conference committee to resolve the house is back at 9:00 a.m. eastern for more work on the payroll tax. this hour, we will get the latest from capitol hill on the payroll tax. our guests are republican congressman james lankford and democratic congresswoman allyson schwartz who both served on the budget committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: in an unexpected turn of events, the house is back in washington today to vote on the senate-passed bill to extend payroll tax holiday for two months. members will not vote on the senate bill itself. this is what they will vote on, a motion to disagree with the senate's language, to go to conference, and also vote to reaffirm their support for the original house payroll tax cut bill. house gop leaders said most of the members are insisting on the

one-year payroll tax cut extension passed by the house last week. senate majority leader harry reid said publicly he would not bring the senate back to negotiate again over the bill. we turn to all of you this morning to get your take on the sterile tax holiday. house or senate plans -- what you want washington lawmakers to do? we will get to your phone calls in just a minute, but i want to begin with house speaker john boehner last night after he met with his rank and file for two hours. this is what he had to say about the republican's opposition to the bill. >> our members believe we passed a reasonable, responsible bill that extends the payroll tax cut -- credit for a year. it would take care of those doctors who treat medicare patients -- the reduction in their payments, it sells their

problems for the next two years, and extend unemployment benefits with reformist for years. exactly what the president asked us to do. our members do not want to just punt and do a two-month short- term fix where we have to come back and do it again. we are here. we are willing to work. we will appoint conferees and we will hope the senate will appoint conferees. because we are willing to get the work done now and do it the right way. lastly, it has become clear that what the senate did pass is going to cost jobs creators -- cause job creators all kinds of problems. we saw the report from those who run the payroll systems that there is great confusion about the way the senate bill was put together. i think it is time to just do the right thing for the american people, let's solve the problem now, and we will have plenty of times to deal with other issues next year. host: democratic leaders in the house also came before the microphone last night to voice

their opinions about what the house will do today. representative steny hoyer, the minority whip, had this to say about house republicans. >> this is not necessarily a partisan issue. in fact, 39 republican senators voted for this, and 83% of the republican members of the united states senate voted for this, and the american people say, if 83% of the republicans and almost 100% of the democrats are for something, why in heaven's name can you come to an agreement in washington, d.c.? that is the question we ought to -- to speaker boehner. why can't you take yes for an answer? host: senator harry reid put out a statement yesterday. he said this -- democratic and republican leaders negotiated a compromise and speaker boehner should not walk away from it. putting middle-class families at risk of a $1 tax hike just because a few angry tea

partiers. joining us on the phone is richard cohen of "congressional quarterly." guest: the house will vote -- the chief proposal from the house republicans will be to request a conference committee with the senate's that would resolve the differences between the house and senate versions. and of the vote will occur by mid afternoon. it will be a series of votes along the way. and there also will be a vote, an important vote, on whether -- a sense of the house resolution that the states of the republican views on the payroll tax measure.

host: why not vote on the senate bill in itself, as the senate majority leader harry reid has called on them to do, up or down vote? guest: the republicans had earlier said that they would permit such a vote but they changed their mind and said they wanted to instead go to a conference committee to resolve their differences. they decided simply not to go ahead with a direct vote. host: how does a good results? guest: the way house republicans want to get resolved is to have a conference committee -- technically to have a conference committee between the house and said it. i believe, if it is going to be resolved, i believe what the house republicans really want to have happen, we believe, is to

have -- compromise deal or agreement that can be reached between speaker boehner on behalf of the house and senate majority leader and behalf of the senate. perhaps that will happen in the next couple of weeks before the january 1 deadline. or maybe even faster. host: is senate majority leader harry reid in washington? he was seen with a suitcase and christmas presents walking out of the capital. guest: we did report that. he says he wants -- he says he is not interested in any kind of negotiations.

senator reid once the house to vote on what the senate passed -- wants the house to vote on what the senate passed but that is not what speaker boehner has a mind. assuming the house passes today what the republicans' plans, the ball really will be back in senator reid's court as to what to do. host: explain what we heard from speaker boehner, that a payroll consortium group came out saying a two-month extension is complicated. guest: this is a business group that said that it would be difficult to change for many companies, small businesses or others, that it would be complicated to change their payroll records or payroll

procedures to do it on a two- month basis. therefore the republicans are saying they want to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year and to do it according to the plan the house passed earlier. host: we will be ending "washington journal" early this morning, 9:00 a.m., because the house will be coming in early. what will you be looking for when the floor debate begins? guest: the chief question is whether the republicans remain unified. if they are, they will be able to pass speaker boehner's plan. if not, who knows what will happen? frankly, republicans say they will have enough votes to send

the bill to conference committee, and who knows what happens today. the chief question is a lot of republicans -- the plan to go to conference committee. host: we have a lot of focus on the tea party faction of the house republicans, but that are -- or are there some longtime republican to have been around who are not so sure about the game plan? guest: at this point, frankly, they don't really had -- assuming the house agrees on the plan put together that would come from the rules committee, usually members of the majority party do go along whenever comes out of the rules committee, then there simply would not be -- what the democrats want, they would not have the opportunity to vote for.

namely, there would not be a vote -- in the republican plan is to not have a vote today on what the republicans passed last saturday. host: before we let it go, we heard leading into "washington journal" this morning, we re- aired the rules committee, and i'll see hastings, the democrat, says the senate is gone, senators are all over the world. explain the logistics' getting the senate back to vote on any sort of negotiations between the house and senate? guest: well, the house came back from being away from a a couple of days. it is not clear that you would need to have all 100 or even 60

or 51 senators to do something. you might not need even more than a few senators simply to accept -- to respond to the house and perhaps to agree in -- they could do it by voice vote, to go to the conference committee. what i really believe what will happen -- what speaker boehner was looking for is to have informal discussions with senator reid, and that would not require any senators to appear on the floor until -- unless and until an agreement is reached and there would be final approval. the question, at this point, frankly, is not so much what the sent it would do -- what what

happened on the senate floor -- but the question is whether senator reid or other senior democrats are willing to go along -- would go along with the plan by house expects to pass today, and then there would be an informal discussion between the two chambers. host: thank you very much. you heard richard explained the thinking in washington. we turn to all of you. bob, republican from ohio. go ahead. caller: in the real working world, we put in the hours until we get the job done. of the way i look at it, they should be there during the holidays, new year's, and beyond 12 hours a day to get what this country needs done. however it may fall, on the republican or democrat side. if they know they got to be there, they will learn to get it done. host: bob, right now, which plan argue favoring? caller: you know, i think this country has been through enough

-- we will send something through and work on it later. i think they need to get it done for a year. there are some other things they need to get done, too. i think they need to have to work through the holidays because they are not getting their jobs done. host: let's hear from a democrat, leonard from owings mills, maryland. caller: i agree with the previous caller. we are required to complete our jobs. whether they vote for two months or one year, i think it should be submitted to a vote, so they need to come back and do the job which we enacted them -- elected them. the conference committee option, that is too much like a smoke- filled room. we elect them to cast votes on our behalf and to represent us. and we will live or die with whatever the votes are, whatever they yeas or nays have it, but

they should come back and cast those votes. host: independent from palm coast, florida. caller: good morning, america. and the first instance, i think even messing with the social security payroll tax was a stupid idea. and there are, the looting it even more trying to figure out thing would -- ways to pay for what they should not be doing to begin with. the senate is not representing the several states, which is their job. we have the house of representatives to represent us. and we sent republicans in there to do a job. and they are doing their job. and they agree with the president, for once, that if we are going to do this stupid thing like extending this tax rebate, then we may as well do it for a year instead of just fooling around for two months. host: what do you make of your

senator marco rubio, republican of florida, voting with the other 38 senators in the senate over the weekend for a two-month extension. caller: here it is. i listened to the rules committee thing before you came on this morning with "washington journal" and i understand the arguments going on and the point was made that the rate -- majority of the republicans went ahead and vote for this thing. i think they wanted to get out of dodge, everybody wanted to get out of dodge, and that is the bottom line for all of them. i do not think they really care whether or not what they are doing is anything more than temporary. i.e., but two-month extension. i wonder -- i like senator marco rubio. he is a coherent and intelligence individual. i am an independent, and that it -- but i think the man makes perfect sense.

and my governor or state legislature got in on the phone with mr. marco rubio and saying, you represent us and the state legislature, and the governor, and we have the house of representatives to take care of the people, and we are telling you that we want you to do this, thus and so. and that is what mr. rubio is supposed to be doing. host: here is a tweet -- remember, you can send comments to our twitter web site. cspanwj is our handle. here is a breakdown of the house and senate bill. this is out a plan to pay for it -- $36 billion in revenue of the new fees by freddie mac and fannie mae --

that is also what the house wants and what the approved in their bill. thomas is a republican in jacksonville, florida. caller: i would just like to say john boehner got it wrong this time. they ought to just pass the bill

as it is and go home for christmas and come back in january and do what they are going to do. he is leaving the ball in the toocrats' court and i like get heard that a. host: you think the report -- politics of this are not good for republicans? caller: no. i think they are getting themselves in trouble. if harry reid once to walk away -- they could lay it -- host: a new poll out today. they noted that there are fresh signs obama has gained ground on the tax issue, a traditional political sweet spot for republicans.

what is your reaction, thomas? caller: here is the thing -- the bottom line is if we get a tax increase, the last thing they know that boehner stopped the vote and allowed this to happen, he is going to get in trouble. the republicans run the risk of hurting themselves, and the democrats will play on that, the talking points and the usual things that they say. host: how would you describe yourself as a republican -- moderate, conservative, tea party support? caller: i am conservative, just conservative. host: beverly, democratic caller from north carolina. caller: i am for the senate and

what they passed. and i don't believe they should come back. they passed with votes of republican and democratic votes. as far as i in concern, boehner came out and agreed. he went back -- came back out and disagreed. they will pay. thank you. host: joe, independent from long beach, new york. the >> call i was listening to your guest this morning -- caller: i was listening to your guest this morning and you did not ask him what i would like to ask -- if this is such a good idea, why just passed for two months? passive for a year. if it is such a bad idea, let's not pass it at all. i never heard of a good idea only being passed for two months. that is the most inane things i have heard. host: we have two members of congress coming up, representatives lankford of

oklahoma and congresswoman allyson schwartz, and we can ask them in those very questions. so, stay with us this morning. sean, republican from maryland. caller: we get into the smaller picture but if you look at the bigger picture, when my party came into office, but first thing we said was our goal is to limit this president to one term. it was not to save the country from a depression, to work collaboratively to give us a brighter future but it was to prevent this president, who had not done anything yet, who had not even take an office, to limit this person to one term. and the behavior and activities that have gone on our shameful. and the root of the cause -- why would one man -- that another man to be limited to one term -- never happened before in history. it is obvious that there is a

bigger picture here and a bigger problem and the fact is that the republican party is not working for the people. they took care of a certain group of people for almost eight years and those people did very well. host: john, you sound -- some say you sound like a democrat. this is the argument democrats have been making. caller: i have been a republican for 40 years. i believe you should teach a person to fish and not give them a fish, that is what believe in. but the things that have been happening in my own party is just shameful and basically just bigoted. there is no other explanation for someone to say that half our whole purpose of our own party is to limit this man from getting into office again. an intelligent man who has done an excellent job working with what he has been given, which is an uncooperative nature of the party. host: we will leave it there. on 2012 politics, mitt romney,

gop candidate, former massachusetts governor writing in "usa today" this morning, if you are interested in reading that piece. more on politics, "the washington post" up with a new poll, and abc news poll as well. two weeks before the iowa caucuses, mitt romney and newt gingrich are clear front runners. jump ahead to a hypothetical general election matchup, at the 2012 election was being held today, for whom would you vote? "the washington post" shows that mitt romney and president obama

tied at 47%. the matchup of president of >> against former speaker newt gingrich, obama wins 51% to 43%. in a matchup between president barack obama and ron paul, 49% to 44%. and then also, this is a piece in "the new york times" this morning going after newt gingrich. the headline is, rivals mounting their attacks against gingrich in a volatile race. the newspaper is reporting the negative attack ads are taking toll on newt gingrich's support. here is "the wall street journal" this morning with a poll of independents and newt

gingrich.

here is democratic leader-pelosi

and her tweet -- stan, you are an independent from massachusetts. caller: i am one of the 51 percent who did not pay any federal or state tax. it don't have to, living on social security. i don't know what to tell you people. there are 51%ers appear and climbing. host: what does it mean for the debate? caller: i do not think they should pass it. because it is going to screw up social security income later on. host: house speaker boehner's tweeted. south carolina, henry, a republican in rockville.

caller: the guy before me, i am on disability. but i want to get this point across. i watch c-span and i would abies everybody that watches c-span 2, when the house session and said the session comes in, they need to watch more and more of them. i watched them all the time -- i am homebound. ok, having said that -- the republicans get the heat seemingly by nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, and all of them, claiming they want to throw granny -- in know, a while by -- and now "they are against the tax cuts." no, they are trying to be like congress used to be. they passed the bill. it went to the senate. john boehner was not happy with the thing.

and then they ducked out of town. then they sent it back. now they want to blame it on the tea party. it is not just the tea party. it is john boehner and the rest of the republicans -- they don't like it. furthermore -- let me throw this out -- the democratic lady from fresno was right. that could store -- consortium you talk about what ago, that is legit. it would cause a lot of problems to do it for two months. there's got to be a reason that the democrats -- i call them the decepticrats -- the democrats and harry reid, winning it for two months rather than a year after he campaigned on the trail that he was not going to stop until they got the one-year tax break done before the year was out. host: a lot in the papers this morning about north korea. here is the front page of "the washington post."

and then, "washington times" this morning, their front page. then the financial times with their headline -- from that paper, it says" -- they have a quote from a newscaster saying he worked day and night for a socialist construction and happiness of people for the union of country and modernization. he left us so suddenly, said the terry-i did newscaster in north korea. it goes on to say that kim youngville's death rid the world of one of its most ruthless leaders -- kim jong un l.'s death rid the world of one of its most ruefully leaders. of the transfer of power to his son who is no more than 28 years of age, threatens stability across east asia as the

dionysian a struggle to roll it country buckling under international sanctions, hungry and of power cuts. that is "the financial times" this morning with the news about north korea and its successor. inside the newspaper, they have a q&a session -- section. why the world fears instability in p'yongyang. back to the question -- rupert -- rufus, a democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: i was calling about the guy who responded about the payroll tax cut the extension for a year. i of wondering, what is the difference between the two months and one year -- i m wondering. if they are just going to make it one year, why not just make an amendment or something? host: ok.

diane, republican from minnesota. caller: good morning and merry christmas to you on c-span. i would say that -- yay to republicans. they are trying to do something. yes, i agreed with the man from the york who said why not put a bill there for two months. let us pass a bill and some kudos to the republicans for trying. and as far as obama being in there, the republicans trying to get obama out of the white house after only four years -- and isn't that what republicans are supposed to do? it does not matter who is in as a democrat? you do not want another democrat in. that is the idea. republicans want a republican in. host: let us go back to the payroll tax cut debate and get your reaction to this.

a small but influential band -- caller: i know, i have been watching. i have to agree and i have to have faith with what the republicans are doing. if boehner changed his mind -- and have to watch a little more -- christmas shopping, whatever. host: will you watch the debate on the floor? caller: yes, absolutely. host: 9:00 a.m.. caller: i think anyone who has a chance, should. host: democratic caller from indiana. caller: good morning, happy holidays. i have to disagree with the

previous caller. i have been watching. let's have a little refresher course will equip. this was negotiated last year because the republicans were dead set against any kind of middle-class help whatsoever, including tax cuts and unemployment. so, in order to negotiate, in order to compromise, our president's compromised and extended those stupid crazy bush tax cuts that our governor mitch daniels, it was his brainchild and it ruined us ever since, but that was negotiated. and then they had this tax cut, the middle-class tax cut holiday, in the obama jobs plan, ok. the house voted it down. they had a chance then. what i found very interesting and i was surprised -- i was

racking my brain all-night figuring out what is the catch. republicans are up to something and the lady with things we need to trust the republicans, no. they are deceiving us always. they are playing a game. mitch mcconnell does not give in for anything that is not in his best interest, let's face it. the house republicans are playing the game they know very well. they did not want this to begin with, so and they're deceiving minds, and they're selfish, self-centered minds, they are saying we will go to the american people and saying they want to make common ground. it is bold. they know very well it will not pass and they will leave town and they will put the blame on everybody but themselves. host: that was cafe from indiana. we want to hear from a republican, terry from maryland. caller: i wanted thank you.

you do a great job. it's just a comment. i am a veteran. i served in the united states navy. and i happened to be out in -- at sea for christmas one year. it just kind of burns me that we cannot get things done. and looks like everybody just wants to get home for the holidays. that is it. host: and remember, you can send a tweet with your comments. here is one from james alan -- in some other news, here is "the wall street journal" with their front page. at&t hangs up on t mobil. then in "the washington times" this morning, you may have heard this. house ethics panel is asked to

probe discounted loans to four lawmakers. also, "the washington times" reports in this of this morning. they did some research that shows although party leaders railed against the influence of party lobbyists, and then if that's -- democrats benefited more from lobbyist donations in the first half of 2011. we will go back to the question. mark, independent from michigan. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. i think it is time for our

justice system to start putting people in jail. our elected officials are benefiting themselves. when are we going to realize that these people that we put in office that are supposed to be going by the constitution, supposed to be for the people, they turned the whole system upside down in order to benefit themselves while they screw over america. we've got to stand up. the world is counting on us to do it. host: lisa, democrat from st. louis, missouri. caller: hello? what i was calling about is i have the feeling that the republicans, again, are saying either you take what we give you or we are not going to change our minds at all. one of the example is an article you read, comparing the two plans. if you skip the part where it said the democrats have conceded

on the tax on millionaires. host: yes it -- there is a note in the this section. the senate originally proposed to pay with a surtax for those making more than $1 million which was rejected by the gop and they did drop that. caller: and i know -- they gave a concession but the gop would not can see on the pipeline. they did not can see on anything. that is why these negotiations, i am just fearful. host: if republican from miami, florida. what is your reaction to hear from -- hearing from lisa das democrats conceded on the millionaire tax and they did include language on the keystone -- some pipeline? caller: that is what i was going to talk about, the pipeline. we are putting all of these additional measures that has nothing to do with a payroll tax cut in the budget. and we are demanding that the

president act on it within 60 days. but they are saying a two-month extension for the payroll taxes unacceptable but yet a two-month deadline for the president to act on the keystone xl pipeline is ok. that is hypocritical. as a republican, i am seriously tired of all of these faults in washington and in -- folks in washington and tallahassee do nothing but leaning others. we have to ensure we get our country on the white track. gant our country on the right track we are going straight to -- if we can't get our country on the right track we are going straight to hell. caller: talking about the tax policy, but in reality, we are being held hostage in this country, not by the political system. the political system has collapsed completely. the economic system has completely collapsed. we know that. there is no economic system,

there is no political system. there is no trade policy. right now we are held hostage by the media. the media goes ahead and is manipulating this election process -- with the republicans right now. they will do it when democrats get involved. i have written a book about this. the subtitle is "taking back the rust belt one radio station at the top -- at a time." believe it is ignoring there is $6 trillion in being house in our corporations overseas -- the media is not ignoring there is $6 trillion being howls in a corporation overseas. being manipulated through the political system, the media, the media is ignoring it. that is the job of the media. when they wrote the constitution, they did not write that we need politicians

in place to control corrupt media. host: got your point. carol, democratic caller from los angeles. you are the last one via caller: i think they should go up the street to a local preschool and get a few kindergartners together and i bet they could pass the one-year extension. host: ok, carol. go ahead, finish your thought. caller: that is exactly how they are acting. host: we will talk to two members coming. allyson schwartz will join us and 45 minutes. next, james lankford, republican of oklahoma and a member of the budget committee. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, "the contenders" looks back of the 14 men who ran for president but lost but had a lasting impact on american politics. tonight, james g. blaine, who lost 2 over cleveland, wednesday, william jennings bryan, thursday, 5-time socialist party candidate, eugene debs, friday, charles evans hughes, chief justice, and three-time governor of new york, out smith, followed by businessman and member of the liberal wing of the gop, wendell willkie. "the contenders," every night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

have you tried of the free c- span radio app? here is what users are saying. >> fast, easy-to-use, an appealing and the audio quality is convincing with clear. and it is also free. also application. it took me about 10 seconds to use it. >> anytime, anywhere in its streaming audio of c-span radio as well as all three c-span television networks including live coverage of congress. you can also listen to our interview programs, including " q&a," "the communicators," and "after ward's." find out more on c- span.org/radioapp. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back with james lankford. how are you voting? guest: as is typical washington, there is not a single vote to

wrap up. i will not vote to approve the senate changes to the house bill. of course, we sent over a versions of the senate and the senate made major changes and send it back to us and we will send back a note saying we disapprove of the changes and will have to go to conference. host: would you approve of -- disapprove of? guest: let me count the ways. beginning of do with the first thing. they have been shifting it from one year -- everyone, house, senate, president -- talking about the doc fix, so security tax holiday, for one year. the exception, in a house we put two years for the doc fix because it deals with medicare patients and stability. one-year on the payroll and one year on unemployment insurance. it went to the senate and they could not find agreement and a pointed it for two months. two months is very destabilizing in the economy. if you can't really do tax policy in a two-month time.

when it goes back -- there are no reforms in the system, it is two-months rather than one year, and it makes a very big difference. and it just try to apply it becomes a big deal. there is a sense that this is a simple piece, you will take it for two months, but it is not just a simple piece for two months. if you have 18,005 $1 or more, you are taxed at a different rate than $18,500 or less. every employer in america has to change their tax programs for how you pay employees, change the w-two form for the irs, change of a software across the entire country and then they will have to change it again in february. that is not fair for the senate to say this is going to be difficult, negotiations will be hard, we will get off our desk and put it out to the american people and say figure out how to apply it. to me, we've got to fix this. host: let me ask you, though,

about the senate vote. senate majority leader harry reid said, look, i will renegotiate the best for a longer term in two months. the house just needs to vote on what i negotiated with their republican leader in the senate. host: right, it sounds simple, again. but what he is saying to every employer in america, every hospital, you will have to redo all of your databases and software and irs will have to produce all new forms and do it twice in the next two months. that is not reasonable. that is an incredible expense of all of the employer is an locations to redo because they create a new formula at the end of the year because they did not want to me -- negotiate it down. nothing will be different in february than now. why can't we settled? if we agree we can do it for a year, let's get it done rather than make every employer have to redo all of their stuff multiple times? i talked to somebody yesterday, and there, to me was, please, make sure this is changed -- we do not even know how to apply this. the rule is not a simple two

months but very convoluted. 18,500 rule and how to apply and if somebody gives a more at the beginning than the end of the year, how would apply. it is difficult to apply and the irs will not even have time to make a comment back to employers of they will have to guess how to do it and then have a retroactive fix. it's got a column in "the washington post" says this -- host: a column in "the washington post" says this -- guest: i would agree. and i think of i sat down for any one of them and ask should we do tax policy two months at a time, 60 days or eight weeks, or a year or longer and i think all of them would say a year at a time there i think the feeling there were getting from the

senate is this was all harry reid would do, we got to get it done. where the house is saying we cannot the two-month house -- tax policy. it is destabilizing. host: a republican colleague of yours accused house republicans of playing politics. guest: here is what i would say to him and anyone else. can anyone stand up with a straight face say we should do tax policy 60 days at a time for the american people? there is nothing more destabilizing when nobody knows what the tax rate will be, nobody knows -- this is a program to increase job growth in america. that is what this has been projected. no one can say if we do something for two months it will create jobs in america. if you want to just throw money out of the door and take money out of the treasury and send it out of the door, you can do it in two months. if you want stability in tax

programs in america, you cannot do it two months at a time. host: what about the politics? let me show our viewers and you some headlines. they see this as an opportunity for democrats politically. guest: ok. well, then, they can say political shots at the one-two but they cannot justify the simple provision that no one thinks we should do tax policy two months at a time. and to just for good this along and constantly say we will tweak shack -- tax code and throughout the year. what happens typically? last year they did a one-year tax holiday. this year, we will do a two- month tax policy. what happens in february we do when we cannot determine this as well? shifted for another two months? even for people just basic filing, you do it a quarter at a time. this does not involve a quarter.

now just in your filing you have to do the first two months of the quarter one way and the last two months in the quarter completely different. this is a pain for every american and how they will handle it. if you are an employee and just getting a tax cut and you see that -- great, you see it. but you do not know if it is going to be there in march, will it change. there is no way to know. we are saying resolve that now. all our stuff we sent over -- we sent over a bill it was year- long, paid for, established unemployment insurance, all the payroll tax, it established the sgr -- completely done and paid for. if they had questions on our pay-for, they should have sent back a reform of that but to just extended for two months is not sensible. host: any concerns republican will be blamed if it is not resolved and the payroll tax cut holiday expires? guest: all we are doing is we are sending over a conference report and recommended a

conference. the tentacle normal way everyone who grew up in civics class -- the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, the language is not the same and they go to conference and they work it out and it goes back to both bodies and is passed. that is a good normal process. we sent it to the senate, they did not approve the, the senate passed a bill -- we will not approve it today, ask for conference. we will assign a team from the house saying here are our negotiators, not expecting them to respond the same way. there is plenty of time this year to work it out. we have 10 days left in this year to work it out. in a legislative time period, that is forever. there is a lot of things that can be done in the last two or three days. everybody sees christmas time in this. if you are dealing with a conference report, this is not some drastic hurry. everybody saying the building is on fire. one of the first things we can do for tax policy is say, you know what, it is christmas, let us forget it and deal with the next year. let us deal with that right now

and get it done so we do not have to deal with it in february. host: a new poll is out -- who do you trust to do a better job. when they break it down -- protecting the middle class, obama beat the republicans in congress. tax policy, all >> it is and head -- tax policy, obama is ahead. handling economy, he is also ahead. creating jobs, 44% say president obama and 41% republicans in congress. guest: what i would do is look back in -- all the time president obama and the democrats at the house and senate and the decisions they made and what happens to the economy and what happened to the debt long term. we have two eyes -- one has to be focused on the economy right now and the other has to be focused on the long term and the debt. we cannot say time setup right

now, we will make it tougher on our kids to make it easier on us and that is what happened the past two years. completely focused on -- tomorrow is tomorrow. we have to make sure we stabilize at right now. host: are house republicans to blame because they have been in charge? guest: they have been in charge of the past 11 months in the house, and not in the senate and executive branch. you will see a huge stack of bills sitting in front of the senate floor that has piled up that the house has passed and the senate has taken no action. i know it is easy for the senate to say we passed a bill and send it to the house just like we've passed a bill and send it to the senate, and the senate can say pass our bill -- we will look at the big stack of bills that we passed and sent to the senate and they are not taking action on it all. we have had over 20 jobs bills that the senate has taken no action on all. it is easy to say they are to blame, but look at where the bills all die. host: independent from seattle,

washington. caller: hi. i would like to say something about what you guys are arguing about. listen, the public watch politicians, too. before, when the congress tried to raise -- what you call it -- raised the rate ceiling -- guest: the debt ceiling. caller: they won it three months but the democrats were arguing -- wanted to do with three months but the democrats were arguing longer. now you guys are fighting. the democrats are playing the game back to you people that you were getting to them before. host: let's get a response. guest: it is easy to be able to say that. these are two completely different issues. this one is dealing with the

social security tax. it is very important we did not mess it up and to say for a couple of months we will fund the social security from a different mechanism -- we are dealing judy if you are dealing with the social security holiday you have to make sure this is fully funded. we are not confident and that in this two-month plan. there is no reforms in the unemployment insurance. this perpetuates if you're unemployed you get a check but no incentives to get job training or flexibility were states to develop different strategies to resolve this. they're two different perspectives. fauthe other one is to allow people to establish how can they transition. we are trying to fix that. if you look at the house version of the bill, it is not some draconian, crazy conservative bill that no one can accept but many of the proposals are from the president, out of the debt ceiling proposals. we are not considering this out of the box in any way. these are things we commonly

talked about before and let us get it done. host: on the politics, if you go to whitehouse.gov -- guest: what a surprise that they would accuse the house of stalling anything. at any point in washington there is a clock running on anything. rather the end of the vote, the end of the year, all of these explorations, there is always a countdown to something. part of the reason is, congress over the past many years have done things way too close to the end. we have to start getting on to things earlier. for instance, the unemployment insurance and the fixes -- we knew it was happening in january and it should have been resolved months ago. i would completely agree with that. that should have been resolved a long time ago. we have to get to the spot where it is fixed early. host: do your republican leaders told some of the blame for waiting until the end? guest: this came out of both the

house and senate so this is just not one in. there were proposals products in a house in the summertime, in june, and they came up into the committee and were brought down. but we have to get resolved so we can get it done. robert, as get to democratic member. caller: good morning. guest: merry christmas. caller: merry christmas to you. when obama took office -- my paycheck got a little bit better and then screaming tax hike. can you explain the rationale? guest: i do not remember a group of folks wanting to increase taxes. we want to lower taxes and allow people to have your own money. the difference that is unique -- and because of a payroll tax but it is really the funding that goes to pay for your social security and medicare. when you are tweaking out the social security tax, you cannot do this wrong because this is what funds our social security and the fund has been tacked on.

the frustration for me when this was passed a year ago -- i was one of the freshman -- the frustration is when it was done, there were a lot of ways to handle getting middle-class individuals tax relief. that now we're taking money out of social security before it can sit there and shifting around. it is taking in that trust fund before it gets there. host: this week for you. -- tweet for you. guest: not true. that senate republicans and the senate democrats each made a proposal for a full year. they voted each other's stuff down and capitulated. we will do two monsanto home for christmas and deal with it in february. the house that we cannot do that. we cannot say that we will do tax policy two months at a time.

we have to do with a year at a time. a year is too short. two months is absurd. if your goal is to throw money out the door and give it away, we can do that two months at a time. if you want to stimulate the economy, no one plans two months at time. if you want to take it in simple terms, this used to be a $1,000 tax cut, now it is $166. a dramatic difference. i know they are saying that will work it out later, but let's work it out now. we have 10 days left. let's get it right now and do not create uncertainty in the economy. host: arkansas. caller: good morning. merry christmas to you. several things wrong with a social security tax cut plan in my mind. first is it robs from peter to

pay paul. secondly, it is not necessarily needed by the 160 million working people in america. maybe 40 million need it, and fired, it will add about $6,000 to homeowners payments over 30 years if they take $17 per month on a tilted thousand dollar loan. >> because of the way they are paying for? caller: also make it a loan from your 401(k) or ira. people are paying it back at 20% year. or if it is within five years of retiring, if you could take it from the first two social security checks. you have to pay for what you earn and you have to earn what you get. guest: john, i appreciate all that. it begins initially with people,

handling their own accounts or their own retirement, if this was a personally owned account rather than a government- controlled account, that would be easy to do to give people the flexibility. this is the congress choosing how investments will be made. i understand the opt-out, something we've talked about in the house. it would allow people to opt out and popped in and add another month to their retirement. again, it goes back to the problem -- how do you process that and the paperwork involved would be dramatic if both for employer and employee. the best thing that we have done before, lowering the marginal rate. that allows people to be involved in the process on how much they contributed, charitable donations, what they do with their home mortgage, people have more control over it. this is a short-term fix, a 01- year holiday that has stretched

into two years, and someone will be screaming next december, taxes will go again. we cannot just focus on this year's economy and lose track of a long-term look at what is happening. if we ignore the debt and the social security trust fund and just focus on today, we will lose track of what we need to do and the right thing for america. host: john is in ohio, an independent scholar. -- caller. guest: good morning. caller: what you should do is change the complete tax code right off and then go from there. i think you should completely do away with the payroll tax holiday, because at you are stealing from one side and that

putting it back in the other. another thing, to deal with the bush tax cuts. if you just sat there and did not do anything and let a lot of this go away, except the unemployment, which should go back to 26 weeks, and only 113- week extension, because it is getting so far out of hand that you're just losing sight of what you should be doing. guest: several things in there. one thing is that you talked about as the unemployment insurance reform. i completely agree with you. we've taken it from 26 weeks to 56 weeks to 99 weeks, and as perpetual push to keep it that way. the president addressed a joint session of congress and said we needed to reform unemployment to get more people to get job training. we completely agree. the house-passed a version had that. he gave us the opportunity to change this, but it was a slow

transition to give incentive to people, to get a ged, to getting more job training, a great comfort -- upper -- we have a great career training course and oklahoma. but we need to allow the state to transition. john also mentioned reforming the tax code and i agree as well. he going back to the president's state of the union, we need to reform the corporate tax. everyone stood and cheered. the problem is getting it done very we need the democrats to come to the table and simplify the whole system to make it economically more viable. we have to get moving on that. that has been a major push both for the corporate side and also for the individuals as well. you are right. it has to be fixed. host: a democratic caller from georgia, you're up for james lankford of oklahoma.

caller: i listen all the time at all this stuff going on, as far as fiscal policy, an economics and stuff. everybody is looking at short- term. in order for us to see the results of fiscal policies, it takes about 10 years. so you're in here making changes on a monthly or eight year basis and you're confusing everything. everyone talks about change the tax code. that is unrealistic. a tax code is so complex, and you have to look at the whole bushel at the same time. host: take that last point about the complexity of the tax code. guest: absolutely correct. it is a big deal. though 1980's was the last time we had a major reform in the tax code. it pulled out a lot of deductions and became a lot more flat and simpler. and then over the years, congress has continued at more

restrictions. it makes it more complex. that is the nature of government. we're going to go back and simplify and make it of flat or fairtax or anything you want to do, but congress will make it more complicated. that is the nature of government. in 30 years, we will have to change it again. that is ok, but we have to get back to the simpler version, because it is nine times longer than the bible right now. we need to simplify this document and get us back to a baseline. we have been giving money away based on the tax code and we have to quit that. host: maverick gun on twitter page says that he wants to go back on the tax cut, because the tax deduction has been in place. continuing the same requires nothing. guest: that is not true. it expires in december 31. if we do nothing, it expires.

now was not a matter of doing nothing and it continues on. it was set up to be a one-year tax holiday. something has to be done on it. the proposal from the house was to have the same rate in some simple reforms in unemployment insurance. the senate was two months, but to break it down at 18,500. there was a very convoluted. host: so it was not a continuation of what is in place. >> that is correct. it is not the same as what was currently there. people look at the senate version and houseperson and think that there is the same. they approach it differently, different ways of calculating it, not the same as it was before. host: marks from california, go ahead. guest: merry christmas to you. caller: merry christmas. you know, when clinton left office, the rich paid a little

bit more, about 3%. and he had a balanced budget. the wealthy did very good, and you know, when bush came into office, he spent on two wars, he put it on the credit card, he gave the medicare program, he put it on the credit card, which you guys do not negotiate the drug prices, which cost medicare more money. host: let me get congressman to respond. republicans spent and did not pay for. guest: i hear this all time. balanced budgets do not originate in the year that they actually started. you cannot look at a higher tax

rate and say that solved it. that agreement was made in the late 1980's and early 1990's to start driving our spending down. then there was a common agreement that happened in the house and the senate, what will be our spending level, and reduced some of the spending. that is what brought down our budget and began the balancing. a lot of people say if we would raise more taxes, this will balance out. not true. our tax has been around 18.5% for decades now. we are spending up 25% of gdp, of what is coming in. that is a big difference. you cannot just get there by saying we're going to raise taxes. we have dramatically increase spending, and it is not just four times spending. a significant amount of money spent on the wars, of little over $1 trillion. we were all over $1 trillion in deficit spending just last year.

the last 10 years in apparatus in afghanistan we have spent $1 trillion. medicare and medicaid spending has gone up dramatically of. if you look at the bush deficits during that time period, there are around $400 billion a year that we overspent. and that is too much. if you look at the obama deficits, they have all been $1.3 trillion per year. justin three years. so there is no comparison to the two. this is $1.50 -- $1.5 trillion and we have to correct that. host: at what time would you be voting on the motion to disagree with the senate language? guest: probably around 10:00 we will start voting on that. the motion to disagree in the conference, and then instructions to that conference

when they actually mean, that will be passed as well. details and i am sure the rules committee already has that available if they want to see the instructions to conferees on it. that will be voted on later on today as well. it starts around 10:00 a.m. eastern with the votes, i assume, probably done by early afternoon by 3:00. host: and the votes, the senate majority leader harry reid has called for an up and down vote for what the senate passed. here is a tweet from debbie wasserman schultz. guest: that is funny. i do not think that it would pass. it's interesting for her to make that comment. what about the bills that the houses pass that the senate will not take up and vote? it is just a partisan statement. our first vote will be of disapproval of the senate amendment.

we send over a bill in the senate amended it. we will have a disapproval of the senate amendment to our bill in a vote to cut a conference. that is all combined in that first vote. it is not realistic when you really watch the vote for you will see clearly what is happening. it is a disapproval of this. if they want to approve of this, think they can do that. but we will have disapproval of the senate and approval of the conference report to go straight to there. host: carl ichan verse begins at 9:00 a.m. caller: republicans are already -- host: our coverage begins at 9:00 a.m.. caller: middle-class played social security, so they need it right now because everything is so bad. they are just asking for it or

little while to help out during the hard times. if you really wanted to fix medicare and social security, when people start making tour around $100,000, they only pay three months out of the year. if they pay for the whole year, then we would not have to be talking about all this debt that medicare and social security is causing. caller: let me put it this way. on the proposals on fixing medicare, a completely agree. we have proposals for medicare to stabilize this program long term. if we put them out in april and we will do it again in march from the house to say that we have got to fix medicare. medicare is going insolvent. the chief actuary of medicare said about 2018, definitely by 2021. we cannot just ignore that and

say that is not going happen. it is going to happen. we have to have fixes on that. we have a series of proposals to stabilize medicare and make sure that that is protected. as for this money now, i completely agree. this is not just tax money to keep in your own pocket and invest. we have to have two lines on this. one on the economy now and one on the deficit and debt long- term care we cannot continue to say that we will make it tougher on our kids to make it easier on me. we cannot keep doing that. at some point, it hits our economy right now. host: a year from now, you and not vote again to extend this payroll tax holiday? guest: not just that we had this tax stimulus right now, but that we also are paying for it. that is all set in a way that is realistic and reforming government. it is not just raising taxes in one area to give away in another area. this is not just redistribution of wealth. we will take away from this

person and give it to this person and call it fair. that is not fair. that is read distributing wealth. that is stealing from one person in using the government to accomplish that shipped over. all the social programs we have our social safety nets that we of the nation have said we want some way to deal with a safety net. when the safety net becomes a hammock, and people stay in it forever, we're just read distributing wealth. host: doug on twitter -- guest: we did have the keystone pipeline in the 1-year, and the two-month also had the keystone pipeline. but that is a true jobs peace. if you want 40,000 jobs to take off in the next year, then you allow the pipeline to go through. canada approved it in a year, and three years later, we cannot agree on it. we already have a pipeline that runs from that same area all the way to the call.

host: through oklahoma. guest: that is right. so people seem to think that the keystone pipeline is brand new and we have never done it this and we're bringing the old friend the oil sands. we do this every single day. this just doubles our capacity. they are going either sell that oil to the east or sell that oil to us. we would rather have an all -- our oil come from north america. host: how many jobs in oklahoma? guest: it is all the way up and down nationwide. 20,000 jobs are created, and some long term. they are long-term management of the pipeline. the second thing is back to what it talked about for decades, energy security. for our national and energy security, we need to gather world -- oil worldwide. we can supply our own oil and

not be dependent on venezuela or saudi arabia. if you are against the keystone pipeline, you say that you want to continue to get your oil from saudi arabia and venezuela, or we're going to shift the wind and solar but we do not have the capability to accomplish that. we have to solve this. host: one last phone call for you. stephen atlanta, make it quick. caller: i am trying to understand why these politicians come on c-span to way they do. an act like they know what they're doing, and then thank goodness for stays band, we get to watch and they don't do -- nothing happens like it is supposed to. my question is, do you really know what you're doing? i do not think so. and my second question is, so what? guest: here is the joy of

representative government. 750,200 people in the district of oklahoma, they voted me as their representative. i do my work to do my own research. i read through the bill and gone through the details and talk to employers and employees. the challenges we have a representative government is 435 in house of representatives, 100 in the senate. when they came in the house of representatives and walked around, they would meet people that thought just like them. i think it would be a genuine surprise for people. that they will not see a bunch of crazies disconnected from the world, they would see some people that vehemently disagree with, and that is ok, because they agree with someone else in america. but they could find someone on the floor that agrees with them. that is positive about representative government. we all hear the noise about the different voices and opinions in trying to say that we need to make a decision on this. the real decision right now is if it is best for the economy,

to do tax policy two months at a time, for a your time? we need to do this a year at a time. we can still do that. let's do a full year at a time and create a tax policy to provide some stability for the next year, rather than the instability of two months at a time and have every employer redo their payroll now and gas through how to do this convoluted formula that the senate sent out and redo that all in february. let's just get it settled. we have 10 days to get resolved. we are here still working on that. let's get it resolved right now. the senate was to resolve this, they can do this and a conference, the typical form. we can have a conference committee and resolve it. host: thank you for previewing today's debate on the house floor and the vote. we will go to the other side of the aisle and hear from democratic congresswoman allyson schwartz, democrat of

pennsylvania. first a news update from c-span radio. >> if 21 minutes past the hour. while the house works on the tax bill, campaign 2012 is in full swing. a new cbs news poll finds that mitt romney and newt gingrich are tied at the top among republicans. each with 20% of gop primary voter support. ron paul takes that third spot with 10%, while the remaining candidates are in the single digits. of those surveyed, 7 & tell the polling unit is too early to say their minds were made up on who to support. according to the polls, 17% remain completely undecided with another 19% saying they would like to have more options. meanwhile, the campaign trail today, newt gingrich meets with supporters in mount pleasant, iowa. mitt romney spends the day on the east coast and after a morning appearance on msnbc, he attends a fund-raiser in new york and then on to new hampshire for a town hall

meeting. also in new hampshire, jon huntsman hosting a town hall, while ron paul meets with supporters in manchester and exeter. the other top gop candidates are focusing on kiowa, with those caucuses three weeks away. here in washington, a special lighting ceremony for the national hanukkah menorah at the white house today on the first night of the eight-day jewish holiday. jack lew will take part in the ceremony. the national menorah lighting dates to 1979 when jimmy carter was president. lady president reagan dubbed it the national menorah. you can watch the event later on the c-span networks. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with congresswoman allyson schwartz, democrat of pennsylvania, also a member of the budget committee. what do you plan to do today and

how do you plan to vote on the series of proposals on the floor? guest: many of us are concerned about the fact that the republicans, what they are doing -- we can talk about all the different procedures and the votes, but the bottom line is that they are doing everything -- it will end up that millions of americans, middle-class americans will not get tax cuts come january 1. host: you are confident that the senate will not come back and negotiate in a conference. guest: the senate has been very clear on this. all of us have been trying to find common ground, the way to get to some, bryan -- compromise, to extend the tax breaks for 60 million american middle-class families. we've been working for that for months and months seniors in this country. we have been working to do long-

term fixes, what we call it, make sure that doctors are paid adequately on the medicare so that our seniors have access to the services that they need. that also winds come january 1. the fact that the negotiations, we and not found a way forward, the senate found a bipartisan compromise. it is tough to do, it is not what we all wanted. it does not -- it gives us two more months ended the republicans are serious about being going forward, for a long- term deal, we can protect american seniors and the american middle class from tax increases, and so in answer to your question, i think that the senate is clear that this is a

bipartisan compromise. 89 senators, democratic and republican voted for the spirit that is pretty remarkable. but they did. you see republican senators say pass this. do not put middle-class families and seniors in harm's way. then we can get serious about doing a long term. host: may be bipartisan in the senate, but james lankford says it is not by camel per house passed its version, the senate passed a version, now should work like regular order. democrats should not hold on to this holiday vacation. they should come back and negotiate some sort of compromise between house and the senate. guest: this is not about our vacation. we're all willing to be here. the senate would come back if we thought we were doing something useful. this is stalling tactics. the republican leadership, we heard john brynner and eric

cantor on the senate -- on the house floor say, if they find some compromise, and we will deal with it. we do not know why they were not willing to do it. people were concerned that they thought all year, and this time last year they remembered the republicans in the house, the only thing they were concerned about was making sure that millionaires had a tax break. and now a year later, the only thing that is going on is making sure that middle-class americans get a tax break. host: on the policy front, a two-month extension, this was put out by the ways and means committee, the republican side. builders and contractors, the proposed two month stop-gap measure merely served to delay the inevitable tough decisions, compound in the climate of uncertainty that continues to impact small businesses.

instead of passing the buck for another two months, the house and senate must work together to determine their policies for the full year to provide some semblance of certainty for the companies during our economy. guest: we should be creating more certainty to get to an appropriation bill for the whole year, but the republican leadership in the house has been passing short-term appropriations, continuing resolutions, creating uncertainty in the economy. this has been problematic. they took us to the brink of financial crisis in this country, an effect on investor confidence and consumer confidence and really hurt our economy. they have been doing short term, short term. all of a sudden, when they're faced with, should we make sure that middle-class americans get their tax breaks suddenly they say, no, we need to do a longer-

term. had they been willing to negotiate in any reasonable way, the democrats or with the senate, so i think this is an important moment, because the senate did they encourage it find a bipartisan compromise and they did give it to us and they said let's do this and let's get serious about long-term stability. i love to see that happen. i did not have any confidence that the leaders of the republican wanted. host: another group came out saying that the senate has passed bill is not a continuation of the payroll tax holiday that we have in place now. therefore it is too complicated to put into place in two months. guest: well, this is continuing cut that americans have seen in their paychecks, as we were to make sure that it can continue for the rest of the world. we are 11 will pay is away from

not continuing it. -- we are 11 days away from not continuing and. to seniorseal risk for their access to doctors. that is 11 days away. the -- for them to say that the only thing to do is to negotiate when they have not been willing to do it all along. our constituency, they are asking us to try and find a way forward, to find common ground. we're seeing dead -- that they are even refusing to let us both up and down. it would allow american families can -- to continue to have the tax breaks. host: plymouth, minnesota. caller: i am so surprised that the congresswoman, she sounds

like a teenager. oh, the republicans this period of, the republicans that. you do not sound like you are knowing what you talk about. when greta talked about the continuation, that it was different and it would be a real burden on employers, you skipped over that. oh, the republicans this. oh, the mean republicans that. you said republican about 5000 times and you were on. the republicans are in control of the house of representatives. it is their decision for us to have an opportunity to vote on the tax cut for middle-class tax american spirit if they wanted to see that tax cut continue, then that would allow a vote. the republicans controlled house. the senate has democrat control but they need republicans to do anything to get up to a vote. i am someone that has worked across the aisle aisle.

i work closely with moving forward on the adequate dr. reimbursement for medicare. so that seniors can have access to their favorite doctor. i worked across the aisle in most of everything that i've done. i am finding this a particularly difficult moment because i do not believe that the republicans are sincere in wanting to do this middle-class tax cut continue. otherwise, they would vote on it and allow it to go forward the way it has been. so it is something i like to see. it is the only way we're going to get something done. i guess the republicans feel better for a few minutes but it will not help the american people are helpless. host: st. louis, missouri, your next. caller: i do not agree with what

the last caller said. but my problem i'm having, i do lived in st. louis, and i want to talk about what is not being talked about, the keystone pipeline. we live in the makeup of the midwest, agriculture. and to have this pipeline coming through the midwest, i really think it is a lot of implications behind that. but i want to talk alaska i that was on, james lankford, because he was saying that if you do not believe that the 20,000 people or things like that, 20,000 workers, then you are not an american. but for 20,000 jobs, it is out of order. and also, this tax plan and going on right now, it is a smokescreen. maybe i am misinformed about it,

but isn't it a negotiation for the keystone pipeline, it doesn't that expire? it seems like they're trying to get this pushed through for the whole year, so we will not have to come back to a negotiation about the keystone pipeline. guest: obviously the pipeline has been an issue. there's been some disagreement about how it might go forward. my own feeling is that we do need to make sure that we have done the due diligence in making sure that all of the -- i think that is what the administration is trying to do. part of the senate compromise on this was to expedite that review process by the administration. i think it was 60 days. it could hurt the approval of the pipeline, because there is not time to do all the reviews necessary and done in a way to protect all the communities that goes through.

so i like to see those reviews happen and make sure that it is done correctly. that is something -- one of the writers -- riders on this. and also the tax breaks and making medicare beneficiaries have access to the doctor. that is part of a compromise. i would be willing to and would voted that had the opportunity today to make sure that that legislation goes forward with the language about the pipeline review, even though i do not think it is the best language. but having said that, that as part of the process here. we do find compromise and make decisions. you try to make sure it is moving in the direction that you want, but compromise is part of the process. we need to provide stability and that is one of the things we are very -- having a very hard time

with the republican leadership in the republican members in the house of representatives right now. host: texas. caller: i like to point out something with all the things going on between the republicans, the democrats, back in december 1994, clinton pushed through on fast fact. -- fast track. i know you understand what fast- track is. the wto law for which we went into a five-year probationary period, and then on january 1, 2000, all broke loose because it all went down like a rocket, starting with stocks, starting with the interest rates, and also the same time it took about five years after that and that would be about 2002, the

industry started leading slowly. and as the year one on, they started moving up faster to places like china. you have general motors over there right now in china. you have a lot of big corporations in china. a last one that left this country was rand. unless you get the manufacturing base back in and create the terrace, you will not have small business, would you call the backbone of this country, and i will tell you, that is incorrect in will never be. host: a republican from texas. guest: what you're talking about is the ability of american manufacturers and american businesses, american workers to compete in what is a global marketplace. no question that we're seeing economic growth in many countries around a world, china

and india, but we need to and we're working toward making sure that american businesses and american workers are skilled and are able to compete and we grow manufacturing here in this country and we sell more of our products in order -- not only to americans but to the millions of people around the world. that is something that democrats have been outspoken about, the need to make sure that we do all that we can to do several things. i believe that we need to make sure that manufacturing is strong and help major car manufacturers have some of the tax policies that help them do that, that we actually incentivize innovation and technology so that all of our industries can compete and can do so in a way edition as possible, like a startup in the

tech area, i have a lot of biotech in my district, and i worked hard to make sure that they can continue. we have a difficult economy right now. access to capital is difficult. we need to make sure of education and higher education a huge priority for this administration. it is not only one action but making sure our tax policy is right, that we have the skilled workforce, and we incentivize the kind of growth industries that will continue to make our economy strong. that is what we ought to be talking about right now and jobs now and jobs in the future. that is something that we need to take some action on to make sure that we create that kind of certainty, ability, and make investments for the future. host: from twitter. guest: a love to pass a bill for

a year. on the doctor payments, we should pass that for 10 years. yes, should we be taking action that allows us to create more certainty, not just kicking the can down the road? i think that is correct. however, it has not impossible for us to find common ground. we need to do the right now. what can we do right now that is realistic? right now what we can do, and what we should do is to pass this -- is the shorter term than we would like? two uses what some of us think we should be doing. but right now, middle-class americans will see their taxes go up on january 1. ,ou'll see millions of seniors their access to doctors services would be in jeopardy come

january 1. let's be realistic and pass this two-month extensions and they get serious about a one-year, maybe two years, and in some cases, we should look longer- term. i think that stability is important. is just not really possible right now. host: it is also a political risk to president obama, that they have -- deal his authority of low. and the recovery could be hit in january. what should be president obama is role right now? guest: not doing a tax cut is a risk. host: that the stalemate is not resolved. guest: it is palatine -- holiday time, and people want to give

their families at a great holiday season. and to have a tax increase because we could not take action, that is pretty tough. but it is also, if you do not go all-out -- ahead with the continuation of the 2% tax breaks for middle-class americans, you really do reduce consumer demand and hurt economic growth. and that is serious. it is about the families try to make the budget work this month and next month in the month after, but it is also about our economic recovery. we need to keep that going. host: what should president obama do right now? guest: he has said it already. pass it, continue the tax breaks for middle-class americans, and let's get to doing what we do going forward. the actions of the republican leadership, their actions right now risk not being able to move

forward. that is very bad for business right now, both for economic growth and for the growth of the middle class. host: 20 minutes left with the congresswoman before the house begins the debate in the votes. rachel, and independent and texas, your next. caller: the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, we had 55,000 overseas, and they claim it is because it is of regulations, but it has nothing to do for regulations. people do not want to work for $2 an hour. they're talking about the national debt. when bush left office, he had the debt plus the surplus he had when he came into office. they are going to extend unemployment, because they do not want to tell us that there are no jobs here. because the economy has gone overseas.

guest: you raise some of the bigger issues that we have been trying to tackle this year. it has been difficult. i think you're absolutely right that the debt matters. $14 trillion in serious debt. the interest payments on that debt, when we a taken action this year, it has been tough but we have taken action to reduce spending and to move forward and to reduce debt so that we can balance the budget and be able to pay for all of our spending. we've been trying to move forward on a balanced approach. several actions that need to take place. it is our responsibility to move forward. what do we have to do? we have to make sure that we do spending and are committed to $ 2.5 trillion in reduce spending. we have to cut our budgets and we have done it in a very real way. we also note that we want to

move toward economic growth and new jobs. but we really can i get there without having a balanced approach. but that balanced approach means is cutting spending across the budget, we have not done all that and we really should, including the defense department to be more efficient as well, it is across government, but we also have to deal with economic growth and have revenues on the table. tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, the marginal rate for multimillionaire's is something we have had a big argument about, as many of you know. many of us think we have asked the very wealthiest 1% of americans to pay a little bit more to help get us back on sound fiscal footing. and we have got no cooperation from the republican leadership. there were also putting into jeopardy tax breaks for middle- class americans. i do think that there are

solutions to those big challenges facing us, and hopefully we can continue to move ahead and get past this. host: gym in north carolina. our republican line. caller: you've got outmaneuvered by mitch mcconnell and john boehner. you folks have egg on your face this morning. you really look very foolish and you are saying that this two- month extension is better than a year. i promise you that if that bill is brought to the floor in the senate, and it extends the tax cuts and the medicare extension for the doctors, i promise you that the republicans are going to pass this. what the president wanted was talking points for next year so that he did say those mean old republicans, you know, they won't do this, they won't do

that. but you got outmaneuvered and that is the reason when i watched the house minority leader last night, she was very upset, because she got out maneuvered. guest: i do not think so, actually. what i think happened here, obviously you follow this. again the republican leadership, john boehner and eric cantor, said they wanted the senate to come up with a bipartisan agreement to move forward. i cannot say what kind of conversation in might have had privately with mitch mcconnell, the minority leader, and very much a part of working this out. i think what happened is that they did not expect the senate to come up with any kind of way forward. if we tried to move forward on a

year's extension, i believe that it would pass. i was like to see resolved in most of the democrats would like to see our resolve for a year. the agreement is on how to pay for this and there is a stalemate. they worked it out for the short term. it is so hard to find that common ground and work things out on a bipartisan did, but they did. 89 senators, 39 republicans, voted for this in the senate. is that i deal? a year would have been better but what they did do is make sure that the tax breaks for middle-income americans would go forward. and like you say, the republican have not said how they would go for with a one- year fixed. oh, we passed it a few months ago, do it our way. it does not really allow for my way or the highway. just as not.

you have to reach a compromise and that they -- that did not happen over here in the house. it happened in the senate, and good for them that they could work this out. and republican senators as saying, yes, pass it in the house. get it done and then let's go to work. two months of certainty, and there is a willingness to move forward for a year, that is a good thing. host: from twitter. ann is an independent in colorado. guest: we are not for short- term. we have done things with short- term budget, continuing resolutions, we could not reach agreements but that is not good for our country. it is not the way operate a government. i think the short term as a bad

idea. i think the republicans have been doing a lot of short-term continuing resolutions, because each time they do, they get more cuts. that is all they are interested in doing. much better to do a year's worth. host: another tweet for you. have you voted for the short- term continuing resolutions? guest: we have gone to the bring too often and you're faced with a decision of shutting down the government or to pass a short- term? and some democrats have said no, we're going to treat it like a cat. but it has been a tough year. no question about that. it's been tough to find that common ground and be able to move things forward. one of the things we can do is actually get an appropriations

bill done for the rest of the year. thank goodness we were able to do that. it has not been easy. is it preferable to do a short- term? no. have i been looking for a long term fix for dr. payments which are marked yes, i have. -- dr. payments? yes, i have. but we need to get the middle class tax breaks to continue. host: thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: the democrats just to not represent all lot of us. republicans do not even bringing things to the table. i'll work for one of the major financial firms. the democrats should be on the table with a transaction tax on financial derivatives. the industry is the largest in

the united states and all of these profits, we have been focusing on a common purpose and get money to cover what happened. but the problem is largely in part with the financial industries and what bush did. another issue with medicare, every time it comes on the table, there is no talk about the fact that it is not medicare, it is the entire health-care system that is taking. it is so expensive because we the are -- we're the only country in the world that does not mandate nonprofit insurance policies. guest: really good question and thank you for recognizing the larger issues. you're absolutely correct. we have a financial crisis in the country and an economic crisis that we have been working to recover from. not anyone act will take us there, but we put in place and new financial regulations, we are looking at an interesting

transaction taxes that we need to move forward on comprehensive tax reform, on the corporate side in the individual side. to be of a seat -- to exceed the kind of recovery to go for. we have to help create the environment that allows for economic growth. you're absolutely right, we need to work together to make that happen. on health care issues, you're right. the decisions that we make on medicare does have an impact on the broader health care system. what we do believe and i am one of them, i believe we can and should and we are moving ahead and are demanding greater efficiency and quality of medicare. that is a way to drive a whole system -- everything from

reducing errors and saving money that way, reducing readmission rates to hospitals, getting people the health care they need in an appropriate fashion so that they're not sicker down the road, duplication, all the way that we pay to help plan -- caltrans for the system health care to get better value for our dollar. the public taxpayer dollar and ultimately our private dollars and private insurance, to bring down the rising cost of health coverage and health in this country for all americans. host: a republican in richmond, virginia. caller: i think the congresswoman is realizing from all the calls that people are not just concentrating on christmas gifts and getting ready for new year's eve celebrations. that we are realizing and we are paying attention to what congress is doing up there.

and it is just despicable that the democrats do not care enough about the unemployed. i have friends who are in unemployment, to pass it two- month extension, it is so unfair. the president wanted a year. the house gave him what he asked for and now the senate things in this funny. and the lady, she is even talking about it, she is smiling like it is funny. why did they attach everybody's pay checks, so that you can worry about paying your bills, so you can worry about putting food on your table. it is not funny to do it for a year and get it over with. guest: the democrats have and -- have been absolutely clear that we have been fighting for unemployment compensation for those people who are long-term unemployed. there is concern about that and we also want to make sure that

the tax cuts for middle-class americans are continue. we have been outspoken about that. i'm concerned that you're not hearing that. i hear what you're saying in if you think we have not been fighting for that, we have. do we think it should be four year? yes, we do. we have voted for that. we have offered legislation on the floor and motions to recommit. we have been right up front on this. and the only reason that we're supporting the two-month extension is to help us make sure that the middle-income families do not see a tax hike and january 1 and unemployment insurance does not and 4 2 million americans. we're very serious about that. i am sorry if i looked -- if i smile too often, it is hard for me to apologize for that.

this is millions of americans some -- of american families who will be affected next month. it is about getting our work done here. there is some grandstanding happening today in congress, and i thank you for paying attention to it. and let's get our work time. host: on your predictions, will the senate come back and negotiate? guest: i cannot speak for the senate. they have said that they are not going to, that they have passed the house that act responsibly and pass this and talk about the 10-months afterwards. the best way for it at this point, that is what the senate leadership -- i cannot speak to a difference there, but right now we need to pay attention to the american people asking us to move forward to get this done. host: up few minutes, the house is about to come in. a democrat in bethlehem,

pennsylvania. caller you are smiling and it is nothing to be ashamed of. no question about it, the president asked for one year and a distorted it and they know they can reject anything with 41 votes against it and denied democrats in the senate. however republicans are doing a fantastic job of muddying the waters began and convincing the people -- for example, that guy on earlier, he tried to set -- say that bush's debt was only $3 billion a year. one person in mid that when bush left office, our debt exceeded 10 trillion dollars and we're still being forced into bankruptcy there his policies of high taxes. the medical programs, his expansion of the homeland security forces, and many other ideas as well. host: the congresswoman is a member of the budget committee.

guest: the debt is extremely serious for us. it did not just art. we were left quite a bit of debt as you know from the bush years. how did that debt get here? no question that happened during the bush presidency. there were significant tax cuts for wealthy americans at a time when we were at war, trillions of dollars and were cause, in the dark kombat and iraq recently, something we can all be proud of and of our troops and the service that they gave to this nation. many of us working just to see that happen and are left iraq take over its own security. but those trillions of dollars of cost of a time when there were tax cuts, we have never gone to war and in tax cuts at the same time.

the expansion of medicare benefits, prescription drugs, many of us think it was a good idea but it should have been paid for under the pretense that it was when it was not. that was money. we've tried to fix that and we have work to do to bring down our cost for doing that and we also have to do this in a balanced way. we have to meet our obligations to each other and will have to grow this economy by making the right kind of decisions. that is important to grow ourselves out of this problem. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. the house is in. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 20, 2011, i hereby appoint the honorable steve

womack to act as spoke on that day -- to act as speaker pro tempore pore rarery on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of the people's house as they depart the nation's capital to return to their homes. may they find rest and renewal during their time with family and friends. bless or nation as the year comes -- our nation as the year comes to a close. help us to look to the future with hope and committed to a renewed effort to work together as citizens of a united america. help us all to be truly grateful for the blessings of this past year. may this holy season of hope for so many people prove to be a healing balm for our nation.

bless also as this session comes to a close the absent member of this assembly, gabby giffords, speed her recovery. may she be always reminded of our prayers and best wishes for her. thank you for the remarkable progress she has already made. and as always, we pray that all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. carter. mr. carter: place your hand over your heart. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, just about sun rise in the dezer of the sun and valley of the gun, the last american troops left iraq. it was this past sunday, december 16, 2011. it has been eight years, seven months, and 24 days since the war began. the americans are coming home by christmas. mission accomplished. 4,474 americans gave their lives and thousands of others were wounded. the last american casualty was army specialist david emanuel higman from north carolina. killed on november 14. these americans died in a land they had never been for a people they had never known. the americans have liberated iraq from a dictatorship. to apply ben franklin's statement on the founding of

america, we have given the iraqis a free contry, let's see if they can keep it or not. the choice and responsibility for iraq is now with iraq. but we here in america shall remember those who served and returned. those who served and did not return. and those who served and returned with the wounds of war. as one wounded trooper said yesterday, the worst casualty of war is to be forgotten. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to request one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. lipinski: i rise today to congreat lat the st. xavier university cuings or on winning the naia national football championship on saturday. another thrilling game and fitting way for st. xavier to bring home the first national championship in any sport to the school.

from the freshmen to the seniors, to the top-ranked offense to defense and special teams, everyone played a part in the vick in the cougars' amazing season. this is the first time since 1913 that college football team from chicago has won a national championship, and the cougars did it with a lot of homegrown talent. chicago, lamont, joliet, continually park, oak lawn, park ridge, rockford, frankfurt, these and many others towns are well represented on this historic team. the players, the coach, and his staff, st. xavier, the city of chicago, state of illinois should be proud. congratulations to the cougars, the naia national football champion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek riggs in? -- recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina

is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday peter izberg president of the national payroll reporting consortium ink expressed concern over the senate proposed payroll tax plan which offers only a two-month extension instead of the year-long extension passed last week by the house. in a letter written to several members of congress on both sides of the aisle, he stated that, quote, insufficient lead time to create substantial problems, confusion, and cost. affecting a significant percentage of u.s. employers and employees. end of quote. house republicans are willing to work for one year-long extension now instead of passing a two-month fix that will confuse the american taxpayers, medical providers, and small business owners. it is necessary for both houses of congress to work together to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year. at a time of continued record unemployment, we should be working to help small businesses create jobs.

in conclusion, god bless our troops, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. we are grateful for our service members' military families and veterans who were successful in iraq. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. clarke: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. student loan debt, student loan debt is too high and i'm asking this congress, i'm demanding this congress cut it down. student loan debt will soon approach $1 trillion. and as our graduates are struggling to repay off this debt, this debt is robbing them of their future and it's costing this country jobs. that's why i will soon introduce this bill to responsibly reduce student loan debt, to make repayment simpler and fairer, and to give our

graduates a chance that they deserve. a chance to enjoy the american dream. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, last week i dropped a resolution commending robert griffin iii for winning the 2011 heisman trophy. robert griffin, a student of baylor university, is one of the outstanding americans in this country. an amazing young man who graduated from high school in texas in my district. he graduated in 2008. went off to baylor university to play football and go to school. he graduated from baylor university in 2010. i think that alone is pretty fantastic. he went on to be the quarterback of the baylor

football team, leading them to the best season that they have had in generations. they are ranked number 12 in the bowl championship series. this is a young man whose mother and father are sergeants in the army. he was born overseas while they were serving. he now is going -- is the heisman trophy winner, has been named the outstanding player in the country, and he is not only outstanding as a student but he's outstanding as a player. and as a human being. and he chose baylor university because he wanted to go to a good christian school. this young man won an award, the kind of role model that we want our children to aspire to be. he's hardworking with a good work ethic. he believes in his fellow players. he cares. he leads. and he wins. this young man should be commended. within two years from now he will be -- have a master's

degree and law degree in addition to his bachelor's degree. and he still has one more year of eligibility. i would say this is the kind of kid we all wish our kid could grow up to be. i want to commend his parents, the people of coppers cove, and state of texas for producing this fine young football player. we call him rg 3. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> it is outrageous the house republicans will not allow the senate bill to come up today that will extend the payroll tax cut, that would also provide unemployment benefits for so many million americans that are out of work, and also allow seniors to have their medicaid reimbursement paid to their doctors so the doctors will accept medicare. mr. pallone: i cannot believe that at the end of the year now is this a christmas present? is this the new year's gift we

are going to give to the american people that their taxes are going to be raised? that they are not going to be able to have unemployment insurance if they are unemployed? what does this mean for the economy, mr. speaker? do the house republicans want to send a message to the president right now when the economy is actually starting to improve slightly? this could easily send us back and make the economy go back into a tailspin. do they dislike the president so much that they would risk the economy for that? i cannot believe that we are not going to have an opportunity today to vote on the senate bill and to make sure that these things are extended, particularly the payroll tax cut, because that is very important for the economy. it's very important for small businesses. it is an outrage, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> it's amacing, mr. speaker, those that now claim we are opposed to increasing the sales

tax holiday for one year, i actually voted against it a few weeks ago. mr. johnson: we are here today to make sure that taxes over 160 million americans don't go up on january 1. we are here to stop politics as usual in the washington. president obama called for one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, and we are here to do that. job creators need economic certainty to create jobs and to do that we must extend the payroll tax holiday for one year. kicking the can down the road only introduces more uncertainty into our economy. payroll experts say that this is going to hurt small businesses. enough of these washington gimmicks. the house already voted to extend the payroll tax for a full year. the holiday for a full year for all hardworking americans. but the senate democrats oppose our bipartisan bill. senate democrats have a clear choice to make, continue the game of washington politics as usual or join with house

republicans to stop a tax increase on 160 million americans. i urge them to make the right choice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> i rise this morning in support of a long-term extension for an important middle class tax cut for american families that are struggling in these difficult economic times. mr. fitzpatrick: elected by the people to do their work and provide the conditions for the private sector to get this economy back on track and put americans back to work. this work includes stable, predictable policy from washington and that includes tax policy. a two-month extension does not provide any certainty to families or small business job creators. the house and president obama agree that a 12-month extension of the payroll tax cut must be enacted. therefore i ask that leader

reid and the senate come back to town and join us in passing a long-term extension of the payroll tax cut. anything less is unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house, it's unfortunate that today we find ourselves continuing to argue over whether or not an extension of the middle class tax cuts should take place now as opposed to continuing to try to load the bill up with poison pills, cutting off people's health -- unemployment insurance, and getting into an argument with the senate. the proposal that after a year of deliberations that the republicans came up with was rejected in the senate on a bipartisan basis. another bill was passed overwhelmingly to give us a two-month extension so that we can continue to try to work out a long-term solution to a middle class tax cut without

accepting poison pills. but now what we see is the republicans choose to turn down that compromise that brought the senate together that can bring this house together to refuse to let us have a vote on that measure because they know there will be bipartisan support for that measure in this house. we can come together and in this holiday season give american middle class families the security that they will have a continuation of the tax cut on january 1. but that's not what the republicans are going to do. they are going to throw families and our economy into chaos for the sake, for the sake of trying to make political points. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 102, house resolution 502. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order or question of consideration, to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3630, to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, with the senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the house a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee that the house disagree to the senate amendments and request a conference with the senate thereon. the senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order or question of consideration, to consider

in the house the resolution , house resolution 501, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to medicare beneficiaries. the resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. section 3, during consideration of a motion to instruct conferees pending their appointment to a conference on h.r. 3630, the previous question shall be considered as ordered to its adoption without

intervening motion except one hour of debate under clause 7-b of rule 22. such motion shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to any question of consideration. section 4, during consideration of a motion specified in the first section of this resolution or section 3 of this resolution, the chair may, a, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, postpone further consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated by the speaker as though under clause 1-c of rule 19 and, b, postpone the question of adoption of the motion as though under clause 8 of rule 20. section 5, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of january

17, 2012. section 6, it shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of january 15, 2012, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause l-c of rule 15. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one hour. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: house resolution 502 provides for a motion to go to conference on h.r. 3630 and for a closed rule on h.res. 501. mr. speaker, i rise today in

support of this rule and the underlying bill. to be honest, mr. speaker, being here today is almost ridiculous because last week the house passed a very good bill. and the three major components are very simple -- payroll tax extension, a holiday, not a 60-day holiday but a one-year payroll tax extension that is paid for. unemployed insurance. we addressed unemployment insurance in a very compassionate way, working as the president has suggested. we need to cut it by 20 weeks over time so our house in a bipartisan fashion is working to take it from 99 weeks to 59 weeks holding the spirit of our bipartisan president. and the doc fix. if we want to keep medicare and the recipients of medicare whole, we have to address the reimbursement rates of the

doctors. this doc fix stops an almost 30% cut in the reimbursement rates. but beyond that, we decided it is time to create american jobs so the keystone pipeline that creates more than 20,000 jobs is in this bill. but not only do we want to create jobs, we want to save jobs, and so you think of the boiler mact that saves more jobs than the pipeline creates. unfortunately, mr. speaker, unfortunately our friends on the left want to continue to hold the middle class hostage because they have a plan on -- to continue to raise taxes as they have over the last year. as a matter of fact, in 2010, in one bill only, mr. speaker, one bill only they raised taxes on the middle class, and this year, because we're moving into an election year, they decided it's time to remember the

american middle class. but last year they were taxes that middle class and taxing that middle class and taxing that -- but last year they were taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class and taxing that middle class. billions of dollars on the middle class on investment income, a hike in medicare payroll taxes of $86 billion passed through to the middle class. i don't know why this year all of a sudden they want to talk about tax breaks for the middle class and only give them 60 days, mr. speaker. i believe that the middle class deserves certainty and our bill gives them certainty. we say for one year we need to extend to the middle class, people who are struggling every day to make their ends meet. our friends on the left, they're getting ready for campaign season and so what they're really concerned about

is themselves. but when we said when you take into consideration the person who needs a medical device must pay a pass-through tax up to $20 billion, that's not compassionate, that's not fair, mr. speaker. when you think about tanning services, a $2.7 billion pass-through tax to the middle class on tanning services. now, i'm not quite sure what tanning services has to do with health care, but we find ourselves in the midst of another back door tax increase on the middle class. or let's go ahead and tax the innovating companies $22 billion and pass it to the middle class. or if you don't like those taxes we have another one, health insurers. let's take $60 billion out of the pockets of the middle class by making the insurers pay more

which they know they will pass it through to the middle class. but since that may not be enough, they decided that they would actually tax the health plans of the middle class $32 billion on the plans of the middle class. i just don't understand it, mr. speaker. we must not only extend this tax cut for the middle class, we must pay for it. as i was talking to one of my constituents, $650 every two weeks and she needs her $600 tax cut but she's very close to social security so she says to me, tim, please, as you provide an extension of the tax cut, please don't raid the social security fund so we on the right have decided in a

bipartisan way to work with the president. our offsets include 90% offsets that the president himself have agreed to. in a bipartisan way we address the payroll tax extension. we keep social security as solvent as it can be today, and we continue to make sure that senior citizens have doctors who will see them because we fixed the problem of reimbursement rates and unemployment is now a greater incentive for work than it has been in more than two years or so because we are taking 99 weeks and working in a bipartisan fashion with the president and taking it down to 59 weeks for some states. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved.

the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. good morning. i want to thank my friend from south carolina, mr. scott, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you. a lot of verbage is going on here this morning, but, mr. and mrs. america, let me tell you what we're doing here. nothing. we were promised we could have a vote to concur in what the senate did 89-10 and give it to the president and make sure that the payroll tax continues but that's not what we're doing here today. what they changed that to is to reject what the senate did and ask for a conference which the other side, the leader of the senate said he's not going to do. we could have did this last week but we have been flown here this week to do absolutely nothing. at the end of the day here we will not have accomplished a thing. there will be no payroll tax. there will be no unemployment insurance. there will be no doc fix.

it simply says, we will reject what they did 89-10, which is a miracle in itself, but we are not going to do anything here. we will kick it back over to the other side. in addition to this, the president has not signed the omnibus bill. i think he was going to wait for this one which means come friday the government could shut down. once again brinksmanship of hanging by our thumbs. so if i could make any point today for america, don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain here. we are not doing anything. we could have, but we are not. and after that great expense of shuttling all back and forth this week we come here today and we have a rare opportunity to really come together and provide the vital assistance to americans in need. the senate certainly answered the called in a bipartisan bill which was really quite wonderful. it made us feel good about the congress.

they passed a bill in support of 89 senators and 80% of the republican senators. and i'm very proud of them. not only did they vote for that but unfortunately the house can't do the same. this bill had the blessings of the speaker of this house as of saturday. after a year of bitter battles in washington we stood on the brink of a bipartisan agreement to lower taxes and provide much-needed assistance to those struggling to get through the holiday season through no fault of their own having lost their employment. that is until a small army of ideologues said no and demanded this truly bipartisan bill be tossed out into the cold. what a shame. so we meet today at the height of the christmas season, as a time of tiny tim and mr. scrooge is playing out in the country and here in the house.

will we come together to provide a fwift for the american people or will a small group of ideologues let taxes rise and let the unemployment go without housing and food as we ring in the new year? it is my belief and certainly borne out by the media this morning that one of the reasons the vote today is to reject the senate bill is we had a vote to concur in it instead, to say we agreed with what the senate had done, then it would have passed. now, i spoke about this game of brinksmanship last week and certainly we've gone a whole year hoping there will be no payroll tax on the other side. they didn't believe in that and certainly did not believe in the extension of unemployment. now suddenly today we can't just have too much. we got to have a year. well, the reason they couldn't get a year in the senate was the differences of opinion in how to pay for it. it was decided that two months -- we will not lose it after two months. the house and senate, we would

hope, would be working out ways so we continue it for a year. this will not be a great hardship of bookkeeping that everybody has been talking about. we were going to talk about it during those two months. the two months was basically an emergency measure which is being turned down by the house of representatives. we'd love to live in a world where every single principle we believed it could be made true. those that disagree with us would support our views. but we don't live in that world. after the majority spent the entire year ignoring extending the tax break, i heard frequent refrain in the last 24 hours policies we are considering today should not be implemented for two months but for a year. . the majority should be heartened to know that heart and soul we agree with them, we all wanted a year, as the president of the united states. as i said before we know we will get that year.

we'll have two months on working on that extension. however after weeks of negotiation, 435 legislators can agree on an equally important point, how to pay for the tax cuts for a year. democrats have said that millionaires and those who benefited the most in the pass decade should pay for this tax break. the majority said that seniors receiving medicare should pay instead and that was in the bill passed here last week. this simple but profound disagreement is part of what has led us here today. the other part of the equation is the majority needed to design a vote that no matter the vote totals they would never lose. isn't that clever? if we had another month to work on resolving our disagreement we could continue debate without pause. however the clock is about to hit midnight, and the taxes of millions of americans and unemployment insurance of millions more are about to be harmed because we won't strike

a deal. it should be obvious why we must pass this senate agreement. it's time that all of us accept the world as it is. it's time that we came to a compromise, a compromise to benefit millions of americans in this time of holiday cheer for some. there will be many more debates in the months to come about how to help the american people, but now we will seize or opportunity and provide for the millions of americans who sent us here to make sure the season could be a little better than the last. i'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question when we get to that point, but i want to reiterate again nothing is happening here today. when we leave here, the tax cut will not be extended, unemployment will not be extended, we will simply go back home to await the consequences of what we are doing here today. i deeply regret that because i would have liked nothing better than the bipartisanship that the senate showed in this time

of need to have been on display here in the house of representatives. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm not quite sure if i heard ms. slaughter correctly, but she seemed to allude or suggest that the president might not pass the omnibus bill because of this bill. which sounds like a reaffirmation of the fact that we are playing politics on the left while we on the right consistently look for ways to help the middle class. i would also say that when republican senator jim demint and president obama and speaker boehner and democrat senator man chen are on the same page on a one-year extension, we ought to sound like a sounding board for those four who are typically in opposite corners. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from the great state of georgia, dr. rob woodall.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from south carolina for yielding. he knows how excited i am to be down here today. he knows how excited i am because unlike what my colleague from new york suggests about accepting how the world is, today's a day where we decided, you know what? we can do better. we can do better. the million folks i represent back home in georgia don't want to accept the way this body operates today. they want us to do better. i know when this body passed this one-year extension last december that they knew we were going bab -- to be back here today. for a year we knew we would be back here today to suggest if only you give us 60 days to do better, that's the way this house has worked in years past. but this year, this year this body has said if these issues are so important to the american family, and they are,

if these issues are so critical to the economy, and they are, why do we need another 60 days? why not do it today? we know that it has to happen. we know it's coming. why can't we get together and do it today? i'll tell you, i have studied majority politics in this body. and traditionally speaking the majority, which the republicans are, would just bring a bill to the floor and jam it through. my way or the highway. you have seen it. you have seen it when republicans have done it, you have seen it when democrats have done it. it could have happened that way again today. what did the rules committee do? the rules committee didn't say my way or heightway. the rules committee said we've got a position here in the house. they have a position there in the senate. let's do what we have been doing for hundreds of years and come together in a conference to work out our differences. there are those in this body who would rather work out our differences on the front page of the newspaper. there are those in this body who would rather work out our differences on the sunday

morning talk show programs. i don't think that's the best way to get the people's business done and neither do the million folks back home that i represent. it's ok that we disagree about what this policy ought to look like. it is not ok if we let that disagreement put the economy in peril and put the budgets upon working american taxpayers at home in peril. we can do better. and we are doing better. we are doing better. you know, traditional process would have been to go ahead and push this through late last night. we called everybody back. could have passed it in the dark of night. and folks said, you know what? that's not the right way to operate this body. we can do better if we are proud of what we are doing, let's put it off until tomorrow morning. let's do it in the light of day and let everybody have their say. that's what we are doing. that's why we are here today. i say to my friend from south carolina, i'm proud that we serve on that rules committee together. i'm proud of our leadership for giving us this opportunity to

be open and i am proud that it is not a small band of rebels in republican conference, as my friend from new york would suggest, that are high jacking this process, it is a proud band of 240 republicans who say regular order has merit. let's do it in the way that we have done it for hundreds of years. house bill, senate bill, let's come together, mr. speaker, and work out those differences. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, and a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last night the rules committee at the direction of the republican leadership voted out a martial law rule that will deny the house of representatives an up or down vote on the bipartisan senate compromise. no vote. we are only days away from seeing 160 million hardworking middle income americans see

their taxes increase, and there is no vote. we are on the verge of allowing two million jobless people to lose their unemployment benefits and 48 million seniors to lose their health care and republicans tell us there can be no vote. are you kidding me? my republican friends last night defended their delaying tactics by saying all they wanted was to protect regular order when it comes to legislation. since when? regular order, please. the rules committee is becoming a place where democracy and fairness go to die. this process is shameful. we have a habit in this house where we like to point fingers of blame at the senate for its dysfunction, but we can't do that today because the senate actually functioned and gave us a bipartisan compromise. it's not perfect. and we all want a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut. but as we struggle to find acceptable pay-fors, which up to this point we have not been able to do, the u.s. senate has provided us with a bridge to get there. this compromise includes a short-term extension of the

payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix. the package also includes requirement that president obama make a decision on the keystone x.l. pipeline which many of us find hard to swallow. but democrats get something they want and republicans get something they want. but that's not good enough for house republicans. at a time when american people want democrats and republicans work together, the senate did. the politicians can come to agreement on important matters i believe is a good thing. what's a bad thing is we are doing here in the house. today trying to scuttle this deal by denying us a vote. in today's "washington post," a republican member is quoted as saying, i quote, it's high stakes poker, end quote. well, mr. speaker, this is not a card game. this is not a game of any kind. let me inform my republican colleagues that this is real life with real people and real consequences. i would say to the republican leaders of this house, show us that you can govern. this is time for an adult moment.

it's time to tell your tea party wing that the american people come first. it's time to put country ahead of political party. we are less than 12 days away from a tax increase on middle class americans and instead of doing what's right for 160 million americans, the republican leadership is playing politics. denying us a vote. and ensuring that today when all is said and done we'll accomplish absolutely nothing for the american people. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote down this rule. don't leave town until we have a chance to vote on the senate compromise so that we can ensure that millions of our fellow citizens don't see their taxes going up during these difficult economic times. give us a vote. why won't you give us a vote? we demand a vote. let us have a vote so we can do what's right for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i want to thank you. mr. chairman, i would simply say if you are looking for a bipartisan approach for legislation, if you are looking

for someone who wants to work with the white house, 90% of our offsets have been agreed to by the president. and i will simply say that when the president is right, which i don't agree with him very often, he's right. the president said that congress should not go home for vacation until it 2350eu7bds a -- finds a way to avoid hitting 160 million americans with a tax hike on january 1. it would be inexcusable for congress not to extend this tax holiday for an entire year. i think a bipartisan approach has been taken. i am assured by that fact because the president and i are on the same page and it doesn't happen but once every year and it must be christmas. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, chairman jeff hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. the american people know why we are here today. we are here today because the president's economic policies have failed. since the president was

elected, unemployment has been at, near, or above 9%. small business start-ups, 17-year low. that's the obama economy. because of that, mr. speaker, almost every sing many member of the house and senate agree that we should extend the payroll tax holiday for another year. so what is so confusing to many of us is that, as my friends on the other side of the aisle say, yes, we need to do this for a year, like the president said, like the american people expect, and yet they all want to vote against it. so the disagreement we have here, mr. speaker, is, do you want to punt the ball down the field? do you want to do this for 60 days and do it again 60 days? another 60 days? or do you want to solve the

problem? that's the first debate. and really, mr. speaker, it begs the question why? why do we have so many people saying they want to do this for a year and yet they are only willing to vote for 60 days. are people more interested in making a law that will benefit the american people or are they more interested in making a campaign issue that may benefit their own re-election campaigns? that's the question. the second point of debate is, the american people, many of whom are suffering, because of this economy, they are willing to work over the holidays. are we willing to work over the holidays? the house is willing to work. the question is, where's the senate? ok. since the dawn of the republic, we have this thing called a conference committee. if you took civics 101, you remember, the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, they come together in conference committee, they work out their differences. we stand ready to work over the holidays. and here's the third point.

do you want to pass a bill for messaging purposes or do you want to pass a bill that works? abc reported last night, holiday passed by senate pushed by president cannot be implemented properly, experts say. the national payroll reporting consortium, this is the group that handles all the payroll issues for practically a third of all of the private sector workers in the country. and they said, quote, it could create substantial problems, confusion, and cost affecting the significant percentage of u.s. employers and employees. and in fact, the association of builders and contractors have said, this sort of temporary fix underscores congress' uneven ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more harm than good for america's job creators. so again, mr. speaker, -- would the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds?

mr. scott: additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: it comes down to this. if you say you want to do this for a year, put your vote where your rhetoric is. if you're not willing to work over the holidays, admit to the american people you're not willing to work over the holidays. and do you want -- if you want to support a bill that actually works, talk to the job creators in america. that's the problem in washington. talk to the people who are absolutely responsible for this. and they will tell you the 60-day ad hoc approach doesn't work, that's why we need a rule to go to conference and put forth something the american people want and need. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady from new york for the time.

threes last two weeks has shown the tax and spend republican party upclose. then we passed a huge omnibus spending bill and spent over $900 billion, actually increasing defense spending, all deficit spending. spending, spending, spending. oh, now it gets worse. republicans are poised today to vote to raise taxes been tens of billions of dollars. worse yet, they aren't even allowing a vote to keep taxes where they are. whether this bill passes or not, make no mistake, it's purely symbolic as it passes no bill to president obama to keep taxes where they are and so they will go up on january 1 by $1,000 for the average american family. costing american taxpayers tens of billions of dollars without even helping reduce the deficit. since this republican tax increase is money the republicans already spent last week in the omnibus $900 billion spending spree. spending, spending, spending,

taxes, taxes, taxes. the deficit goes up, up, up. you can't tax your way out of this budget problem this country is in, but the republicans have been trying to do just that the last few weeks. we need to cut spending. now, there's some balanced plans out there and most experts agree that it's pardon of a balanced plans with some spending cuts revenues are necessary. president obama put together the simpson-bowles bipartisan plan. the republican leadership didn't allow a vote. the gang of six in the senate put together a proposal to balance the budget. the republican leadership didn't allow a vote. the supercommittee was supposed to come out with a budget fix that included everything we are talking about, the payroll tax, unemployment insurance, but it failed. the republicans walked away. now, president obama and a bipartisan group of 90% of the senate proprosed not increasing taxes and yet the republicans are refusing to bring it to the floor. so instead of a balanced plan with spending cuts, here we are

in the heels of a huge republican omnibus spending bill with record deficit spending and tax increases. raising taxes and raising taxes on the middle class. the tax and spend republican party is here today and here to stay. not only that, but while the people of the country are waking up, congress is going to sleep. with 10 days left and so much work to do, rather than work through the night to get something as quick as possible so the senate might be able to reconvene, they gave themselves the night off. congress didn't debate this topic or a single vote yesterday night with 10 days to go. i urge a no vote on the rule and bill and urge the republican leadership to vote now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i enjoy listening to my friends on the left talk about how they need to get on our side and stop the tax increases but the funny problem is and it's a funny problem that the american

people may like what they say but they don't like what they do. i would only suggest people to check the voting record on the tax increases. our omnibus bill reduces -- the payroll tax bill reduces the deficit and debt by $953 million. $953 million reduction. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, sheriff nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. nugent: i'd like to thank the gentleman from south carolina for giving me this time. mr. speaker, just think about this, three days ago, saturday, president obama said in his quote, it would be inexcusable for congress not to further extend this middle tax -- middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year. same day, house minority leader nancy pelosi said, house democrats will return to washington and take up this legislation without delay and

will keep the fight to extend the provisions for a full year. on saturday minority whip hoyer said he was disappointed that the senate would not agree to a longer term extension. mr. speaker, what the senate has done is -- and we heard this term so many times before is they're just -- it's about business as usual. let's not make a decision that we can put off for another two months. mr. speaker, this house in a bipartisan way last week came up with a one-year extension, a two-year doc fix extension that will help those individuals provide medical services to our seniors. it gives them a sustainable way to look forward on our docs and the doc fix for two years, not two months. when you hear from other individuals in the real world, those that have to implement a policy that was designed by those in the senate for two

months, think about it. when you have to report that tax to the federal government, it's quarterly, not two months. how are they supposed to do that? how do you reconcile that difference? once again, the senate refused to take action that the house did. everybody talks about what the senate's done. the house passed a bipartisan bill and moved to forward in regards to a one-year extension on unemployment benefits, one-year extension in regards to the payroll tax and a two-year doc fix. that's what the house did, and now all we're asking is that we go to regular order just like they've confor hundreds of years when the two -- they've done for hundreds of years when the two bodies can't agree, when the two bodies can't agree they go to conference where there's conferees on both sides and sit down and hash it out and come up with a resolution to bring back to both bodies. that's what you're supposed to do. that's what our founding fathers envisioned. not back room deals, not things

cut in the dead of night. it's not about us voting, and thank god that our speakers saw the light in regards to not voting in the dead of night. he believes in regular order. he believes that we should move as a body and go to conference with our senate brothers and sisters to decide the course that we need to make. i can't believe, i can't believe that there aren't folks in the senate that couldn't get this done with our members in this house and get it done in two weeks. mr. speaker, i support the rule and i wholeheartedly support the underlying legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on education and work force, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

mr. miller: mr. speaker, unfortunately with the procedure that the republicans are using today, we miss an opportunity for the house and senate and republicans and democrats to come together around an extension of the middle-class tax cut for the next two months. it's unfortunate that it's for two months, but the republicans in this house sent to the senate a very extreme bill for one year by slashing people's unemployment benefits, ruining families' ability in this period of economic downturn and the senate rejected that on a bipartisan basis. the senate was then encouraged by the speaker of the house to negotiate a deal. senate leader harry reid and mcconnell negotiated a good deal. the speaker here said it was a victory. when it came back from the senate we could do it on some kind of unanimous consent

procedure. then, there were rumbles in the house there was going to be republicans and -- in the republican caucus that wanted to join the 39 republicans in the senate that voted for this procedure and all of a sudden what we see is the emergence of the tea party republicans slapping down that idea, slapping down the idea there would be independent judgments made in the republican caucus and they pulled it to a grinding halt. we will not be allowed to vote on that bipartisan agreement. we will not be allowed to vote on an agreement that brought the republicans and the democrats together in the senate. we will not be able to vote on a bipartisan agreement that has the opportunity to bring democrats and republicans together in the house. that's because the tea party insists upon this radical agenda where they are going to throw millions of people off unemployment insurance who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and that's how they'll pay for the middle class tax cuts by injuring middle class families who have been thrown into economic chaos because of the economic downturn caused by their

friends on wall street and the scandals that they perpetrated on the american people. let's bring people together. let's pass the senate bill and let's get on with taking care of the problems of this nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this motion this morning, but for a very important reason. the politics here is thicker than the main ma lasses. if you go back and talk to the real job creators in your district you'll see the commonsense approach that's being detailed right here to look for a solution. the house has already voted. we have supported the idea of passing the payroll tax. we passed that bill. we supported the reimbursement for the doctors so we can continue to create certainty and the relationships between doctors and their patients. we passed that bill. now we got to come back and work out the differences, but

when the difference becomes a two-month extension, it defies common sense. i sat this morning and spoke with one of the individuals who is a tax accountant in my district. the quarterly tax return is the way so many small businesses do their work. the quarterly tax return, a three-month situation. this bill will require us to go and just change these forms all over the country. let me just close by my comments by the words from the nfib. employers don't have correct withholdings will have to amend their employment tax returns next year which may increase their chances for an audit. this is the kind of insanity that we are looking at small businesses being audited because congress can't do their work. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record the

comments from senators -- republican senators begging the house to take their bill and yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i want to put in the record the key dates in the boehner payroll tax cut debacle. on wednesday, speaker boehner said in a meeting in senator mcconnell's office with reid and mcconnell, speaker boehner said the two senate leaders should negotiate a deal and senator mcconnell had his proxy. thursday, speaker boehner made public comments promising to live by whatever agreement the senate reached. he said, quote, if the senate acts i'm committed to bringing the house back. we can do it within 24 hours to deal with whatever the senate does. on friday, speaker boehner reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a two-month extension by saying if the senate passed that he would take it as a keystone pipeline to it and send it back to the senate. so we added the pipeline into the deal in the senate because that's what speaker boehner

said he needed to get the measure through the house. friday night after senator mcconnell presents a payroll tax deal to his caucus, he's captured in his video leaving the caucus high-fiving senator barrasso and later he said, i obviously keep the speaker informed as to what i'm doing. let me yield myself 30 second. saturday, mcconnell said it's a bill designed to pass. he said i thank my friend, the majority leader, for the opportunity to work on something which could pass the senate and be signed by the nat. saturday, speaker boehner called this bill a good deal and urged victory and pass it on a conference call. saturday afternoon, senator mcconnell gave his consent to allow the senate to adjourn for a year. on sunday, once the tea party republicans in the caucus --

speaker boehner is now disowning a deal he supported 24 hours earlier. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, in just over two weeks, americans who are fortunate enough to have work will get their first paycheck of 2012 and the paycheck will be lower because there's a tax increase. the question before the country today is, should we stop that? yes or not? in 11 or 12 days a senior will go see her doctor and there's a very high risk that the doctor will not see that medicare patient because the doctor's seen a 27% cut in what the doctor has been paid. the question before the country is, should we stop that, yes or no? in just over 11 days, over two million americans will see theiem