as has already been said, the national payroll reporting consortium, a nonpartisan group, have expressed concerns to members of congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the senate and supported by the president cannot be implemented properly. we also need a two-year extension or fix for our unemployment benefits to give certainty to businesses and also to individuals. mr. speaker, i am frustrated that the senate kicked the can down the road one more time. for only two months after we sent them a bill that was not only bipartisan, yes a bipartisan bill passed by this house, but also had good job policies. i came back to d.c. yesterday to do something better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to a very distinguished member, the gentlelady from

illinois, jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding. don't blame congress for not working together. blame the house republicans who can't even work with each other. the one and only reason this house of representatives is not voting for the bipartisan senate bill to provide relief to middle class taxpayers, seniors, and disabled people on medicare and jobless americans is because it would pass. that's right. the republican scam was to bring up the bill supported by 90% of the senate and then kill it. but on the way to this slaughter, a funny thing happened, sensible republicans basically said, you want me to vote to abandon millions of middle class americans without the help they need this holiday season? no way. so the sanctimonious rhetoric

you hear today from the republicans is nothing but talk. baby talk. if they don't get their way exactly, then they won't play. what they are saying to millions of americans saying happy han can to middle class americans -- hanukkah to middle class americans who are lighting the first cannel tonight and won't get their $1,000 tax break. happy new year to our seniors and people with disabilities who may lose their doctor. merry christmas to the jobless americans desperate for work, looking for work, who barely survive on their unemployment checks. the house republicans are the grinches who stole your christmas. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker.

to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's not $1,000 payroll tax reduction just as was quoted by my colleague who just spoke. the senate bill is two months. it's $160. so let's be clear and honest with the american people. what we are talking about here in the house of representatives on our side of the aisle today is that we want to do our work. yes, we want to be with our families for christmas. and we want to be home ringing in the new year with our family and friends, but you know what? the american people deserve better. we are willing to stay here and do the work. not do band-aid type of policy. tax policy on a two-month basis? are you kidding me? that is ridiculous. we need long-term solutions to our problems in america. we need to put the political bickering aside.

two months is not a solution. it's dodging responsibility in the senate. . we stand and rise to support today. and it is a vote. we will have a vote to reject the senate position with this amendment and its band-aid policy and we will send a clear message to the american people that we in the house of representatives are about finding solutions long term, one, two years at a minimum and we're willing to do the work and i call on the senate to come back to d.c. and finish the job. hardworking taxpayers of america deserve no less than for all to honor our oath and our responsibility to govern through solutions, not political games. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could you verify how much time each side has?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 7 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has five minutes. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the very distinguished colleague from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in firm opposition to this motion to go to conference. without a vote on the senate bill to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. it is deeply disappointing and troubling that we'll be denied the opportunity to vote on the senate's overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that would bring relief to millions of america's working families. now our republican colleagues have said, pass the one-year bill that passed the house last week. well, talk to your republican colleagues in the senate. four times the senate republicans -- excuse me, four times the senate democrats tried to bring up your bill and four times a senate republican objected. facts are hard. if we do not pass this bill, 160 million americans will face a

$1,000 tax increase as we go into the new year. if we do not act in my home state, nine million floridians will see this tax increase next year. if we do not act, 2.2 million unemployed americans will lose their unemployment benefits. and if we do not act, 48 million seniors will face the specter of having to find new doctors due to cuts for reimbursement rates. i've received countless constituent calls, letters and email, many of them very personal and emotional. just this morning i was especially moved by a note from a single mom, christine, with a 3-year-old daughter from my congressional district. she wrote, i am pleading my case to you out of desperation, to extend unemployment insurance. these benefits help her provide food and necessities for her daughter. too many of my colleagues like to paint unemployment beneficiaries with one insensitive and cruel brush. this woman isn't sitting around. she was laid off from her job this fall and has only been on unemployment for a couple of months while she looks for

another job. my constituent's story, while personal and moving, is unfortunately not a unique one. my republican colleagues who callously ignore the needs of middle class americans by refusing to vote on the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits are sending the message to millions of working families that despite their efforts to look for and find work in this delicate economy, they simply don't care. the house republican leadership needs to allow a straight up or down d vote on the -- up or down vote on the senate bill that passed 89-10 with strong bipartisan support. clearly they're afraid it might pass. i urge you to listen to the plight of constituents like christine who said, i'm asking that they give people more time to find work by pushing these dates back further. i'm having a very hard time trying to find work that will accommodate my living expenses for might have self and my daughter -- for myself and my daughter. she's only been on unemployment since sebt september. she needs her help. pass this bill.

and stop playing politics with people's lives. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield a minute and half to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. what we're talking about here today, mr. speaker, is the difference between passing a tax policy that would only last two months or passing a tax policy that lasts the entire year. you know, during these next week and a half while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year of 2012, not just for two months. yet what the senate sent over is a plan that would only kick the can down the road and we'd be right back here again having this same debate in two months. and people are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from congress. you know, if you look at earlyics courses, anybody who takes their -- -- early civics courses, anybody knows that when there's a difference between the house and senate, then the two sides get together and work out those differences. that's what the legislative process is about. and clearly we have a difference.

we think the policy should be for an entire year as even the president has said and the senate sent us over a two-month patch that doesn't even fix the problem. in fact, outside groups like national federation of independents -- independent businesses said this would hurt small businesses. yet what do we get from the other side? minority leader pelosi, mr. speaker, said she will not appoint any house democrat to participate in the negotiations. she just said this last night. so in the spirit of christmas you've got the minority leader saying she's just going to take her toys and go home. that's not the responsible thing to do. let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work and let's have the senate do their work too for the american people. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, david scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much, and i appreciate the opportunity

to come down and to say a few words on this. ladies and gentlemen, i'm so glad that the people of this country are tuning in to what's happening on the floor of this house of representatives. what we are seeing is a great dysfunction in the republican party and the house of representatives. here's the situation. the american people are hurting. 160 million american people do not need their taxes to go up. there are 2.2 million american people who are without unemployment benefits who will have those unemployment benefits not extended. and there are seniors, 48 million of them, who will not be able to go and visit their doctors. america's hurting and what does the republican party in the house of representatives want to do? they want to hurt them some more by not even allowing a vote on a compromised bill. that was passed by the senate with 89 votes, 39 of them

members of the senate republican party. ladies and gentlemen, what's at stake here is a fail tour to compromise -- failure to compromise. that is the key. when hamilton and jefferson failed to compromise, it was john adams who brought them together. where would this country be if that had not happened? ladies and gentlemen of america, wake up and realize that this is not just the tea party people or republicans or democrats. it's a party of all of us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. the gentleman from georgia's time has expired. regular order will be had on the house floor. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman. the president of the united states has said it would be inexcusable not to extend the payroll tax cut for one year. ms. pelosi, mr. hoyer have said

the same thing, as have dozens of other leading democrats. i agree with them and so does a bipartisan majority of the house who last week voted to extend the tax cut for one year. now, why do we support it for one year? because two months only gives uncertainty to this fragile economy. uncertainty, families can't plan, businesses can't plan and jobs can't be created. so why do the democrats want the two months? sadly, because like they're democrat colleagues in the senate, they want to go home. but you know what? there's a 200-year-old mechanism for ironing out senate and house agreements. it's called a conference committee. now, your leader has decided not to point -- appoint this committee. you want to compromise, that's what this vote is all about. we want to compromise. we know we can't get everything we want. but unlike the senate we're not saying it's our way or the

highway. we're saying compromise. vote yes on this vote and let's compromise and let's get this done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. harky -- mr. marky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: mr. speaker, tax cuts delayed are tax cuts denied. last year just before the holidays, the house republicans extended the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, no strings attached. and this year republicans won't even allow a vote to extend middle class tax cuts. republicans want to procrastinate, democrats want to legislate. when it comes to millionaires, the republicans are santa claus. for the middle class, they're the griverage. this isn't -- grinch. this isn't mission impossible, mr. speaker. we don't need tomorrow cruise to save seniors, the middle class -- tom cruise to save seniors,

the middle class and the unemployment. we just need to pass the senate compromise right now. but not allowing -- by not allowing an up or down vote on this compromise, the republicans are raising a curtain on their real priorities. millionaires and billionaires. americans don't need any more meetsings or debate, they just need us to make sure their taxes do not go up on new year's day. today we can protect the middle class. the seniors and the unemployment by passing this bipartisan compromise right now. do it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the select revenue committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, this debate is in many ways surreal. i lived in civic -- civics 101 that the house is a co-equal branch to the senate. members of the other side say, well, this is a compromise.

it's a compromise in the senate. not the house. the house has spoken. the senate says, my way or the highway. now, i understand that that's how it's kind of become around here and i know there are friends on the other side of the aisle who are upset with the senate when they've done it on other bills, when they were in the majority. this is enough. the american people deserve better. we need to get back to regular order. we need to compromise between the house-passed bill and the senate-passed bill. that's the way the founding fathers wanted it. compromise between the house, the senate, not between the senate and the senate. for two months, for the american people. that's outrageous. they deserve a year. a full year to have a payroll tax holiday. not two months. come on, ladies and gentlemen. let's send the senate a message. come back to washington, do your work, give the american people a year, not two months. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time is there left, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has three minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 1 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: mr. camp, are you going to close? i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: you know, i remember when i was doing arguments before a court and a judge would ask me a very salient question that would get to the heart of the matter. and that's where we are today. there's this question to the republican majority. if you're so sure of your arguments, why not allow a vote on the senate bill? otherwise everything you've said is a smoke screen.

it's because you're afraid you'd lose it. or you don't want some people voting no on the record. that's really what this is about . and there's a second question. if you believe in bipartisanship , why not allow a vote on a bipartisan bill in the senate? i quoted three senators and three more now have spoken out, senators snow, wicker and grassley. senator grassley says, if it doesn't pass the house today there's a chance the payroll tax holiday will be lost. and senator wicker says, i'm surprised the house isn't willing to take a two-month time-out to do something more lasting.

so, i think the answer is, again, you're talking about bipartisanship -- your talk about bipartisanship is totally shallow. the previous speaker said, the senate said it's my way or the highway. no, that isn't accurate. the speaker of the house said to the senate, get on the road and pass a bill and never said, don't do it. he said, do it. , no the problem is that many people -- no, the problem is that many people in the house didn't want to extend the payroll tax in the first place. and you sent over a bill that deleted 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for the millions who are looking for work and can't find a job. so, today we have no choice. but to vote no and insist that

this obligation be met in this house of representatives, vote, vote, vote on the bill that the senate passed. . and your denial of allowing us a vote is a denial to the people of this country who are uninsured as of december 1 for unemployment. who need medicare care, and also those who need the continuation of the payroll tax cut. that's what all of this is about. and anything else is a pure smokescreen that all the american people will see through. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: what we are voting on today is to disagree with what the senate did to our bill. we are voting to disagree to

the senate amendment. once that's adopted, the house message on this bill goes back to the senate and the senate then has -- is the only body in possession of the bill and we cannot move forward to resolve the differences between the house and the senate until speaker -- until leader reid and representative pelosi appoint conferees. so we are voting to disagree with the senate. let me just say two months isn't long enough. you have heard a lot of people talk today in this debate. it's embarrassing that we are doing tax policy for two months, but it's not just house republicans who think we need a longer term extension, it's supporters including many of our nation's democratic governors. i received a letter that i ask unanimous consent to put into the record, actually went to our leaders, last week for 16 of the nation's governors, democratic governors after we approved 3630, they called for a swift passage of a one-year

extension. not two months. one year. that's what the house bill does. what's more that's what the senate bill specifically rejects. i urge that we vote to disagree with the senate amendments and let's get on to a conference. let's resolve this this year so we can make certainty in our code, certainty for all of those people who are out of work, and certainty for those seniors who are -- who need to >> following this debate, the house when bonbon to reject this proposal to order 29-193. >> in a moment, mitt romney on the economy and entitlements. after that, a discussion on the death of the north korean leader kim jong il. later, the political future of

vladimir putin. a couple of live events tomorrow on c-span. the carnegie endowment for international peace host a forum on the global economic outlook at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then, new gingrich will be endorsed by the new hampshire speaker of the house at a briefing in manchester. >> republican public -- republican presidential candidate mitt romney delivered a major policy speech on economic policy and entitlement reforms. he spoke in southern new hampshire at the town hall in bedford. free ♪ born [applause] >> thank you.

hi there. thank you guys. >> wow. it is great. i see so many people and the audience i know. is there anybody here voting for mitt? i would guess almost everybody. that is what happens when you have done this twice. we are happy to be in new hampshire during a bus tour. we will go up and down the state and get everybody excited about what is to happen in the next couple of weeks. we have been working hard and we are here to earn it now. [applause]

i know this guy pretty well. i have been married to him for 42 years. we are the proud parents of five wonderful sons and 16 grandchildren. he stood by me in my darkest hour. i cannot wait to see him do what needs to be done in this country. i think we all recognize that america needs to turn around and he is the guy that will do it. i am delighted to introduce to you the next president of united states. >> thank you so much for being here this evening. i appreciate your coming out on a cold winter night. it seems like finally the beginning of winter in new hampshire. they will finally begin making snow at the ski resorts and get people from massachusetts to come to the slopes in new hampshire. i appreciate your willingness to

spend some time with me this evening. there are a few things i want to say tonight. i want to talk about the choice that america is presented in the election of 2012. we will get a chance to talk more about it as the campaign goes on. six months ago, as you know, i launched my campaign for the presidency not terribly far from here on a perfect day. a beautiful, new hampshire summer day. i spoke about america in peril under a president who disappointed even his own supporters and was clearly failing. since then, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high. more americans have lost their homes and more americans have slipped from the middle class into a world of poverty they never imagined they would see. our soldiers returned from war unable to find a decent job. over the last six months, i have traveled up and down new hampshire and across the country. i have listened to anxious

voices in town meetings, visit with students who are frightened by the magnitude of their college loans. even more frightened by the lack of jobs. from breakthroughs to back offices, i have heard stories of the great obama recession. families getting by on less. long planned retirements replaced by two jobs at minimum wage. it is a long litany. economic stress that quickly becomes family stress. i have heard stories that break my heart. let me tell you what i rarely heard -- hopelessness. even in these very difficult times, the worst economy since the great depression, i have found americans refusing to believe that these troubled days are our destiny. sometimes with pride, often with anger, i have heard time and again a constant refrain. this is not the america we love.

this is not the america we deserve. this is the america of yesterday and we will not allow it to become the america of tomorrow. [applause] we are americans and we will not surrender our dreams to the failures of this president. we are bigger than the misguided policies and weak leadership of one man. america is bigger than the failures of barack obama. [applause] this america long unemployment lines and small dreams is not the america you and i love. it is not a live free or die america. these troubled years are president obama's legacy but they are not our future.

this is an election not to replace our president but to save a vision of america. it is a choice between two very different destinies. four years ago, many americans trusted barack obama when he trusted to bring americans together. now we have learned of his idea of bringing us together is not to lift us up, but to use the invisible boone of government to bring us all down. i have a vision of a different america, and america not united by our limits, but by our ambitions, our hopes, our shared dreams. i am tired of a president who wakes up every day, looks across america, and is proud to announce, "it could be worse." is that what it means to be an american? it could be worse? of course not. if i'm president, i will wake up every day and remind americans that not only must we be better, but also that we can do better.

i believe in americans. president obama bossi will fundamentally transform america. i want to restore america to our founding principles. i believe that our founding principles are what made america the greatest nation in the history of the earth. among those four principles is what the founders called the pursuit of happiness. we call that opportunity. the freedom to choose our course in life. that principle is the foundation of a society that is based on ability, not a birthright. in a merit-based society, people achieve their dreams through hard work and education, risk- taking, and a little luck. an opportunity society produces pioneers and inventors, it inspires its citizens to build and create. these people exert effort and create risks. when they do so, they employ and left others and create prosperity. their success does not like others poorer.

it makes all of us better off. present policies america differently. he believes in an entitlement society. once we thought that entitlement that americans were entitled to the privilege of being able to succeed in the greatest nations in the world. americans fought and died to protect that entitlement. today, the new entitlement battlefield is over the size of the check you can get from washington. president obama has reversed john kennedy's call for sacrifice. he would have them ask, what can the country do for you? just a couple of weeks ago, in kansas, president obama lectured us about teddy roosevelt's philosophy of government. he failed to mention the key difference between teddy roosevelt and himself. roosevelt believed the government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. president obama believes the

government should level the playing field to create equal outcomes. everyone should receive the same reward regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risks. the only people who truly enjoyed real rewards are those who get to do the redistributing, the government. the truth is that everyone may get the same rewards in act and the system, but virtually everyone will be worse off. president obama's and thomas aside would demand a massive growth to government. to preserve opportunity, we have to shrink government, not grow it. last night, i laid out as does every solution to the spending crisis. including a need to reform medicare for the coming generations. i am pleased to see that paul ryan got together with the democratic senator from oregon and pushed a similar reform package that i hope will save this very important and critical program. this is more than a spending

crisis that we face. even if we could afford the ever-expanding payment of its side -- of an entitlement society, it is a fundamental corruption of the american spirit. the battle we face today is more than a fight over our budget. it is a battle for america's soul. we cannot begin to answer the question of who should be our next question -- who should be our next president until we ask ourselves who we are as americans and what kind of america do we want for our children. my answers to those questions are different than the current president of the united states. president obama hazmat the last 35 months building a government so large that feeding it would consume a greater and greater share of our paychecks. does anybody believe that they're better off than they were four years ago? >> no. >> he pushed through obama care.

it is an entitlement program that we did not want and cannot afford. instead of fostering competition and choice, he is cultivating government defense -- government dependent writ he talks about a country where everyone plays by the same rules. when it comes to his favorite trend, he makes sure the rules do not apply. he has given his supporters waivers exempting them from obama care. his nlrb approves businesses when they do not have union demands. in the industry, he has picked the winners, who, by the way, turn out to be the losers, like solyndra. that is of the government worse. those who make the rules get to take care of their friends. while the rest of us stand still, they make sure their friends get ahead. the result of the approach of president obama is a staggering list of failures. it took 18 tax increases just to get obama care off the ground.

our latest welfare is going to be $10.30 trillion. i will take a different path. first, i will reveal obama care. [applause] you have heard me say this before. on the first day as president, i will issue waivers for obama care to all 50 states and strengthen medicare by empowering the next generation of seniors to choose the solutions that are right for them. i will send medicaid back to the states because the states know how to serve their own citizens. my administration will create an environment where the private sector can thrive and where american businesses can reach their full potential. i would reduce federal regulation, open up new markets to our goods, and fully exploit our energy resources. i would cut taxes, cap

spending, and finally, finally get america on track to balance our budget. [applause] this time next year, all of the yard signs will have come down, hopefully. [laughter] town hall meetings will be a local budgets, not about the defense budget or medicare. it will be safe to watch television again. [laughter] at least for a little while. americans will have made their choice. the path i lay out is not one paved with ever-increasing government checks and cradle-to- grave assurances that the government will always be the solution. is this -- if this election is a bidding war for who can promise more bet -- who can promise more benefits, that is not a battle i will join. this will be a campaign about the soul of america, about

american greatness. i am confident that americans will not settle for an excuse like this. it could be worse. i am confident that americans will refuse to be brought on by cheap promises that turns into never-ending that for our children and grandchildren. this is a time when we look beyond who we are today and asked who will become tomorrow. not far from here, an idea called america was born. it came when a peaceful people realize they cannot continue on the same path. those farmers and merchants, aristocrats, blacksmiths, they put aside their fears to take up arms against the greatest power in the world. there was not a single rational reason to believe they could succeed. but they believe in god and they believe in themselves. they believed that the guiding force in their lives should not be feared but rather a strong belief that life without freedom is a slow death.

and a conviction that they could build a better world. that world is america. here in new hampshire, in iowa, south carolina, florida, michigan, across the country. the beginning of a democratic process that those early patriots risked all to secure for us. this is the moment when we reject failure and commit to make the disappointments of the past few years only a detour, not a destiny. we believe in americans. we believe america can do better because we believe in america. tonight, i ask each of you to recognize how special this to be in america. remember what was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to drag each new headline. when you spend more time looking for a house to buy than searching for a new job. when you spend more time thinking about a vacation with your family than how to make it to the end of the next paycheck to. that america is still out there.

an america where you weren't afraid to look at your retirement savings or the price at the pump. an america where you never had to hear a president apologizing for america. i say, let's fight for america. the america that brings out the best in each of us, the challenges to be better and bigger than ourselves. this election, let's fight with the america -- let's fight for the america we love because we believe in america. thank you so much. it is great to be with you tonight. [applause] thank you, guys. thank you. ♪i was born free

>> thank you for that. that was a generous response and i appreciate it. i wanted to get a chance to talk to you about the choice we face. i think our president is turning into a european-style nation. i want us to hold true to the principles that i think made our nation what it is. that is what this campaign is about, whether we are one to make this and an opportunity society or become an entitlement society. i fear for america to take that course and i think we will reject it. i appreciate you being here. there are some who came along way. judd and kathy gregg, a great american patriot, thank you for being here tonight. [applause] executive council member ray, how many years have you been on the executive council?

10 years, that is yeoman's service. we appreciate you. [applause] we do not have a long time to go. it is getting close now. i think christmas is coming soon, right? [laughter] i wish you a merry christmas, happy new year, happy hanukkah, and all the great holidays their celebrated. primaries are coming out really soon. i would like to win. [applause] there are a lot of good people running for president on our side of the aisle. i think anyone of them would be better than the current president. i think i am in the best position to post up against the president, who has had no experience in the private sector and does not know how the economy works. i do and that is one reason i'm

in this race. but i need your help. we have a few advertisements up. we're going to keep doing that. people are going to hear our message. you guys need to get out and ask a friend or to to make sure and vote on primary day. we cannot do that all by ourselves, even with all of our volunteers. we need you to hit your phones and get friends to vote on primary day. it is not that far away. get your phone warm up for this because this some real work. you may need to do a couple of door-knocking sessions as well. we will be out on the trail. you will see us on the bus. we will go all over the state in the next couple of weeks. we want to win in new hampshire and you are on to help us send a message. [applause] thank you, guys. thank you so much. free ♪ ♪orn

>> great to see you. nice talk. >> thank you very much. thanks for being here. you are very kind. here you go. goodlatte to you. -- good luck to you. nice to see you. i appreciate you being here. what get that camera.

are you going to make that work? they know how. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> can i get a picture? >> sure you can. do you have a camera? i would be happy to. thank you. great to see you. thank you. i appreciate you being here tonight. how are you doing? thank you for coming back.

>> we have been making signs. >> that is very impressive. good to see you. that is great. thanks a lot. >> could i get a picture of real quick? >> sure you can. come on over here and we will get a picture. are you mom? >> i am. >> good to see you. is this your brother? thank you for coming tonight. thanks for coming by. how are you? good to see you. i appreciate your help tonight. how are you?

we were together last week in madison at a lumberyard. give him my best. >> we are going to do it this time. >> we are going to get there. that is wonderful. thank you. >> you are going to get my vote. >> that is good. i am happy to see that. good to see you.

we will see if this works or not. watch this. he knows how to work almost all of these things. there we go. thank you. you were the mayor of woodson? >> note. i am a builder. >> you are a builder. i see. in bedford, wonderful. good to see you. is he doing okay? >> no. >> is up in business. i want to make things better.

there we go. one more. they go for $10 less if they are signed. how're you doing? did you get it? i was not even looking. look at that. thank you. good to see you. i appreciate your help tonight. are you with him? >> yes, i am with him. we are from l.a. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate you being here.

>> i am here with my son. >> are you guys all together, i presume? >> we are. >> stay right there. it is easier for me that it is for you guys. platts thank you. >> thank you. good to see you. platts i live right here in bedford. >> do you have work here now? they brought a lot of operations up here. >> we cannot get the economy back until we get a family. we have more boys at home. let's watch out, your next one is also a boy. >> i know. [laughter] >> i have some questions on the energy side.

i support all kinds of energy, from splitting atoms to others. in particular, this relates to -- i give the example of the prisoners -- why could we not put them to work to split wood and we could give it to be balloon need a heating source? things like not giving prisoners a huge hotel complex and saving money in that regard. >> i appreciate your ideas. i will consider all good ideas. >> could i get a picture with you for my son? he went to bu. >> is he there now?

>> he just graduated. >> has been able to find work? >> yes, he has. >> that is good to hear. >> i am about to vote in my first presidential election. i am very excited about it. thank you. >> i hope i can count on your vote. >> i am from bedford. it is great to be here. >> nice to meet you. are you working or going to school? >> i am going to school down at georgia tech. >> home for the holidays then? >> yes. thank you. >> there is an old friend. good to see you. thank you so much. you are very kind. let's let's take a picture!

>> thank you. you are kind to be here. >> can you do me a favor? win. when my kids get our age and say to me, what did you do, i know you can do it as a businessman. can i give you attend? >> absolutely. >> if you could use it, that would be great. >> you are very kind. thank you. nice to meet you.

>> we of several kids in the military. what can he say to us? >> and the troops will be out by 2013. the question is, how quickly can the combat -- can they come back? it is something i will look at very carefully. i will take input from the commanders in the field and make my own decisions as to how many can be brought home and how soon. i want to bring them home as soon as possible. our plan is to make sure we can transition the afghan military. thank you. how are you? >> is so good to meet you. we need this so badly. we need a great leader in the

white house. >> thank you so much. thank you for being here and helping out. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. take care. how are you doing? great to see you. how are you? >> how are you? >> i am terrific. >> i just want to wish you luck. >> where are you from? >> natural. -- nashville. >> the one to sign anything >> what is your name? >> meghan. thank you so much. nice to meet you. >> nice to meet you. take care.

>> i am from new hampshire and i'm going to give these books to my customers. it has been really good. i am happy -- it has been a lot better. people are traveling more. >> where the parents normally take you? in to logan? >> logan and manchester. >> where is your home base? >> nashua. good luck to you. >> thank you. how are you? good to meet you. did you know that young lady before? >> she is my girlfriend. >> that is what i figured. >> it is my second time voting and i'm very much looking forward to voting for you. >> i appreciate your help.

goodlatte to you. -- good luck to you. is that what you wanted? merry christmas to you. >> item and glad i had the opportunity to come here and hear you speak. >> i appreciate your help. i need you to vote. thank you. >> could i get a few pictures? >> you bet. michigan -- go wolverines!

>> i heard we might have the pleasure of your opportunity -- the pleasure of your company at the boys and girls clubs in manchester. i am the director of a private school. i hope we get a chance to have our students get to meet you. that would be terrific. >> is a private school and they come in from time to time at the boys and girls club and help out in various service projects? >> some of them do. but for the most part, we just use the club facilities because they are vague and all that. we created a partnership where we held at risk and disadvantaged kids. one, in particular, was living out of a car and we help him graduate last year. i was hoping you could come take a look at it. i know your people are looking at it. >> did you go to school and

michigan? >> yester. we went to where your dad was the governor. >> thank you. i appreciate your help. >> i am looking forward to seeing you again. >> thank you for coming tonight. great to see you. you are very kind. >> he is my friend was not so sure about you until i got him out here. >> you are getting credit if i get two votes. >> you are a leader. >> thank you. are you going to school here, working here? >> in maine.

>> back for the holidays? >> yes. >> wonderful. are you in high school or college? >> high school. >> what grade are you? >> i'm a freshman. >> that is terrific. thank you for coming by tonight. you are very kind. it is good to see you. hi, how are you? merry christmas to you.

how are you doing? >> by rooting for you. >> what are those things up there? it looks like a fuzzy caterpillar. >> thanks for your help tonight. ♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail with their newly designed web site for campaign 2012. >> if you cannot live with a nuclear bomb, and i cannot, and all options are on the table. if we took that oath of office seriously in washington, if we would get rid of 80% of the government. >> if your question was who is the proven constitutional conservative in this race, that would be me. >> if read the latest comments from candidates and political borders and links to c-span is media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> and a few moments, of forum on the debt of kim jong il. in a little more than an hour, a discussion on russia and the political future of vladimir putin. on tomorrow's "washington journal," an update on the political situation in north korea following the death of kim jong il. victor cha joins us. then a conversation on the role that faith and religion play in american politics. we will talk with richard land of the southern baptist convention and jim wallis of sojourners. then matt laslo on how campaigns are targeting and tracking voters online. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> have you tried the free c- span radio app?

here is what users are saying. >> all some application. it took me 10 seconds to learn how to use it. >> anytime, anywhere, it streaming audio of c-span radio as well as all three c-span television networks, including live coverage of congress. you can also look at our interview programs. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org /radioapp. >> next to discussion on the affect of that that of the korean leader kim jong il. it is hosted by the korea economic institute, the center for strategic and international studies, and the council on foreign relations. it is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> today's program is jointly sponsored by the korea economic institute, the center for strategic and international studies, and the council on foreign relations. i want to thank all of our partners for working so quickly to put together this forum. we're very honored to be partners with our friends here and talk about the very timely, timely and relevant issue of the korean peninsula after kim jong il's death. my name is abraham kim, and i'm the vice president of the korea economic institute, and i will be the moderator today. death, is no il's exaggeration that this is a momentous event in the periodic great uncertainty for not only north korea, but for the entire region. all of us have many questions. will kim jong il's successor

consolidate power over their regime? this inexperienced leader will try to hold on to power. with this new regime be more reform-minded or hard-line? what does it all mean for south korea, china, japan, and the united states? we have three leading korea experts to help address some of these questions and more today. to my far left is scott snyder, the director of the program on u.s.-korea policy at the council on foreign relations. victor cha, the korea chair at csis, and a professor georgetown university. and of course, jack pritchard, president of the korea economic institute. today's format is going to be a moderated interview, something we call here the oprah-style of

interviewing. unfortunately, i am not as stylish as oprah. and i hope to not make our guests cried during the interview. [laughter] i will kick off with a couple of questions, for our panelists to address some of these important questions. and then we will open up the microphones to all of you. we will have a couple of roaming mics in the audience and get questions from you to address, to ask our panelists today. with that, i am going to kick it off. scott, victor, and jack -- what are the biggest concerns about the death of kim jong il, the young age of his youngest son, kim jong un, and a short period of transition. what is your sense for this transition process? we see a smooth transition or are you concerned that the next generation of leadership will unravel? what we start with you, jack?

>> pech you very much. let me start out by saying that some of the estimates that certainly i have been saying and others before the death was that if kim jong il were able to survive some few more years, then the probability of a successful transition would go up, not high, but it would go. that did not occur. with the death of kim jong il, i stick by my original estimate, and that is, a low probability that kim jong un will survive over time as the leader of north korea. the process, i think what we're going to see is a period of relatively calm, a united north korea, rallying around the flagpole, if you will, and then shortly thereafter, whether a month for two months, i am not sure about that, but we're going to for it -- we're going to begin to feel, we may not see

but we will feel the maneuvering behind the scenes between the military, between the the korean workers' party, with a brother- in-law of kim jong il, to see who is just going to have the most influence. right now is heavily weighted toward the military, and i tend to believe over time that they will become the dominant force, either at the forefront or certainly behind pulling the strings of the face of north korea, a chubby 28-year-old. victor? >> i do not disagree of all. -- at all with ambassador pritchard. i think that before this past weekend, if you have asked every person in this room what would be the most likely scenario for this regime unraveling, i think 99 out of a 100 would effects

that would -- 99 out of 100 would have said the unexpected death of kim jong il. that is what we have today. so i think things do not look very good. i think it will take time, and that is right, there will be a relative period of called as the country unifies in preparation for the funeral and this morning. -- mourning period. clearly we all inferred a plan for secession -- succession which started after 2008, and the plan was essentially to promote this young fellow, surround him with regents, and then effectively allow for, at least a decade for this process to happen. kim jong il, when he was being groomed for the party leadership and the leaders have

to succeed his father, was groomed for least a decade and have. so that was the plan. it has clearly all been drawn up in the air by the fact that dear leader is not dead. the source of regimes, i do not think, are known to be very flexible. they are quite brittle. and when you have -- you have little curve balls thrown a regime, they can at that. but this is not a little curve ball. this is about the biggest one that there is. for that reason, regimes of this nature, they are just not able to adjust. the crack and they cannot even then, they just crack. -- they cannot even bend, they just crack. we will see signs of a coming weeks and months about whether they can carry this out in

anything resembling a smooth passage. >> are you as pessimistic as your panelists? >> i have often thought that in the absence of kim jong il, we do not know of this plan will stick. there may be a high probability that it may not. but i also it is worth exploring the contrarian view a little bit. north korean is a fantastic system, an anachronism in a modern political war. -- at dynastic system, an anachronism in a modern political world. north korea also, there is a collective leadership, and if kim jong un does not succeed, it will also mean the failure of the kim family. and i am not saying that there should not be challenges or there will not be challenges,

but i think at this stage, because the plan, at least partly unfolded, and the question is whether not we can see deviation. in the implementation of that plan. i think there will be external factors that may influence this. including the question of whether or not the regime feels that it needs to gain the economic effects necessary to make this transition. >> let's pull the string a little bit and assume they maintain some level of control. some question whether kim jong un -- some say he may be more reform-minded than his father and he may be able to carry out some reforms that his father may not have done during his lifetime. and then there are others who think he is sadistic and very

unpredictable. what is your sense of kim jong un as a leader? >> i do not know. [laughter] i think we all do not really know. we know about as much about kim jong un as we did about kim jong il when he took power. i'll fall back on this collective power again. the question, i think that temperamentally we recognize the dangers of economic reforms. to the regime. to their own survival. but at the same time, they have it dealt need for cash in order to be able to sustain their survival. so i think the big challenge is whether or not the system is sustainable under circumstances where there is a felt need for cash and are there external sources of cash that will be

available in order to sustain the regime. >> and victor, you had mentioned that there are certain signs you're going to be looking out for in terms of whether the regime is going to be unraveling or whether sustainable over the long term. what are some of the things that you will be looking for over the next couple of months or maybe the next couple of years that this regime is sustainable or not? >> a hard question to answer. we will certainly looking for a lot of what you all in the press and other places have with regard to information coming out of north career. obviously you're looking at any formal gatherings that they have and that there are any changes are shifts in position of people. we will also be looking as if there are any car accidents in north korea with regard to senior officials. [laughter] it is one of these things where

we are going to be looking for information and trying to take all of this that and deduce from a something with regard to how the leadership transition is going. are we ever going to see a piece of evidence that is a smoking gun? probably not, but i think that collectively you reach a point where there is enough -- there are enough signals coming out that we feel it is reaching a tipping point, i think we will all know that when we see that. one of the challenges of trying to decipher information that we heard coming out of north korea that indicate any sort of change, whether on the nuclear issue or on the food situation or on the leadership transition in this case, we get a bit of evidence and we have no idea of knowing whether this is the smoke before the fire or whether

it is the smoke after the fire, in this is the real change has already happened and this is what we are catching the wisps of. it is clear based on the past 48 and 72 hours that we really do not have a good sense at all about what is happening inside the country. so there will be a lot of guessing there. >> you have had a military career. what should we look for? >> the first thing -- not the first thing but one of the things you want to take a look at here is what we're talking about, a breakdown of control of the regime possibility -- regimes ability to direct itself with a unified voice. one of the things that may be critical and may not come first but is the breakdown of social order. if we see, because of harsh winter conditions, at less

electricity, discontent within the population that we had not seen at different levels, and i am not suggesting that there is sex north korea spring in the offing. i think they will be difficult. but there are as we have periodically in the past seen indications of discontent in localized areas, if that becomes more widespread and there is either a lack of control for a crackdown on that, that certainly would be some of the smoke that we're looking at. one of the other things if i can jump in on a question you asked for scott in terms of reforms or the ability for that to exist out that, we will certainly be looking for economic assistance and elsewhere. if you take a look at this, the

things that we want from north korea or military-related, for the most part. we have human rights concerns that are genuine and they will come about, but our priority as we take a look at their nuclear program, our concerns about proliferation, suggests that what we want to extract from north korea has to do with them giving up some military control. in this case, their nuclear weapons program. my sense is that this is a zero sum game in which you take away that from the military, they will be fighting kicking and screaming. my suggestion is that kim jong un, who is not the president of the united states on january 20, he does not walk in with control. he does not command. he is being behind the scenes guided and directed, and as i would suggest for the near-term, that is going to be done

predominantly by the military. that he should be associated with economic reform in which they may have to give up things that are valuable to the military, things that they ultimately believe are necessary for the long-term survival of the regime, and certainly critical for their short-term survival, i do not think that is going to happen. it does not mean that we ought not to try, that we ought not to do things, but i do not believe that it will occur. >> if i could just jump in on this, you know, the challenge for someone like kim jong un is, he has to take control and he also has to define the new ideology under which he is going to be running the country. and it cannot be the same ideology as his father. at the same time, he is going to have to show that what he does is reinforce the state.

in that state, he will pull from his father's legacy because the backbone of the state is defined by this new capability, this new weapon of -- nuclear weapons capability, in addition to the ideology in terms of the military. willdoesn't mean that he not be interested in things that -- like hard cash and currency for the regime. but i do not think that that will be acquired for some sort of wholesale reform. it will be acquired through the same means the north is used in the past. in terms of getting to something more progressive, some sort of wholesale change in which they move in the direction of accepting the advice placed on the table for the north going

back to 1994, it is very hard to see someone who is so young being rushed into a position like this to really be able to make that sort of change in the system, even if it is a collective leadership, it is still a very difficult situation for all of them. we have to remember that this leadership -- you have heard me say this before -- this leadership grew up in a period where there was a very defining event has pentium and square, the -- tiannamen square, the arab spring. there is nothing comforting about the interaction with the outside world for this leadership. but the younger generation as well as the up-and-coming one. -- both the leader -- the

younger generation as well as the up-and-coming one. unless you have a truly charismatic leader, a deng xiaoping, it is not easy to make changes in a regime like this. i do not see a deng xiaoping in korea. >> let me say something about his relationship with the military, because this is a critical fall line that requires more careful examination. what we have seen in this admittedly incomplete transition is that all kim jong il -- kim jong un's positions are based in the party. it does raise some very interesting questions about the military's relationship with kim jong un and his key advisers, d in that. it raises the policy -- the possibility of a shift toward

more policy-oriented days, although admittedly the lines blur in institutional terms between party and military when you are trying to understand how things work in north korea. but in terms of a potential cleavage clearly visible to the outside, i think the relationship between kim jong un and the defense commission is one that i would take time to examine. >> let me pick up there. scott kony two years ago were in pyongyang and it was just as we were watching the aftermath of the party congress and things were going on, and i had an opportunity in our discussions with the ambassador, one of their six-party negotiators, to ask about what i observed as the revitalization of the korean workers' party. and he bristled. there has been no revitalization, it is always been strong. clearly that is not the case. it suggests that kim jong il

shortly after his stroke that figured out that his son, a 28- year-old, had not beyond the four-star uniform and command the respect of the military. it just does not happen. he was looking for a way to rebalance power in north korea. he had begun by trying to reemphasize the role of his father on the korean workers' party buried -- party. the idea that that kim jong un is going to come in with the new slogan and military second, it is probably not going to go over well. [laughter] >> before i open up the microphones to our audience, i want to ask you about the regional perspective on the changes occurring in north korea. scott, i'll start with you. alice china during the

leadership change in north korea? you see north korea's relationship with china changing in this new relationship? >> miming metric for looking at possible sustainability -- might mean metric for looking a possible sustainable -- it possible sustainability is follow the money. providing north korea with the economic sustainability necessary to get through any near-term difficulty. and so we have already seen a very strong show of support from china. we know that president hu jintao for a spate -- has paid his respects at the north korean embassy at beijing yesterday. and one can imagine that china may be concerned enough to be reaching out in other ways to revive economic support.

i'm very much struck by the openness of doubt in chinese commentary about the sustainability of north korea. that tells me that affect -- that the chinese government must be very aware and concerned about sustainability. i think the national response for this government in china, given its focus on regional stability, is going to be to try to do what it can in order to provide near-term support for sustaining north korea until there is a stable political transition, if that is possible. >> great. victor, how about japan? japan is probably doing these -- viewing these changes with quite a bit of trepidation. how should the japanese government approach to change? >> first, i would agree that

they are viewing this with a great deal of trepidation. as we all know, for japan, north korea is an existential threat, the biggest threat possibly to a japanese national security. in that sense, i think they're following the situation very closely. i think the government has already made a statement on this about the death of the north korean leader. what they can do, it is open to a question of what they can do beyond that. the visit by that japanese foreign minister here provided a good opportunity for the u.s. administration and for the japanese to make a strong sign of alliance and solidarity in the event of any sort of change that happens in the region, which is always the first thing you want to do. from that sense, that was a good opportunity. in terms of the future of

japan, the issues of very clear when it comes to north korea. they're very concerned about the missile threat from north korea, particularly them the abductions issue, and at the same time, the potentially have a great deal of things to offer in return, in terms of coordinated packages of economic development assistance, through the six party framework. but all that is on hold right now. the governor of japan will again -- the government of japan will monitor the situation and look for openings, if any exists, for making inroads on diplomacy and some of these outstanding issues. but i doubt that they are going to be able to find any. the primary road to diplomacy was supposed to happen this week, through the united states,

and that is probably going to be put on hold for at least the foreseeable future. japan is really wait-and-see. they are closely tied with united states. and then for all of these countries, also, to maintain channels to china, since china is really the only country that has eyes on the ground in north korea. even though they do not know very much about what is going on, they still no more than we know. >> jack, how about the united states? house today approach the north koreans in this period? >> a two-pronged approach that they should be thinking about. if we believe that there is a high probability that kim jong un will not succeed, that there is some beginning of collapse -- in the way i would put this is that the death of kim jong il is

the began -- is the beginning of the end of north korea, and we think that as a high probability, then our first priority is to think through the consequences. what should we be preparing for in the eventuality, whether it comes quickly or drags out over several months, a couple of years, whatever that time period maybe? one of the things that we are not yet up to speed on is our contingency planning, particularly with regard to china. china will play a significant role in the survival or the demise of north korea. and we want to ensure that we are on a relatively same page of music, if you will, when that occurs. that we are not a cross purposes. that is going to be very difficult to do. the chinese can be very reluctant to engage in that. will we do behind the scenes will be critical in that regard. of the support of that is, if

you still have to live with what you are dealt with, and that is this regime that may not met -- that may or may not be stable, they probably is not going to move toward reform, but we have an obligation to try to find those opportunities, those fissures that we can exploit, and that may be done on a relatively modest basis. whether we attempt directly or indirectly to engage in human rights. it is interesting that on monday, the day of the announcement of kim jong il's debt, the united nations passed a condemnation of no. 3 in human rights. there is an area here where the new image of north korea, if there is going to be one, may be open to a dialogue for discussion. i do not in a lot of hopes on that but is an area we ought to explore. we of begun the process of

reevaluating and real looking -- looking for a dialogue and a level of cooperation. we need to increase that and to put as much effort as possible. getting u.s. personnel on the ground in whatever limited capacity will help in both our intelligence while understanding at a low level and not very significant dialogue with the north korean military. we also have as a victor was alluding to the potential of the new term, nutritional assistance, it used to be today, but now will come in the form of baby bottles, for which no military officer will be seen drinking from. but nonetheless, it is an area in which it is going to be difficult, because quite frankly, i believe there has been a leakage of the potential opening of bringing back the

iaea inspectors and the food assistance. however much we would deny it, i think there is someone gets there. it will be difficult to get back in that area. a couple of areas that we could try to pursue to see if we pull the string and how far it goes. i am not optimistic that we will get very far, but we certainly have an obligation to explore all of those options and any more that we can think of. >> scott. >> i agree with everything that jack said but i would add that this transitional period being an opportunity to create new decision points for north korea, as it grapples with its survivability. precisely because north korea is going to build -- feel honorable of this point. they may be more willing to make some kind of tradeoffs. the hard thing is to keep to them as we saw on the agreement

with 1991 which was also a critical point where north korea was worried about its survival in the context of the fall of the soviet union. >> if i mean, i partially agree with that. certainly when you're dealing with a system that is as rigid and opaque, you should welcome the opportunity for change and there clearly is one here. on the other hand, it is that the limit for the united states or any power outside of north korea, because if we take the example of that decision point, you can create a new decision point, but in order for the north to take them, you must have some sort of context. i just not know and i believe this is the u.s. government position and now, i just did not know if it is an opportune time to make any sort of contact with anyone inside of north korea. you can contact the new leader but you may undermine him by

doing that, if you are the united states, and you can contact people outside the new leader, in which you would be definitely undermining the great successor. it is like a fish bowl. we are all looking and trying to figure out things are happening, but no one dares stick their anger and there you have no idea what it is going to do, and what sort of counter reaction will be created by the chinese, south koreans, or others. the ideal thing is to coordinate, u.s., china, we should all coordinated terms of creating new decision points. as an academic, i agree that is what we should've. but in the real world a policy, that is virtually impossible. >> i am pleased to speak from experience. [laughter] -- inexperience. [laughter]

>> whatever we do that is over an open in whatever we try to take advantage of and create new decision points, for me it is very clear that that the underlying message, and it may be relatively private to the north korean, is that there is only one half. weirdly -- path. we will make it easy for you did she use but there are no other long-term options that -- but there are -- we will make the easy for you to choose, but there are no other long-term options. that will be a message very difficult to reinforce, as victor has indicated, in a consistently among all the parties involved, but we have to do our best. >> greg, thank you. now we will open up the microphone to the audience for questions. some house rules. basically, please raise your hand and i will recognize you.

we have to roaming mics, paul there, raise your hand, one microphone, and we have marie with the other microphone on the other side of the room. please keep your questions brief. identify yourself, and please ask a question. with that, we will go what bob warren here. up here. third row, third row. >> he is the one that has former kei president on his lapel. >> thanks for fascinating address. i would like to ask the panel, what should be the short run decision point for the u.s. administration? should we send someone to, should we send condolences, should we show our concern? gillette may just ordered the secretary of state has already issued -- >> let me just hard.

the secretary of state has issued a something very well crafted as the talks about our concern for the north korean people and the potential for opportunities down the road. that is the best it is going to be and it will be seen for howard to be north koreans want, as a measure of condolence for the people there. >> i think as you know well, the rule of thumb on this is on the u.s. government state department, it is always easy to talk to the north korean people. to say you're for the north korean people and you are sorry for the north korean people and that is basically the formula line that the use. my understanding is that the north has said they are not going to invite any foreigners to the funeral so that precludes making a decision on this. personally i do not think it is a good idea for the u.s.

government to issue official informal condolences about the death of the north korean leader. i do not think that that is appropriate. i think they have it just about right right now. very cautious, very much wait- and-see, and that is all that they can do right now. >> just one thing on this. there is the prior experience of the camel song -- kim il sung's debt, in which they issued condolences. the north koreans will compare what happened then with what will happen today. at the same time, i do think it is possible but the north koreans could actually see what they have gotten so far as a step short of where they were

previously. >> if let's say. let's take two questions. this gentleman first and then we will take ellen. >> i thank you for a wonderful all-star panel. my question builds on what ambassador pritchard said about the strategic planning by the united states and its obligations. i recall a constant refrain from the bush administration that it was hard to get china to talk about contingencies the bank during that same time, for example, the u.s. military has their plans for a meltdown in north korea and the previous progressive governments in seoul were fairly allergic to talking about that. now in 2012 or have other leadership transitions including in china, what sort of conversations to we want to have early and often especially with the chinese? >> i will take that. one quick comment and two quick

questions. a common, forcing the office in points could backfire. i was just caution. you make a the result you want out of that. maybe seen as a challenge to the regime as opposed to an opportunity. excepting jack's point about kim jong il having rebalance power between the party in the military, scott, on what basis today is the military seeking to have a dominant role? does kim jong un any leverage -- have any leverage to push back on this? he is not kim jong il. i'm interested on dry on that. and jack, assuming that the military is going to play this role, a donaldson sort, what is the implication of that beyond not moving ahead with reform? >> thank you. >> i would just say that precisely because of what you're pointing out about the

transitioning from a military- first role to something that is probably not called military- second, but is a different formulation, it is a real challenge. i think that means that kim jong un himself is likely to be relatively weak within this. and the interesting question is how they try to involve into transition from what was there before kim jong il and military first, do something that is sustainable? the critical constituencies are all internal board we have to recognize that your dad is the limitation of our analysis. -- the critical s constituencies are all internal. we have to recognize that. that is the limitation of our analysis. >> let me go back to paul's question in terms of conversations that we have with china.

and this is not something that the u.s. government and the state department and others are not doing and thinking about, but you really have to approach the chinese in a very slow process. and that is not to say that we know they're going to fail so let's start talking about military contingency plans. but to engage them on the other way. if they were to succeed, how do we do that? and as you begin to engage the chinese, you have got to earn the trust in terms of windows wisps of smoke that victor is talking about appeared, then you have as gentle the conversation that will lead to more serious conversation with the chinese, or they cannot dispute where this may be headed and it is in their own national interest to do that. his easier said than done. this is an extraordinarily the

difficult proposition, but you can i get around the basic fact that the chinese are going to hold the driver's seat with the survival and demise of north korea. with regard to allen's question in terms of implication, i would start by saying i do not believe any military can govern over a significant period of time, civil society. and so by the north korean military exerting more and more over patrol rigid control over business and industry and social life, it will become the ripping apart of north korea. it will be to the demise of the military and that is the implication from my point of view. >> i think the -- as paul mentioned, the bush administration did try to engage south korean government on planning for some sort of internal contingency in north

korea, at that point, the progress of government was totally against it. they did not want to do it. they did not want to be as they saw as party to a regime change strategy in their own minds. and after the stroke of kim jong il in 2008, i think on official and unofficial levels, the u.s. tried to engage the chinese on these efforts. we did that attract ii dialogue on this -- a track ii dialogue on this that was not very successful. they tried to attract 1.5 on this and have limited success. -- they try to do a track 1.5 on this and had limited success.

it is just not in the chinese interest to do that. i think the interesting question -- what the chinese would do, the way we would engage them, we would not engage them and say, the tragic death of kim jong il, we would say about environmental disasters on the side of-north korean border, or suppose there -- sino-north korean border, or nuclear accident? that would be the avenue to pursue with them. given what has happened, with the chinese be more open to these sorts of conversations? maybe not at the official level, but maybe in an unofficial level. and here, i think, i would agree -- one way to approach this is to talk about how people would react to a successful --

do things that the chinese are comfortable with, but the other way to do it is to basically go in and have all parties, u.s., china, those would be the key parties, going in and trying to have, and i know it is difficult but try have a conversation about what we all fear with the collapse in north korea today because our biggest enemy among the three countries is something weird happened, our biggest enemy is not what is happening in north korea, but miscalculation among the parties in response to smoke they see in north korea. that is how things happen, for miscalculation, right? trying to get a degree of transparency into what might motivate each country as they respond to address perceived but abilities when the smoke starts rising from north korea, that

is the really important first step. this is very difficult to do, but maybe to do -- maybe it is easier to do with an unofficial level. >> and there are other areas, i think, mentions of this problem that involved possibilities for limited cooperation. especially the humanitarian side. it may be possible to start with those kinds of discussions. my experience of listening to the chinese on this issue is that they are more forthcoming in that area even no, it is interesting. i tried to write a scenario for the types of discussions with the chinese have one time, and began with the sentence, kim jong il is dead. at that time, it was too shocking. but now it is reality.

so it is definitely worth, i think, having an effort to try to get the chinese into lockyer's to respond to realities rather than a hypothetical -- interlock years it to look years -- interlocers to respond to realities rather than a hypothetical. >> speaking of kim jong nam, the older brother, who has been in exile and macao. he has given a couple of interviews to the japanese press and the last couple of years, and a couple of other publications in which he has said, within the north korean context some very politically incorrect things.

about the north korean system. even about his father's policies. what reading might there be on the question of whether he will be allowed into the country for the funeral on december the 29th? or whether he will be kept out? and if he is allowed back in the country, what happens to him then? afterwards? can we read anything into whatever decisions are made about his relationship to the funeral? also, in examining chinese policies toward north korea, did we or do we have a pretty good reading about the chinese government's relationship with kim jong nam?

how close it is or whether it is distant and whether there might be the potential for a kind of chinese candidacy for this eldest son, should this scenario kim jong un jack is laid out jong's declining status, loss of support, come to be in the near -- should this scenario of jim wallis's loss of status, -- of kim jong un's loss of status? >> suppose you look at this purely at the view of the chinese, what opportunities and what options do they have to promote their own interests, independent of our own in north korea? >> let me start with the question about kim jong nam.

i think there is an in vantage kim jong un -- an advantage in kim jong un and whatever process that that would allow kim jong nam back in for the funeral. there is a sense of solidarity. we all know as you have alluded to, there been suggestions that kim jong un has attempted to eliminate his older brother, things of that nature. at, how willetting they let him leave or incarcerate him or eliminate him as a future threat? i was just not. i think he would come come and go to the funeral, and the exiled and never seen again in north korea. that is the best that can happen and i would not think of the north koreans would be following him with a poisoned umbrella tip. it just does not help them in the near term.

>> i think it is going to be -- i did not know what will happen but it will be a great opportunity to observe, because who will be at the funeral? will all three sons be at the funeral? what about the daughters? there are rumors that one daughter is 6 also? it will be very interesting to watch in to see what happens, because again, we've had so little opportunity to view this. alan not -- that will probably release some pictures, so will be interesting to see -- and we will make our own decisions about politics as a result of this, but as a scholar an analyst following this, it will be a great opportunity to understand how things are operating within the north. it takes an extraordinary event like this to get those glances,

but i think we will have a good glimpse of what is happening. on china's interest in north korea, roberts question, i think the chinese as we all do face a court dilemma here. on the one hand, the chinese are just not wanting to support the status quo rather than to try to address fundamental change. and they could put off any question of fundamental change as long as kim jong il look like you a stable and securely in power. i am naturally inclined to this process, even in the face of nuclear tests and other things, the sort of support the status quo. this is a completely different situation. chinese support to secure the kim jong il regime is very

different from china essentially having to underwrite a system that is in transition with an untested later. presumably it would " require a much bigger commitment from china. will party scene this send them being the first to make statements and even those statements to offer, to be open to an early visit by the new leader of north korea. they look right now that they will fully underwrite this thing pitting and then the question becomes, 1, would still be a debate in side of china about whether this is the right thing for china to do, strategic liability versus trying to hold on to this strategically declining asset? and if they decide to hold on, how long? they're clearly going to be much higher costs involved with their relationship with north korea under kim jong un then there was under kim jong il?

and in the third piece of this, as i wrote in the "new york times) this morning, this will be in many ways the first major foreign policy of the new -- farm policy decision of the new chinese leadership. so do they want this to be their first major policy decision? the basically say, remember that albatross around their neck at the previous china's leadership, while we turned that into a much bigger albatrosses and we're going to wear it around our neck, so take that. will be interesting to see how they respond to that. >> very hard to get traction on the chinese government's relationship with kim jong nam. sometimes it seems he has greater freedom of speech that many -- and many chinese dissidents. it is a very perplexing

circumstance. the real question is, does china have the means or desire to be the king maker in north korea? and if so, how they go about doing it? as sector has suggested, i think the chinese leadership is quite rare traverse, and the concerns about blowback in the event of the failure of any effort to try to choose a leader will prevent them from doing it. instead, they hold the key to success, the leader is going have to come to china in order to get the resources necessary to be able to survive. in that respect, i do not think that china can be a kingmaker, but they can enable the success of anybody that they see as a likely winner in any leadership contest. >> professor kim here, and then we have chad monitoring our

twitter world. we are also mystreaming program today, people watching online, and they are submitting questions. >> we are viewing things from the top down. as we now come the arab spring started from bottom up. in north korea, the currency reforms failed and there were grievances. the north koreans minds are being opened for cultural products, through information delivered through south korean movies and we are aware that there is a wide viewing of this. what is the likelihood of something coming from the grass roots? >> chad karl rove click here >> a question -- this should be for you, jack. can we expect a military incident in the coming months? thanks.

>> let me take the second one first. we have seen a lot of analysts in the last couple of days talk about their concerns about provocations, that there is a high probability. this is where i differ. i think there is a lower probability that as they talk about -- and why would this occur? tavernas the credentials of kim jong un -- to burnish the credentials of kim jong un. that was done in 2010 and it was done at a cost in the relationship with china, and caused them to make decisions were there were strategic and not at the time, the chinese concern about the fragility of the regime cause them to publicly backed the north koreans. and there was a cost involved, a cost in their own relationship

with the south koreans. to the contrary, i think that a provocation at this point would damage the potential for china to be a larger scale back her at a critical point in time. it would undermine what would be seen as overall control. .

. .

this is about one hour and 15 minutes. i would say, mr. speaker, our economy is too weak and the american people have been struggling for far too long for congress not to work out our differences. america is not on vacation nor should the senate be. we have two weeks to find a

solution and send something to the president for his signature. that is what house republicans are proposing today. let's look at the differences between the house and the senate. the house extended unemployment for 13 months. the senate bill extended unemployment benefits for only two months. meaning an estimated four million americans could lose the extended unemployment benefits next year they would get under the house bill. the house reformed the unemployment reform to focus it on getting the people the training and education they need to get back to work, not just handing out checks. the senate did not. the house protected seniors' health care for the next two years by ensuring doctors in the medicare program don't have their reimbursement cut by more than 27%. the senate did this for only two months. the house provided a one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday ensuring a worker earning $50,000 next year has $1,000 more in their pocket. the senate did this for only two months meaning that the same worker would have less than $200 in their pocket or

$800 less in take-home pay than under the house-passed bill. the house had a pay freeze for federal workers. the senate did not. the house prevented welfare benefits being used at liquor stores and strip clubs. the senate did not. the house protected social security by reducing overpayments. the senate did not. the house included a provision that saves taxpayers $9 billion by cracking down on fraud and abuse that is known to exist in the refundable -- in a refundable tax credit program. the senate did not. the house provided for economic growth and job creation in the high-tech industry through spectrum auctions. the senate did not. the house cut taxes to promote business investment and hiring. the senate did not. mr. speaker, while it may sound like there are grave differences between the house and senate bill. it's not a difference over policy. it's simply a difference of the

house deciding to act and the senate deciding not to act on so many items. the house bill includes commonsense reforms the american people want, and it adopts a number of the president's legislative initiatives which represent the bipartisan cooperation the american people are demanding. all told, 90% of the house bill is paid for with policies the president has endorsed in one form or another. so what's really standing in our way? i've heard the president's people say it breaks the agreement over the discretionary caps in the budgetary control act, but look at that talking point. those caps are adjusted only because we are proposing as the president has before to freeze the pay of members of congress and other federal workers. do the president and the senate really want to risk unemployment benefits on middle-class tax cuts and reimbursement to doctors treating seniors and those with disabilities because they don't want to freeze the pay for members of congress and federal workers? mr. speaker, it's not too late.

i urge all of my colleagues to support a one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, one year of unemployment benefits with critical reforms and a two-year extension of reimbursements for medicare doctors. i urge my democrat colleagues to name conference committee members to resolve the differences between the two bills. conference committees are a jeffersonian concept and we would be wise to follow the models laid out by our founding fathers. if the senate agrees to work together we will help the american people back to work and get those struggling in this economy the help they need, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

levin letchhet me put this -- mr. levin: let me put this very simply. this is a dishonest procedure. this is a reuss to avoid a straight -- radios to avoid a straight up or down -- ruse to avoid a straight up or down vote on the payroll tax extension. why not do it as called by regular order? that is regular order. because the republican majority is afraid of a straight vote. they are afraid some republicans would vote yes and the senate bill would pass and the president would sign it and it would become law today. and they don't want other republicans on record voting against a payroll tax cut. that is the epitome of a ruse.

39 republican senators, 39, all but a handful voted for the bill before us. but what has happened since saturday's bipartisan senate bill that speaker boehner said was a good deal? well, the -- they staged a mutiny. and the captain decided to surrender. he decided to join the mutiny to keep the ship from coming to port. but the problem is onboard is millions of passengers waiting to dock. this chart shows the number of passengers. 160 million americans would see their taxes increase. 2.3 million americans onboard looking for work would lose

their critical unemployment benefits. and 48 million seniors, americans on medicare will have access to their doctors they know and they trust would have them jeopardized. so i want to clear, for these people, all of these people, the republican vote today is a vote to nowhere. dick lugar said that. i'm hopeful there are a majority of republicans and democrats today who will proceed because it seems to me it is best for the country as well as all the individuals who are affected. another republican, senator from massachusetts, i quote, house republicans' plan to

scuttle -- that's the correct word -- the deal to help middle-class families is irresponsible and wrong. the refusal to compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hardworking americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work. we cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to crow mize stand in the way of working together for the good of the american people. and a third republican senator, senator heller, a former colleague here of nevada, i quote, there's no reason to hold up the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is worked out. and i want to quote a letter -- a statement from treasury about the notion that the two-month extension cannot be implemented. and i quote, while any

short-term extension is bound to create some administration -- administrative complexities, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan bill. it is feasible to implement the bipartisan senate bill. this is treasury that is in charge of implementation of this. and the treasury department will work with employers to ensure the smoothest possible implementation. in the current economic situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of ensuring that taxes do not impup on 160 million americans starting on january 1, and i ask unanimous consent that this be placed in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i want to close with what harry reid said. take it seriously. 39 republicans and 50 democrats

voted for the bill you won't let us vote on. you will not let us vote on. and i quote, i have always -- i have been trying to forge one for weeks. he could have said for months. and i'm happy to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle-class families will not wake up to a tax increase on january 1. so before we reopen negotiations on a year-long extension, the house of representatives must protect middle-class families by passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that republicans negotiated and was approved by 90% of the senate. end of quote. you will snubbing a bipartisan compromise. you are jeopardizing the lives

of millions of taxpayers, millions of the unemployed and millions of seniors. . to keep harmony within your ranks. you are creating the possibility of a -- of immense discord within the united states of america. we are not going to let you do it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, taxpayers, small businesses, and health care providers need certainty and predictibility to plan for the future. unfortunately the bill that's come back to us from the other chamber makes our usual habit

of only one year-long extensions look responsible by comparison. the senate bill extends a number of key policies, including the pact preventing a steep cut to doctors' medicare payment for just two months. mr. speaker, we have been down this road before. last year under the previous majority congress passed five separate extensions of medicare physician payment, mostly for just a month or two. several times the deadline meaning payment cuts tookt effect and had to be reversed. the failure to responsibly address the s.g.r. created an unprecedented amount of chaos and confusion, both for doctors and the medicare agency. house republicans have been determined not to let this

happen again. that's why we passed a fully paid for two-year fix. the american people are tired of congress wasting time on political stunts and waiting until the last minute to cobble together half measures. mr. speaker, we still have two weeks before the end of the year to get this right. and there's no reason to think we'll do better in two months. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to go to conference so we can get a responsible solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to a very senior member of our committee, the very distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: i am amazed at the

ability of the majority to change its position so fast. sometimes i wish democrats had the ability to do this. it wasn't too long ago that there was objection for the taxpayers' holiday because of the impact on social security. then there as objection to the unemployment insurance because people on the other side said people wouldn't go look for a job. that they would just stay home and watch television and receive the check. and of course no one can deny that the doctors that prepare -- that give care to 48 million people deserve compensation to what they do. but being here as long as i have, i can see how in the majority a handful of people will try to prove that their

constituents that they are not marching in line with regular order. they would come down here to go along with their senate or leadership, and it's kind of rough to be a part of a party that is so widely split. i had only hoped that they could come up with a better excuse than the fact that two months is not enough time to prevent an increase in the taxes of so many, 160 million people, and i know that everyone in this chamber knows that if the american people that will suffer such a painful , insensitive act was to ask what you wanted for two months and then have the congress to extend it? would you take that or would you want it to be for one year and the possibility of getting absolutely nothing? that is such a fearful, such a

cruel thing to do to gamble with other people's ability to be able to enjoy this holiday season as best they can. and so i don't think that there will be any winners in what's going on today, but i hope that the regular republicans would be able to see their way clear. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camep: -- mr. camp: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. west. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. west: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. last week we voted to have a one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. last week we voted to a one-year extension of unemployment insurance with reforms. last week we voted to have a two-year suspension of the sustained growth rate for the doctors that provided the care. last year we voted for certainty and voted to restore confidence. we voted for a measure that was

paid for, would have no detriment or negative outcomes to social security. last week we voted for job creating policies and a bill that had 10 to 12 obama approved provisions. we are not afraid to vote. and if you don't want to accept this measure, then continue to vote no. just the same as our colleagues from across the aisle last week voted no. they voted no against what president obama wanted. they voted no against what senator harry reid said he wanted. they voted no against what senator chuck schumer said he wanted. the senate sent us back a two-month extension which is irresponsible and cannot be implemented. and it reflects abject incompetence. i urge all of my house colleagues to vote yes on this motion to disagree with the irresponsible senate amendment and move the conference. or do we just want to continue to see the miracle of people suffer? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to the distinguished

gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, a famous speech started that we will little note nor long remember what we say here today. but the people, the bible says, by your deeds you shall know them. the republicans have said that it's christmastime. kids are hangling their -- hanging their socks all over the world. and they are all getting up and hoping there will be something in that sock on christmas day. and the republicans have something to put in it. they have a lump of coal. they are going to say to 160 million people, we are going to boost your taxes, here your

christmas gift, right? we are going to say to 2.5 million unemployed people, no unemployment benefits because it's only for two months and we can't -- there's every excuse in the book you can give, but when they get up on christmas, there's going to be coal in their sock. the working poor of this country are counting on that tax break. they have gone out and bought gifts for their kids and they think they are going to pay for them because they have this tax reduction. and you are taking it away from them after they spent the money on the christmas gifts. that's your lump of coal to the middle class. now, for the seniors the lump of coal is, we are not going to pay the doctors, we are going to cut the doctors by 25%. and doctors are going to say, i'm going to limit the number of seniors. remember the lump of coal in

november of 2012, folks. they gave it to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from michigan. mr. speaker, tonight's the first night in hanukkah and christmas is fast approaching for families across america. and what do the families see coming out of washington? dysfunction. and half of congress unwilling to do its job. mr. speaker, we were elected to work for the best interest of the american people. and in this tough economy, middle class americans and working families need to know that their taxes won't be going up at any point next year. so far the house has passed a bipartisan year-long plan to ensure that taxes do not go up.

the senate on the other hand has passed a two-month plan. according to experts, the two-month plan is simply unworkable. families, employers, and workers can't live their lives month to month. washington needs to stop adding confusion and more uncertainty to people's lives. i think we can all agree that the two-month concept doesn't make a whole lot of sense. mr. speaker, bottom line, a two-month patch is irresponsible. that's why the house is taking a stand. we believe all americans deserve certainty. we want a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut which will prevent a tax increase on every american with a job. luckily, mr. speaker, everyone claims to agree. in fact, the president himself said, it would be inexcusable

not to extend the payroll tax cut for a year. the leader of the senate says that we should be working on extending the payroll tax for a year. but only after the new year. mr. speaker, a great virginian once said, never put off tomorrow what you can do today. that man was thomas jefferson. so let us dedicate ourself to that spirit. people across our great country are tired of hearing why washington cannot do things. they are seeing say in and day out that washington is not working together. but we have the ability to give them some hope. let's show the american people that there's a reason to believe that we can work together and deliver results. the truth is, we are not far apart on this issue. the negotiators got extremely

close. we owe some stability and good tax policy to the hardworking people of this country not more gimmicks and political games. today this house will vote to go to conference and work these differences out in regular order. we need to come together in a responsible manner to find common ground where we can accomplish everyone's goal of a year-long payroll tax extension. mr. speaker, there is no reason why the house, the senate, and the president cannot spend the next two weeks working to get that done. america will be waiting. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. neal, from the great state of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: thank you, mr.

speaker. if just the speaker house, and majority leader could work together. there was a deal over the week end. the speaker of the house accepted the senate's version of that agreement. only to discover in a conference call that he had to back down. the chairman of the ways and means committee, my friend, he doesn't believe what they are doing here for one moment. they are courting disaster. this is the season of advent and christmas for christians. hanukkah begins today. it is the quest for light in our lives to enlighten the american people as to what is taking place here today. 160 million americans are going to lose this tax cut. organized labor and management, they do this all the time. you have a cooling off period. you get to a more benign time. and you negotiate in good faith. you have seen what's happened here. a radical element has seized

the republican party. the senator from massachusetts, senator brown, is on the front page of the "boston globe" today criticizing his own party. dean heller criticizing his own party. richard lugar criticizing his own party. we are arguing today about unemployment benefits in this season for members of the american family who are going to lose those benefits. we are arguing about tax cut for middle income americans today, 160 million strong. for doctors who care for the most vulnerable amongst us as the medicare patients. over their reimbursement rates. when you consider what republicans did during the bush years with those tax cuts for wealthy people, they never flinched for one moment. the rich were rich and they weren't going to take it anymore. . and therm going to reinforce

that idea, cut taxes 10 times in 10 years for the wealthiest among us, we should be voting on what the senate did. let's have an up or down vote and then explain it to the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: mr. president, senate democrat leaders, don't vacation until you finish your job. families and small businesses need tax relief for a full year, not just for two months. the house, we've already done our job. we've already passed a full one-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. we've included unemployment reforms for those who are out of work, paying our local doctors fairly in medicare for a full two years, unlocking the

keystone pipeline and cutting spending to completely pay for it. we've done our job, but the democrat-led senate shortchanged the american public by rushing through a partial two-month extension and then hurrying home for their christmas vacation. that's irresponsible. families and small businesses need to be able to plan with confidence for a full year, not just two measly months. president obama said -- you said, mr. president, just last week that the american people deserve a one-year bill. our democratic friends said a one-year bill. the democrats said a one-year bill. well, house republicans are going to hold you to your word by moving forward today to conference committee to work out the differences. we're going to work it out not next year, not when you get around to it but now. that's the next step in the constitutional process and we, house republicans, are willing to work through the holidays to

make sure we get the job done for the american public. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, a very distinguished member of our committee, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend and my colleague, mr. levin, for yielding. if we go home without passing a bipartisan senate bill we degrade ourselves and this congress. we are out of time. we cannot impinto this holiday season -- we cannot go into this holiday season without helping our unemployed brothers and sisters. we cannot keep our seniors from seeing their doctors. we cannot allow taxes to go up

for millions of americans. what is happening here today is shameful, it is a disgrace. it is unreal. it is unbelievable. we can do better. if we fail today, how will you face your neighbors, family who are suffering? where is your compassion? where is your heart? where is your soul? i say vote no on this motion and pass the senate bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield four minutes to the distinguished conference chairman, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we all need to be reminded why we're here in the first place. we're here because the

president's economic policies have failed. they failed this nation. ever since he was elected, unemployment has been at, near or above 9%. and the people suffer. i believe almost every member of this body believes that we must extend the payroll tax holiday. that's not the debate, mr. speaker. what is most curious, though, is our president. our president has said it will be inexcusable for congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year. he didn't say 60 days. he said the rest of the year. the democratic leader has said that she intends the fight to extend these provisions for a full year. and so, mr. speaker, i guess i'm confused. i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want

to do this for a year. they say they want to do it for a year. they're just not willing to vote to do it for a year. that's most curious, mr. speaker. i don't think i understand it. it's what the president asked for. it's what the american people deserve. they don't want us to punt the ball. they want us to do our job. and so there's no point of contention on whether or not it should be extended. the question is whether we're going to do it for a full year or punt the ball down the field and once again disappoint the american people. we stand ready to work over the holidays to get this done. that's the question. are you willing to work over the holidays or are you not willing to work over the holidays? the american people, most of them will have to work over the holidays. why shouldn't we be willing to do this? and, you know, mr. speaker, i guess it's curious how many people are unaware of this thing called a conference

committee. since the dawn of the republican, these are how things are settled between the house and senate. if you don't remember sisks 101 -- civics 101, you can go and watch "schoolhouse rocks" video. they will appoint conferees and come negotiate in good faith except the senate democratic leader said he wouldn't do it. the house democratic leader said she wouldn't do it. so it kind of begs the question, mr. speaker. do they want to make laws that benefit the american people at a time of need or do they want to perpetuate a campaign issue that maybe they believe helps their campaigns? that's really the question. and last but not least, mr. speaker, we ought to pass laws that actually work around here. abc news reported last night, quote, holiday passed by senate, pushed by president cannot be implemented properly, experts say.

well, isn't that interesting. the national payroll reporting consortium that handles payroll for about a third of the private economy said, quote, this could create substantial problems, confusion and cost affecting a significant percentage of u.s. employers and employees. the associated builders of contractors, the people who go out and actually build things in america have said, quote, 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. the leading building trade association in the nation said their 60-day plan will cause more harm than good. mr. speaker, house republicans have craft a good and reasonable bill. it's one year that does what the president asked us to do. it does what the american people asks us to do. it's actually paid for.

it doesn't increase the deficit, and it blocks tax increases. i don't know how my friends on the other side of the aisle think we will do this without it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to another member of our committee, a distinguished gentleman from california, javier becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. my friends, we've seen this movie before. house republicans once again are driving our government and our economy to the edge of the cliff and this time they replaced 160 million workers and millions of seniors in the

front seat of that car. they are refusing to allow 435 members of this house to vote on a bipartisan proposal passed by 89 out of 100 senators next door. my republican colleagues know that this bipartisan bill passed by the senate would pass on this floor and it would save working americans from having their taxes increased during the holidays. the truth is republicans are feuding amongst themselves. house republicans are fighting with senate republicans and quite frankly they're fighting with republicans throughout this country because a majority of them support the president's payroll tax cut. mr. speaker, once again the people, republicans and democrats alike, are way ahead of the politicians. they want us to get our work done and get it done now. let's stop showing the american people b-rated movies on the floor of the house and pass the senate bipartisan legislation. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank -- mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. before coming to congress i was a cardiovascular surgeon. just like doctors all over this country, we're there 24/7 to deal with problems. now, i remember distinctly one night christmas eve, in fact, i was getting ready to sit down with my family for dinner and an 86-year-old man had a ruptured an rism who went into shock. we saved his life, long story short. we had a duty, an obligation to our patients. by god, to put physicians in a position of seeing a 27%, 28%

cut in reimbursement is just untenable. why? it's not because of the positions. it's because of patients who are going to lose access. medicare beneficiaries, seniors, those with disabilities who will lose access to care in a situation where we're already seeing that eroding access. we have an obligation to act because the consequences are not good. with regard to all these provisions that we're trying to extend. this house passed a bill last week. it was a very responsible bill with good reforms, and it gives two years' stability period for physicians and those patients who desperately need this care. and what did the senate do? what did the senate do? the senate capitulated, the senate caved and the senate basically just gave up with contempt for the american people. that's what it comes down to. they basically are content with

allowing confusion and disruption and chaos and uncertainty for patients who deserve good, high-quality care. they did the same thing to those who depend on these unemployment benefits and the same, and the same for those who depend on this payroll tax cut during this holiday season. we're going to pass a bill today that basically says we're going -- we want to go to conference to resolve these differences and the senate has an obligation to the american people to stand with us and follow its constitutional duty to go to conference to resolve these disputes, these differences in a time-honored way. mr. speaker, the senate has an obligation to the american people. the senate has an obligation to carry out its duty to the american people. we can get this right. let's do it and be done with it, but let's get it done and let's get it done right and i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan -- 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i thank the gentleman. some say that the house republican leadership pulled the plug on the senate bipartisan bill because they were afraid of their republican tea party freshmen perhaps. but what is clear is that we're not being allowed by the republican leadership to vote on the senate bill because the republicans are afraid of their moderates, their independents, their reasonable, unhardliners.

the measure of this congress is that the house doesn't act until they are forced to as a result of self-imposed, crisis-induced deadlines. and then if they can't get their own way on an agenda that could never be passed through regular order in both chambers and signed by the president, then they throw a tantrum. and what we are dealing with today is a legislative tantrum. . i don't like the two-month extension. it has some difficulties and uncertainties, but there will be far more uncertainty and difficulty if there were a two-week gap or a two-month gap. where 700,000 people in early january will lose their unemployment benefits. two million in the next two months. if we simply would follow regular order, allow a vote on

the senate, we could build on this glimmer of bipartisanship from the other body. allow your members to vote. who knows where it could lead. we actually may be able to solve some of these long-term problems. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i would ask if mr. levin would like to yield again to even up the time. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell, of the great state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: almost good afternoon, mr. speaker. this is not a fraternity house. this is the house of representatives. yet what have we wrought? i heard someone, two people say on this floor, quoted the president of the united states,

they should apologize to him immediately, that the president was urging us to vote a one-year plan. he wasn't asking us to vote on your plan for a year. you know what he thinks about what you proposed. and it didn't even come up in the senate. in fact, 39 republicans, that's 82% of the entire delegation of the republican senate, and 89% of the total senate voted for this compromise. i know you hate the word. compromise is -- does not mean you surrender your values or principles. compromise is what was the basis of the forefathers. that's how we got a constitution. nobody was happy with that constitution. they didn't get everything they want and you're not going to get everything you want. so you better get it out of your head right now. through the speaker, through the speaker. the majority leader, wonderful

cliches, he forgets that only two years ago a republican member of the house sponsored a two-month payroll tax holiday and had 59 co-sponsors. we have amnesia, selective amnesia. he changed his tune this saturday. he was against the idea of a short-term gimmick. this saturday he said it's a good deal. it's a victory, he said. he claimed victory. reminds me of another victory i heard a couple years ago. once the same members of this party in this caucus rebell, the speaker reversed his course. keeping the payroll tax cut in place as we figure out a way to extend it for the year, reduces uncertainty among employers and the families in my district, the workers of my district, and i ask that we reconsider what we are doing today. thank you, mr. speaker. have a wonderful day. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not other members of the body. the chair will now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman kansas is recognized tore two minutes. miss jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, folks are mad out there. they are mad because what congress is doing or not doing in many cases makes absolutely no sense. as a c.p.a. i'll tell you that handling tax policy on a month to month basis isn't just irresponsible, it's down right crazy. according to the nonpartisan national payroll reporting consortium, the cost of complying with the two-month extension proposed by the senate may actually harm many small businesses. in fact, implementing the cuts on this short timeline may not even be possible. in addition to being a c.p.a., i'm also a mom. and i do just about anything to

be working out of our topeka office this time of year so that i could spend the evening with my kids, but agreeing to a tax policy that is so short lived that it costs not just our government but also our small businesses big bucks is not one of them. the american people are exhausted. they are sick and tired of congress kicking the can down the road on hard decisions. so i can our leaders in the senate, are your vacation plans more important than good policy? why will it be easier to negotiate a deal in february than it is today? come back. we still have time. work with us to do the job we were elected to do. let's make the hard decisions today. let's extend the payroll tax cut for the entire year and let's not do it on the backs of a generation more focused on santa right now than they are on tax policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, who is ranking on the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from michigan. the american people should understand very clearly what's going on here right now. and that is that the republican majority in this house of representatives is refusing, is refusing to allow a vote in this house on the senate bipartisan compromise. they are refusing to even allow a vote on a bill that received 89 of 100 votes in the senate, including 85% of the senate republicans. what are they so afraid of? it's very clear that the republican leadership is afraid that that same bipartisanship that took place in the senate will take place right here in the house. because they don't want a bipartisan bill. otherwise we would have a vote

on it. what we are witnessing today, mr. speaker, is the triumph of tea party extremism over the good of the country. the sad part is we probably shouldn't be surprised because it was just a few months ago that the republican leadership was opposed to extending the payroll tax cut at all. they originally said that raising taxes on 160 million americans would be ok. no problem. i have a long list of statements from republican house leaders to that effect. then two things happened. a whole lot of economists told us what was common sense, that in fact if you raise taxes on 160 million americans, it will hurt the economy. and it also begins to sound a little strange for our republican colleagues to be skellously -- zealously protecting tax breaks for special interests and millionaires while allowing tax increases on 160 million americans. so they changed their story. then it was we couldn't do this because it was going to hurt the social security trust fund. that coming from the party that

wanted to privatize social security. and then the social security actuary told us and the country that it wouldn't take one cent from the social security trust fund. so now we have a whole different story today. now the same folks who were opposed to any continuation of the payroll tax cut say they oppose the bipartisan senate bill because it was only for two months. now they are preventing a vote on that bill. the consequence is going to be very clear. january 1, 160 million americans are going to see their payroll taxes increase. at the end of the day the republican majority here in the house is going to go home, they are going to go home, but you know what will remain here? the senate bipartisan bill because we will never have voted for it. so at any time in the next several weeks we can all come right back here and in a matter of five minutes send that bill to the president's desk which he said he will sign and make

sure that we avoid a payroll tax increase on 160 million americans. make sure folks who are unemployed through no fault of their own get unemployment compensation. make sure that doctors will continue to be paid when they treat medicare patients so they can serve those patients. it will be sitting right here for three weeks. why? because the republican majority won't let us vote on it. i would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend, the chairman of the ways and means committee, to tell us why you refuse to a lou--allow a vote on the senate bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i would just say that if minority leader pelosi and senator reid appoint conferees, there is no reason for taxes to go up. with that i yield -- mr. van hollen: you didn't answer my question. mr. camp: regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is out of order. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. fixing something for two months is not fixing something. it's a band-aid and it's bad policy. i have been a nurse for over 40 years and i'm going to use a medical analogy to illustrate this point. if someone were to come into the emergency where i'm working with an issue, medical issue, and i said to them, i'll give you a choice. we can either fix your problem for two months or we can fix your problem for a year. i have no doubt that the patient would choose certainty of one year over two months. for the past 10 months i have been visiting individuals and businesses in my district and what i continually hear from them is that uncertainty is hurting them and it's hurting our economy. now, the house sent a bill to the senate that contains some certainty. and we get back a two-month band-aid.

in this bill we had certainty for businesses. certainty for doctors. certainty for individual taxpayers. and certainty for our seniors. there is a need for a two-year extension on the medicare reimbursement for our doctors to ensure that seniors receive access to care. there is a need for a one-year payroll holiday for individuals and businesses. as has already been said, the national payroll reporting consortium, a nonpartisan group, have expressed concerns to members of congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the senate and supported by the president cannot be implemented properly. we also need a two-year extension or fix for our unemployment benefits to give certainty to businesses and also to individuals. mr. speaker, i am frustrated that the senate kicked the can

down the road one more time. for only two months after we sent them a bill that was not only bipartisan, yes a bipartisan bill passed by this house, but also had good job policies. i came back to d.c. yesterday to do something better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to a very distinguished member, the gentlelady from illinois, jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding. don't blame congress for not working together. blame the house republicans who can't even work with each other. the one and only reason this house of representatives is not voting for the bipartisan senate bill to provide relief to middle class taxpayers, seniors, and disabled people on medicare and jobless americans is because it would pass.

that's right. the republican scam was to bring up the bill supported by 90% of the senate and then kill it. but on the way to this slaughter, a funny thing happened, sensible republicans basically said, you want me to vote to abandon millions of middle class americans without the help they need this holiday season? no way. so the sanctimonious rhetoric you hear today from the republicans is nothing but talk. baby talk. if they don't get their way exactly, then they won't play. what they are saying to millions of americans saying happy han can to middle class americans -- hanukkah to middle class americans who are lighting the first cannel tonight and won't get their $1,000 tax break. happy new year to our seniors and people with disabilities

who may lose their doctor. merry christmas to the jobless americans desperate for work, looking for work, who barely survive on their unemployment checks. the house republicans are the grinches who stole your christmas. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's not $1,000 payroll tax reduction just as was quoted by my colleague who just spoke. the senate bill is two months. it's $160. so let's be clear and honest with the american people. what we are talking about here in the house of representatives on our side of the aisle today is that we want to do our work. yes, we want to be with our families for christmas.

and we want to be home ringing in the new year with our family and friends, but you know what? the american people deserve better. we are willing to stay here and do the work. not do band-aid type of policy. tax policy on a two-month basis? are you kidding me? that is ridiculous. we need long-term solutions to our problems in america. we need to put the political bickering aside. two months is not a solution. it's dodging responsibility in the senate. . we stand and rise to support today. and it is a vote. we will have a vote to reject the senate position with this amendment and its band-aid policy and we will send a clear message to the american people that we in the house of representatives are about finding solutions long term, one, two years at a minimum and

we're willing to do the work and i call on the senate to come back to d.c. and finish the job. hardworking taxpayers of america deserve no less than for all to honor our oath and our responsibility to govern through solutions, not political games. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could you verify how much time each side has? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 7 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has five minutes. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the very distinguished colleague from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in firm opposition to this motion to go to conference. without a vote on the senate bill to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. it is deeply disappointing and troubling that we'll be denied the opportunity to vote on the senate's overwhelmingly

bipartisan compromise that would bring relief to millions of america's working families. now our republican colleagues have said, pass the one-year bill that passed the house last week. well, talk to your republican colleagues in the senate. four times the senate republicans -- excuse me, four times the senate democrats tried to bring up your bill and four times a senate republican objected. facts are hard. if we do not pass this bill, 160 million americans will face a $1,000 tax increase as we go into the new year. if we do not act in my home state, nine million floridians will see this tax increase next year. if we do not act, 2.2 million unemployed americans will lose their unemployment benefits. and if we do not act, 48 million seniors will face the specter of having to find new doctors due to cuts for reimbursement rates. i've received countless constituent calls, letters and email, many of them very personal and emotional. just this morning i was especially moved by a note from

a single mom, christine, with a 3-year-old daughter from my congressional district. she wrote, i am pleading my case to you out of desperation, to extend unemployment insurance. these benefits help her provide food and necessities for her daughter. too many of my colleagues like to paint unemployment beneficiaries with one insensitive and cruel brush. this woman isn't sitting around. she was laid off from her job this fall and has only been on unemployment for a couple of months while she looks for another job. my constituent's story, while personal and moving, is unfortunately not a unique one. my republican colleagues who callously ignore the needs of middle class americans by refusing to vote on the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits are sending the message to millions of working families that despite their efforts to look for and find work in this delicate economy, they simply don't care. the house republican leadership needs to allow a straight up or down d vote on the -- up or down vote on the senate bill that passed 89-10 with strong bipartisan support. clearly they're afraid it might

pass. i urge you to listen to the plight of constituents like christine who said, i'm asking that they give people more time to find work by pushing these dates back further. i'm having a very hard time trying to find work that will accommodate my living expenses for might have self and my daughter -- for myself and my daughter. she's only been on unemployment since sebt september. she needs her help. pass this bill. and stop playing politics with people's lives. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield a minute and half to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. what we're talking about here today, mr. speaker, is the difference between passing a tax policy that would only last two months or passing a tax policy that lasts the entire year. you know, during these next week and a half while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year of 2012, not just for two months.

yet what the senate sent over is a plan that would only kick the can down the road and we'd be right back here again having this same debate in two months. and people are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from congress. you know, if you look at earlyics courses, anybody who takes their -- -- early civics courses, anybody knows that when there's a difference between the house and senate, then the two sides get together and work out those differences. that's what the legislative process is about. and clearly we have a difference. we think the policy should be for an entire year as even the president has said and the senate sent us over a two-month patch that doesn't even fix the problem. in fact, outside groups like national federation of independents -- independent businesses said this would hurt small businesses. yet what do we get from the other side? minority leader pelosi, mr. speaker, said she will not appoint any house democrat to participate in the negotiations. she just said this last night. so in the spirit of christmas you've got the minority leader saying she's just going to take her toys and go home.

that's not the responsible thing to do. let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work and let's have the senate do their work too for the american people. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, david scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much, and i appreciate the opportunity to come down and to say a few words on this. ladies and gentlemen, i'm so glad that the people of this country are tuning in to what's happening on the floor of this house of representatives. what we are seeing is a great dysfunction in the republican party and the house of representatives. here's the situation. the american people are hurting. 160 million american people do not need their taxes to go up. there are 2.2 million american people who are without unemployment benefits who will

have those unemployment benefits not extended. and there are seniors, 48 million of them, who will not be able to go and visit their doctors. america's hurting and what does the republican party in the house of representatives want to do? they want to hurt them some more by not even allowing a vote on a compromised bill. that was passed by the senate with 89 votes, 39 of them members of the senate republican party. ladies and gentlemen, what's at stake here is a fail tour to compromise -- failure to compromise. that is the key. when hamilton and jefferson failed to compromise, it was john adams who brought them together. where would this country be if that had not happened? ladies and gentlemen of america, wake up and realize that this is not just the tea party people or republicans or democrats. it's a party of all of us.