-year overview of the bill. that's what cbo also -- >> what's your take on that, mr. levin? >> frankly, i don't know what to make of it. it's a little hard to know what to make of a number of these provisions in the bill which we saw on friday and we have are spent a lot of time trying to understand the ramifications of. >> but is there a directed measure to omb and cbo? >> apparently. >> it is? >> apparently. >> yes. all right, that's the point i wish to make. it's strange and it's at the end of the provision. i'd also ask you, chairman camp,

i believe that there are a significant number of immigrant families who already pay taxes and the measure as offered with the tax identification number instead of a social security number, do you believe that that would make those people ineligible for a tax credit? >> -- child tax credit. this is the same reform that we've applied to the earned income tax credit where one of the filers has to have a social security number and diskmroez itclose it. so we're bringing reform in the eitc to the refundable child tax credit and simply says one parent -- over time there has been a dramatic increase in the number of filers who receive this and it there's a concern that filing for this without forwarding -- bringing forward a

social security number and this has caused concern that there's some program integrity concerns. >> but do you see that the tax credit could benefit the children who are citizens? what i'm getting at is we throw these numbers around about how many people are undocumented and what have you. i don't think we really know all of the absences to that sanswers to that. but i see this as something that will affect well over a million and probably as many as 2 million immigrants. but i move on to keystone. why didn't we approach this from the standpoint of build the portions that are environmentally are sound and then go forward. for the life of me i don't understand we do things the way we do. those of us who know about fresh

water, those of us who know about the importance -- that's why nebraska raised all their issues because they may very well have problems. so the thing needs to go around. i just don't understand why we can't do it. i guesses we we'll be like melbourne in australia -- melbourne and sydney, democrats and republican ares. melbourne and sydney built railroad tracks that when they got to each other whatever those things are called didn't match. but i think the pipeline could be built in the safest parts and dealt with at other points in time, even though overall i'm pose opposed it to it. here's the problem. this thing is extremely complex. it is the end of the year. it is not going to pass the senate. the president has said that he would reject it.

and i just feel that we can do better, should do better, must do better. it is must-pass legislation. and despite my chairman's assertions it is a clear, a clear, example of promises made, promsz promises not kept. i yield back. >> as i said, i hope very much we'll have an opportunity to move to the floor for votes and you've both been very patient. i appreciate it. mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you mr. camp for having an open ear. there's been a lot of discussion about how this bill got to be the bill that it is today. i don't envy you in your role putting together the tax provisions and unemployment provisions and social security provisions. but i do appreciate your willingness to listen and take input and work that out as best as you can.

mr. levin opened his comments saying this bill was heartless mindless and reckless. i don't know how you have a discussion on policy when that's the starting point that folks begin in. mr. mcgovern used the word shameful. >> i was talking about the unemployment. >> we were together on the floor just the other day renaming a room in honor of a congressional staffer killed in the line of duty. and plea after plea after plea was made on the house floor for toning down the rhetoric, for toning it down, for focusing on the policies that matter that affect hardworking taxpayers, focusing on the things we can do. i think about the challenges you had in crafting this bill, mr. chairman, and having to do it against that constant drum beat not of helpful comments, not of constructive criticism,

but of attack after attack after tack. that said, i'm not happy with everything that's in the bill. i know you didn't sit down to craft it and say, i hope mr. woodall will be dlieltelighted with everything. that's a high bar to meet. for me the biggest expenditure in here is the 2% reduction in payroll taxes. i appreciated mr. bishop going through all the things that had been discussed before. but, to my knowledge you all have not had any hearings on the impact of the 2% reduction in the payroll tax on the social security trust fund. am i right about that? >> no. because it's an extension of current policy. >> and i appreciate your paying for it and then trying to focus on where that is. so let me go to you mr. levin. when you all had hearing last year before you created this had policy, what did you find -- i was not here -- was going to be the impact of this 2% reduction

wale, 33% reduction in an individual's contribution to their retirement? >> the answer is that there are differences of opinion but no one has come up with a better proposal relating to trying to stimulate job growth than this, and while there's some disagreement mark zandi, for example, has estimated that this can add a percentage point to gdp and add over a million jobs. and he's not the only one. so my guess is that, look, i think most republican ss -- i think -- will vote for it. >> i've read that literature as well, folks inoutside the hill who have made those estimates. but the chairman is telling me he didn't have a hearing on it

because all he was doing was extending the policy that you created when you brought in the social security experts last year before implementing this policy. what did they it say this was going to do to the fundamentals of the social security trust fund? >> the answer is that the money will be paid to a social security fund to make up any difference. that's an obligation of this government. it will not undercut the social security fund. and those of you who have it talked about creating jobs haven't been able to come up with a single idea that would begin to possibly have the impact that continuing it this proposal will have. in terms of putting money into the pockets of people and having them spend it like unemployment insurance. in my language about mindless and heartless related to the

unemployment insurance because, in my judgment, as i've talked to numerous people and we've gotten stories from hundreds of people, these are people who are looking for work and can't find it. and for us to diminish this in 40 states cutting the federal program by 40 weeks, in my judgment is heartless. it's also rec areless inkless in terms of economic growth because when people get an unemployment insurance check, they spend it. and all my suggestion is, is that everybody go home and talk to the unemployed. >> there was a time in this country where are putting money in people's pockets would absolutely have an impact on the economy and you could see that i do worry today, as i take the money that gets put in my pocket -- i'm a beneficiary of this 2% reduction, too. i'm not entirely sure why, but i

am -- i -- >> you're not the typical middle class family. >> i go to the store and shop. when i see goods made in china, i see goods made he in taiwan and i think for pete's sakes, why in the world are we stimulating consumption of folks who can't find work because we're shopping with goods made overseas instead of stimulating job creation with those very same dollars to give folks a job? i do talk to the unemployed folks in my community and i have not found one who said, you know what i'd rather have? i'd rather have the unemployment check than a job. i'd rather you spend your time and resources in washington, rob, working to extend my unemployment checks than to create an environment in which we can grow jobs. >> do both mr. woodall. >> not one! mr. there's a provision in this bill that says if you were on unemployment -- it was 99 weeks last time 59 this time 79 in states with high unemployment -- if you were once work being but you are now not working and you cannot find a job but you do not

have a high school education we want you to use your time to better yourself and get a ged. to better yourself and get a ged. why? because we want to get involved in people's business? no. because we know for a fact that if you do not have a high school education in tough times they are here now and will come again, you are more likely to get laid off than folks who do. we know that to be true. >> mr. woodall, if i might say look, i'm in favor of giving people money for retraining. the bill that was proposed in your budget would have cut training and retraining programs for the people of this country. so you can't tell people like me, we need funds for training and retraining when we have fought to get money to have people trained and your party in the budget wanted to cut it. >> no. what i can tell people like you, mr. levin, though is this amendment came to the floor of your committee last year. i just happen to know because

the gentleman who sat in my seat brought this amendment to say, if you're going to be on unemployment for 99 weeks, use that time to ensure that you don't end up on unemployment again. and it did not get one democratic vote in your committee. not one. and so i say there is no one who is more of a champion for extending the checks that go out of this door than you are. but we need more champions on capitol hill who are going to extend a job creating environment so that we don't have to send these checks out. it gives me no sense of pride that we're providing more unemployment checks than ever before in the history of this croy country. that doesn't give me a sense of pride. if we were providing more jobs than ever before in the history of this country, that would give me pride. if we were providing an environment that offered more entrepreneurial opportunity than ever before in this it country, that would give me a sense of reward. >> do both mr. woodall. do both. >> and this bill is a step in that direction, as much as i wish it did a little more in

some places and less in others mr. chairman i'm grateful to you for taking mr. levin's advice and trying to focus on both of those goals at the same time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman i sat in a small diner in junction city kansas right before thanksgiving waiting for my youngest son to come home from iraq. and the conversation that was in that diner -- now, i'm just sitting there minding my own business having a muffin, drinking a cup of coffee -- they're talking about the pipeline, the keystone pipeline in particular, and they don't know me from adam's housecat but they're talking about the benefits to kansas. they saw the opportunity to put more canneskansas folks back to work. when i hear people say, this really isn't going to create jobs, we know it is because you

can see manufacturing in the gulf states that actually manufacture the pipe that's going to be utilized to build this it pipeline. it's been -- how long has that been languishing? >> i don't know. i mean, i know it's at least been since we've had legislation in the house. i don't know how long before that. >> i believe it's been sitting in study after study after study for at least three years. and now we're sitting here talking about jobs and it is. i think we all are concerned that we need jobs. but, you know, i talk to small businesses back home and i hold foreclosure seminars which are not the most pleasant thing to do. and we talk to businesses and we talk to those who are unemployed, and they want a job. the problem that we're hearing from our small businesses is that, you know, they're not qualified for the job. they don't have the skills for

the job. or there's a whole bunch that really dlsh-- there's a number that don't want a job. so we're competing against -- i don't know how to classify it but at the end of the day we're talking about in my estimation a -- policy when it started. mr. woodall hit on it with regards to what was the impact as relates to had when youwhen you cut the unemployment tax. and we're talking about how we're going to pay for it. we're talking about doing just that to extend what our friends did last year but doing it with a pay-for. why is that so hard? why is there so much opposition paying for something that we want to do? i'm new to this and i'm sitting here from a commonsense

perspective. when you do something, you pay for it. we've gotten into the fact that everything is an emergency so we don't have to worry about how we pay for it. and today people are are telltelling me we have to worry about how we pay for it. i hear that every time i go home. and i have close to a million folks that live in my district. and we have high unemployment within two of the counties extremely high unemployment -- >> mr. levin, i know there's a vote pending downstairs, but every member is entitled to ask you questions. it looks like we may be reconvening based on the way thingsgentlemen, i'm going to ask you to come back after votes because we still have questions here. i hope it will be relatively brief. the committee will stand in recess. when we reconvene, we'll continue with questions.

>> this committee will reconvene. >> we've talked about how this will hurt seniors in particular. do you have an answer to that? >> well,

seniors will be protected because there will be a general answer and seniors will be paid for. >> what is it with regard to the medicare proposal and the wealthier -- >> wealthier seniors should pay more for their premiums. that's the president's proposal. and that really tracks the president's proposal on this. >> so we've tracked a number of proposals the president's laid out with his calls for congress to take action. >> certainly in extension of the holiday payroll tax and

seniors with their medicare to their high income that's something the president is proposing. we've tracked that as well. >> and the with regard to the pipeline, the president delayed action on that until after the election. i believe that's correct. in going back to the conversation that i talked about in regards to, you know, when we were in junction city, kansas, and the folks were talking about the impact alone. in your -- you may or may not be able to answer this, because it's not in your jurisdiction. but i believe, and correct me in i'm wrong, but they were talking about an immediately 25,000 job creation because of the construction and not all the residuals as it relates to putting more people to work in -- >> if the gentleman would yield, as he said it's not

within his jurisdiction. first of all let me just say the petition for the keystone excel pipeline was filed the 2008. you were asking when this was filed. it was filed in 2008. and there were proposals there for us that i believe based on reports that i believe will immediately create in exes of 25,000 jobs. those are numbers thrown out there that are actually beyond that number, and i thank my friend for yielding. >> and i thank the chairman for clarifying that, because i think that is a legitimate concern we have, creating jobs. and i will yield back my time. >> mr. scott thank you for what i consider an appropriately-named bill the middle class job cretion and tax relief bill. there seems to be a misnomer on

the threast somehow we've lost our direction on the right that we are in fact the middle class and so make sure i'm on the right page here, the payroll tax that we seek to extend in fact has the greatest benefit to the middle class. >> yes. approximately 170 million workers will benefit from the tax holiday. >> and i think through the process of hooking over the past several month i keep hearing from my friends on the left being enamored in congress with the tax increases yet when i look over the past two or three years of information, it seems to me that it's very clear that they have already taxed the middle class and yet we find ousts in a position that through this payroll tax, we are extending a tax cut -- when i think about

it, think about the tax on innovating drug companies that's going to -- that will be passed on to the middle class. when i think about the tax on health insurers, that will be passed on to the middle class. when i think about the class -- $32 billion on the middle class. i think about the sur tax on investment income. $123 billion passed on to the middle tax. a new tax of 3.8% sir tax on investment income, $250,000 above. that's a tax on the middle class. >> when i think about the tax on middle class. when i think about taxing medical device. $20 billion taxes passed on to the middle class. >> when i think at or about tax on indoor tanning, i'm not

personally concerned about that, but when i think about that $2.7 billion on the middle class but what i can't wrap my arms sander why when i'm talking to a 57-year-old worker when she brings home $637 every two weeks and sees this payroll tax extension as an opportunity to see another 5% take home pay and she's 57 years old so she's also concerned about social security and medicare and sees this an opportunity to see what is necessary today but to survive 10 years from now on social security and medicare, she says thank you, because the part of the middle class not that middle class that doesn't exist somewhere in the n america, the middle class that exists here and sees these two pages of

words as the an it the sense and the president has tan a positive step in the right direction when he says we must find a way to reduce unemployment by 20 weeks. we've gone one step further and said we're going to create an incentive toe work. still standing at the end of this bill as if it passes in the right direction. i would say we're looking for peace of mind and consistency and certainty, we cannot -- appreciate the fact that their health care will be consistent. because dox will be reimbursed at a rate that will allow them to continue to see seniors. but the national health plan takes money out of the pockets of our senior citizens, so we are in fact talking about the middle class unfortunately the other side is simply not listening. >> yes?

>> mr. camp, thank you very much for being here. we very much appreciate it, and we look forward to considering your bill on the floor tomorrow. our next witness is the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson. and i saw ms. jackson lee here. i would invite her to the table if she is planning to testify. >> ok. well, please proceed. and your remarks will appear in the record and we welcome your summary. >> ranking member slaughter for allowing me to speak today on h.r. 3630. in my amendment to this legislation. i oppose this misguided bill,

and am shocked that the republicans would tie the extension of the payroll tax cut, a tax cut that is desperately needed by our nation's struggling middle class to big oil interests. and i also object to the misnomer in the title of this bill. it should be instead of the middle class tax relief and job creation act, it should be the middle class reduction act. >> h.r. 3630. is still called db with mandate that the president accelerate the approval of the keystone x.l. puppy line. this pipeline will increase

pollution in areas that are already suffering devastating outcomes from dirty air. the state department has submitted two failed environmental statements that haven't included the pollution that will come with this pipeline. >> please -- >> thank you for your time mr. chairman. >> excuse me, mr. johnson. >> thank you. the raw tort sthands will be through the pipeline is more toxic and acridic than other types of crude. there has not ban thorough study completed on how transport of tart sands crude would increase air pollution along the pipeline. it is highly troubling that the

construction of the pipeline which would transport 900,000 barrels of this crude daily should take place before such a study is ever done. communities surrounding the oil refineries that would be transporting raw tort sands crude through this proposed pipeline are already exposed to dirty air. approval of the keystone pipeline will only make it worse. port arthur texas where crude i'll for this pipeline would be processed, over a quarter of the population is under the poverty level and asthma and other respiratory problems exist in a great percentage. we have the responsibility to properly assess the risks the

approval of this pipeline would expose to their health. it would be irresponsible to sweep these concerns under the rug just to rush this project to the finish line as a political payoff for the koch brothers. we are responsible to our nation's citizens to properly assess what risk the construction of this pipeline may propose to their health. for this reason i am requesting a study be conducted on the health ramifications that will take place around this area that would transport these toxins. air pollution knows no political boundaries. if you share my commitment to safe guarding americans' health, i ask that you safe

guard my amendment to order a study to be done before we make any decision on the pipeline's construction, and i might add that the president would be commended to approve this pipeline before it has even been cited. much less an opportunity to do an environmental impact study. yow don't know where to do it until the thing is cited. with that,ly reserve the balance of any time that i might have. >> miss jackson lee. >> yes. thank you have. to the members of the rules committee, i understand you have in essence held over for courtesy's extent to us i had an recognize we will not be in regular order and amendments are questionable and probably

nonexpectant, but i believe this is such an important step we're making this afternoon. as we were home in our district i can't tell you how many how many members have come up to us just a background thenly quickly go through the amendments i propose i think you are well aware if we do not pass the payroll tax many jobs will be lost and millions left without relief and close to $1,000 and $1,400 will be denied to hard-working americans. then of course with the unemployment insurance 3.2 million have been pulled out of poverty by the existence of un employment insurance. let me associate myself with mr. levin and say that it is only accurate to declare the unemployment provision that he has offered as an emergency. it is an emergency. 6 million people lives are in

jeopardy. 6 million people lo not have the ability to pay mortgage or food or the tess me the accessties -- necessities of life. and taking the language of the payroll tax comparing $300,000 with 160 million people and my language had 2023 for six years but i join with mr. levin on his language, and then the medicare fix. i met with a group of doctors joined them for holiday fest. a constituents of the of a hospital in my district. these are patients dependant on medicaid and medicare and i think it is reasonable to address the medicare fix in the way it has been affixed in savings. one of my deals would carry

interest and the question of the transfer of income to capital gains for some of our financial transactions, and i would offer that as a suggestion for deliberation when tpwheer regular order. i associate myself as well with mr. hastings. he offered a very thoughtful point about the keystone pipeline and only in regular order, do i belief we could come to some understanding of that particular view. one of my amendments would have psychiatric at any issue of drug testing. not because i am pro drugs but i also know that drugs require treatment and under current law they are not able to deny for other than unemployment problems on the job and we are doing it is noting testing costs $25,000. there are currently many going through the system. where is the money coming to

test persons for drug use, and how do we know these are not sick people. currently 9.8 people are receiving unemployment and on the that undergoing drug testing. it's come to my mind that this will in fact increase the debt and i don't know whether we've an accurate assessment from the c.b.o. to determine whether that's the case. i offer my amendment on behalf of moist and the kongnal black caucus. and the sound tax policy is grounded in the principles of equity efficiency and simplicity. we estimate this will trip the cost of new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase costs for

current recipients including 2.9 people in texas. this includes medicare changes without regular order and i can't imagine we are not impacted negatively. my other amendment onbehalf of the congressional black caucus, this amendment if we are out of regular order the urban jobs act would aamend the act of 1998 to authorize the secretary to make grants for the purpose purpose of operating a national urban league program it brings over 100 years community-based experience. and it's proven success in workforce to underserved youths is invaluable rather than accusing young people of having no role models. i thought this would be a

better alternative. i heard an explanation or statement rather, let me clarify in my newspaper that indicated in the old days we used to have people work in the grocery stores and on lawns etc., etc. and i will tell you the children in our community want summer jobs. it was eliminated in the last summer. i've worked in grocery stores and in the post office and i've done a number of jobs and i believe this amendment in the name of myself, representative cleveland and representative towns will be -- construct i have. we must address the problems of unemployment 18-24 living in the urban areas. mr. chairman let me concludes in my remarks. i did this rather quickly, but i believe we all have a commitment to doing the right thing, and i would argue vigorously that we are in trouble if we are to proceed

with legislation that does not look wholistically. and >> thank you very much thank you very much for being here and i have no questions. mr. sessions? >> mr. chairman i have no questions at this time? >> ms. slaughter? >> i have no questions. >> mr. bishop? mr. mcgovern? >> yes. i [inaudible] with consent to the statement and two statements by -- >> without objection. >> if i can say to my colleagues that i shall report their amendments. -- that i support their amendments, and we've heard a lot about pay-fors. it's interesting that no one talked about paying for the bush tax cuts or paying for the wars. and i'm all for making sure the social security trust fund is whole. but we should be able to come to some agreement and this should have been a very easy thing for us to do.

one last thing on the keystone x.l. thing. i agree with mr. johnson. there's a process in place and for whatever reason to say the hell with the process, and we're going to make these decisions irregardless of the environmental impact and other things i think is not good policy. so i support your amendments. er i hope they are made in order. >> mr. mcgovern, as i say let me rec electric social security is solved to 23 through 20 30. but i do not agree in frightening seniors. i don't think this would be death nell to social security. we're all fighters for social security. >>i agree. >> mr. wood all-? mr. hastings? mr. knew intelligent? mr. scott? thank you both very much. that will conclude the hearing.

and we -- the chair will be in receipt of a motion. >> go for it. >> well. mr. chairman i move the committee grant h.r. 3630 job creation after 2011 a closed rule. equally divided by the chairman ranking honor committee on ways and means and waves -- the rule provides the amendment committed in the committee will be considered adopted and the bill will be committed. rule waist all points of provisions of the bill and rule provides one notion recommit with or without introduction. >> you've heard the motion from the gentleman from dallas as has been the case under democratic and republican jorts, a measure emerging from the ways and means committee is a closed rule process and as

you all know we're nearing the end of the session and in light of that, we need to november measure to the senate. we do not want to see the expiration of either the payroll tax holiday or the benefits for the -- those who are uncombhd. we of course want to put into place the job-creating opportunity for the keystone pipeline to proceed under this measure -- under this rule, we will have 90 minutes of debate. and members will have an opportunity to offer an alternative through the motion to reexcite. as members know we were not always provided when we were in the minority ourselves and with that i'll see if there are any amendments to the rule. >> i have an amendment mr. chair.

>> despite the fact that we have done this in the past and the closed rule, because of the national interest in what we're doing here and the great concern about people about whether they are going to be able to meet their financial obligations by counting on what we do here, i would move we open rule. >> you've heard the motion of the gentle woman the motion occurs those in favor will say aye. >> roll call please? >> mr. snegs >> no. >> missouri fox? >> yes. >> no. >> no. >> ms. fox? no. >> mr. bishop? no. mr. wood all-? no. mr. knew zent >> no. mr. scott? >> no. mr. webster? >> ms. slaughter? eye. >> mr. mczpwhoverpb eye.

>> mr. chairman? >> no. >> and can the clerk report to total? three yeas and seven nays. and the motion is not agreed to and let me explain we have because of a type i don't know we do make an order we self-execute the camp amendment which is amendment number six listed here. any other rules? i'm sorry. >> if i may because again, the same reason i gave previously the incredible interest in what we're going to do here ads to whether or not peep will be able to stay in a their homes and pay their bills i would move we change the debate time to three hours. >> you've heard the motion. >> i think the importance of this bill requires it. >> as you know we have actually -- let me just say, i urge a no-vote on this amendment in light of the fact that we've made it 50% increase in the

what would have been the normal allotted time of an hour of debate, and clearly these are issues that have been and will continue to be discussed and we have over items so i'm going to -- by the way that means we will have 2 1/2 hours of debate because of course we'll have an hour of debate on this when considering the rule. >> can i respond given the fact that this is a closed rule and again, i think it's one of the most important things we've taken up this year. the issue is intense but i would recommend a yes vote on this, so we can give people who are not going to have an opportunity to talk about the amendment at least the chance to speak on the bill. >> the noes have it. any further amendments? >> may i have a vote? a called vote? >> mr. session? >> no. no.

mr. bishop? no. mr. woodall, no. mr. scott? no. mr. webster. ms. slaughter? eye. mr. chairman no. >> three yeas. seven nays. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers in the n nature of the substitute if -- and i would just usual my colleagues to vote yes on this. that's the one thing mr. levin requested. again, this is a 369-page bill that was presented on friday, referred to 12 out of 21 committees. there have been no hearings no, markups. there's lots of changes small

and large that are in this bill from from things we have done previously and again this does everything from not just dealing with the payroll tax and with the doc fix and unemployment insurance although i think it deals with unemployment insurance in a an unfair way and there are things that i think deserve more attention so at minimum i would hope my colleagues would vote yes and offer this to mr. legislative at any right if -- >> under motion to recommit which will be made in order. >> we have just provided here. >> there is a difference between the motion recommitted and substitute. and the gentleman from michigan asked specifically for -- >> i understand that but let me just say there will be -- >> the vote occurs on the mcgovern amendment. those in favor say aye.

court call the roll. >> mr. sessions? no. mr. ms. fox? >> no. >> mr. wood all-? no. >> mr. nugent? no. >> ms. slaughter? >> eye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> three yeas. seven nays. >> and further amendments? >> mr. chairman i did ask for and requested of you a time to address the subject that you and i had discussion -- >> in addition to that you said mr. chairman that this measure emerged from the ways and means committee. i guess it did. but when i ask mr. camp a question, he took exception to the fact that it came from his committee and said he couldn't answer the question, because it

didn't come from his committee. so i guess it emerged mistly here. we either have deadline aphelia or deadlineitis. the one thing is you are acting early with regard to this guideline but i just think the senate is going reject the measure and ask equally with the imperatives that are required. >> thank you very much for that. >> yes. yield mr. chairman. i want to say to you that when you say something, you ought to really know what you're talking about. >> thank you very much for your advice. i appreciate it. >> and i -- have made statements in here, as i'm sure many members have that when a correction is required, we come back and offer those corrections. now said to me that this was the same measure that passed the house of representatives.

>> you're right. >> i told you that it was not. >> you were right. >> well, want to make sure that we understand the dictions and i appreciate the chair. i'd like to introduce into the record the major provisions of h.r. 1938 and the distinctions as offered. in 3630. >> without objection that will appear on the record and thank you very much for that mr. hastings. let me just respond to your advice. and i was told that they were identical. let me just outtimeline differences the house passed the keystone required the president of the united states to make the decision by december 1 and senator lugar says 60 days after enactment. there's a date change. november 1 to 60 days after enactment. also the house passed a bill went through the department of energy. the lugar measure which is in

this goes through the department of state. so i was wrong. i was wrong. i was wrong when i said -- if i can completely statement. thank you very much. i was wrong when i said this was identical to the house passed provision. and the gentleman was right when he said that it wasn't and i just outlined these differences that are in the measure that senator lugar has offered here. >> mr. chairman -- >> i'm happy to recognize my friend. >> mr. chairman i don't want the prolong the measure but there are more than two provisions that are different and i won't bother to go into great detail in that regard. >> the vote occurs on the motion from dallas. those saying eye? the ayes have it. >> roll call. >> mr. sessions? >> aye. >> ms. fox? aye. >> mr. bishop. >> aye.

>> mr. nugent? aye. mr. webster. ms. slaughter? no. >> mr. hastings? no. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> seven yeas. three nays. >> and the motion is agreed to and i'll be managing us on the floor for majority and mr. mcgovern minority. we are scheduled to meet at 3:00 tomorrow afternoon. about 3:00 tomorrow afternoon. we'll let you know if there's any time change. without objection the committee stands adjourned.

>> the house rules committee last night voted out a house republican plan to extend current payroll tax cut set to expire. the full house will debate that plan today. for more about the health schedule in a moment. an estimated $1.2 billion in customer funds is missing from the financial firm m.s. global. the company filed for bankruptcy. today the former c.e.o. of the company jon corresponds ine and current president of the company will testify. live on c-span three at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. >> for the past few months on c-span we've examined the 14 known vied for the office of

president and ost. this friday we'll talk with history professor gene baker. real politics andos to see what they learned from the series. to review all the episodes visit c-span.org/thecontenders. >> in a moment, today's news, an email live on "washington journal." the house starts the day with members speeches. legislator work begins at noon eastern. legislation also includes a provision that would speed up a decision by the obama administration on the keystone oil pipeline. live house coverage is house coverages on c-span. coming up, we will talk more about extending the payroll tax