Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding the time. The month the President took office, the U.S. economy was in the midst of a horrible collapse into oblivion for a lot of American families. The economy lost 700,000 jobs the month the President took office. Last Friday, we had the news that the economy gained over a quarter of a million private sector jobs. This is welcome news, but we have a lot of work to do. This is not nearly sufficient to restore the American Dream to America's middle class and really fuel the kind of recovery that we need. Now, the President came to this floor 152 days ago with specific ideas that both parties had agreed to over the years, to try to fuel the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the fuel of the American economy. And he came to the floor with four ideas. The first was to cut taxes for small businesses that hire people, something people on both sides say they're for. We've never taken a vote on that idea, never since then. Second, he came to the floor with an idea that, as teachers are being laid off from the classroom, and firefighters are being laid off from our first responders, and police officers are being taken off the street, why don't we help the cities and towns and States to keep some of those people on the job, not only so they can do their job, but so they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants and help small businesses. We have never taken a vote on that idea in those 152 days. The third thing the President said is, let's put construction workers back to work building libraries of the future for our schools, repairing the crumbling roads and bridges of the country, making sure rural America's wired for the Internet. And those construction workers would then become the customers of the small stores and the restaurants, the appliance stores that make America go. We have never taken a vote on that idea in the last 152 days. And finally, the President said, let's avoid a massive tax increase on the middle class people of this country that was scheduled to go into effect on January 1 of this year. Well, we sort of took a vote on that and were able to dredge out of that process a 2-month extension to avoid that massive tax increase. That extension ends 22 days from today. In the 2 months since then, there's not been one proposal on the floor to fix that problem. What we have on the floor today is a very interesting bill, and I, frankly, commend the seriousness of it. The bill essentially says we should re-examine the method by which we value guarantees issued by the Federal Government when we account for them in our budgets. In other words, if you cosign a note for someone, how should that show up on your balance sheet? That's essentially what this bill is about. Now, this is a serious question. But I think the unemployed carpenter and the small business owner about to close her store and the police officer who got his pink slip last week thinks it's a pretty irrelevant question. And what they would rather have us do is vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on cutting taxes for small businesses that create jobs. We vote ``yes.'' ``Yes'' or ``no'' on putting police officers, firefighters, teachers back to work. We vote ``yes.'' ``Yes'' or ``no'' on helping the middle class by avoiding a massive tax increase on the American people. ``Yes'' or ``no.'' What we ought to be doing is bringing those questions to the floor, those questions to the floor, and having a debate. Instead, we're having a debate that's serious, but it really belongs at the American Society of CPAs, not the House of Representatives. Let's get to work on the questions we're hearing at home, ``yes'' or ``no.'' We say ``yes'' to fueling the middle class job creators, the small businesses of this country. The majority responds with silence.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. For a long time, Americans have believed if you work hard every day and play by the rules, you'll be able to earn enough to own a home and educate your children and retire with some dignity. It's the American Dream. Precious numbers, or large numbers of people, rather, are now disbelieving in that because it's not really happening in their lives. They're working as hard as they can, but they seem to go backwards, not forward, and they work so hard. You can't reignite the American Dream unless you reignite the middle class, and you can't reignite the middle class unless you reignite small business. Small businesses in this country create about two out of every three jobs created in the country. In the last 20 years, 80 percent of the new jobs have been created by businesses that are younger than a year old. So new small businesses are the key to getting things done. Now, if you talk to small business people around the country, as we have in our districts, here's what they'll tell you: Their number one concern these days is they don't have enough customers. There's not enough people eating in their restaurants or buying goods in their stores or buying the manufactured goods that they do or buying the software code that they write. They need more customers. So 147 days ago, 147 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and said we ought to do four things to stimulate customers for those small businesses and grow the middle class: First, he said, we should repair our Nation's aging bridges and railroads and highways and put construction workers back to work, and building schools in the process. The Congress has never voted on that proposal. The second thing the President said is, when a small business hires people, their taxes should be cut, so a tax cut for small businesses that hire Americans. The Congress has never voted on that proposal. The third thing that he said is, because of the economic distress of our country, cities, counties, and States are laying off police officers, firefighters, teachers, which hurts public safety and hurts education. But it also hurts businesses, because police officers and firefighters and teachers, without a paycheck, aren't going to be buying things in the stores or eating in the restaurants or spending their money. The President said let's take some money and help States and localities rehire and put those teachers back in the classroom and put those firefighters back on the apparatus and put those cops back on the beat. We've never voted on that proposal. And finally, the President said, look, we cut Social Security taxes, we cut the payroll tax for really all working Americans in 2010, at the end of 2010, and that tax cut is about to expire; and if we let it expire, it will be about a $1,000 tax increase for middle class Americans, which will not only hurt those families, but it will hurt the economy by draining their purchasing power from the economy, so let's extend that Tax Code. We did manage to do that for 2 months, and that's about to expire, now, in 27 days. We'll be back at that by the end of the month. Now, if that's the urgent agenda for the country, what are we doing today? What we're doing today is passing a change in budget rules that essentially says the following: If you're really optimistic about what a tax cut might do to the economy, you can assume that optimism for the purposes of keeping score in the budget. This is like a family sitting down and planning its budget at the beginning of the year and saying, I think we're both going to get a raise this year. You're a teacher. I'm a truck driver. I think we're both going to get about a 5 or 10 percent raise, so let's plan the family budget based on that. I think scarcely any of the constituents who send us here would ever draft their family budget in that way. If this rule goes through, that's the way we'll draft the Federal budget. It has become an article of faith, religious orthodoxy on the Republican side that tax cuts produce higher revenues. At best, the evidence is ambiguous. Most the time it doesn't. Maybe sometimes it does, but I don't think--I think we should respect the establishment clause of the Constitution and separate church and State. If the Republican religion is the tax cuts always produce more revenue, I don't think we should write that religion into the law of the country because it's not always right. Now, beyond that, if we go home to our constituents, our middle class families, our businesses, and they ask: What did you do this week?

Mr. ANDREWS. They ask: What did you do this week? Did you get any bills that would bring more customers in? Did you help me grow more jobs? Now, here's what we did: We adjusted the CBO baseline for the consideration of future revenue policies of the United States. This is a very interesting graduate school debate. Maybe some day if we're flush with cash again it would be a good policy debate. It is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and it shouldn't be on the House floor. Let's at least put up for a vote the four specific ideas brought to this Chamber by the President of the United States to regrow the middle class and put Americans back to work. And when we've done the real job that we're sent here to do, then we can get to the graduate school seminar on congressional budgeting.

Mr. ANDREWS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for his friendship and his compliment, and it's a pleasure to serve with him. I would just ask him on the specifics: Do you favor a tax cut for small businesses that hire people?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I'm familiar with his FAIR Tax. I respectfully disagree because I think it imposes a national sales tax, which I don't support. But let me ask two further questions, and I thank him for his time. Do you think that we should put up for a vote the idea of cutting taxes for small businesses that hire people, and if so, how would you vote on it?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 13 recipients of the Camden County Freedom Medal. In 2001, this high honor was created to pay tribute to those who reflect the ideals and beliefs held by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The honorees of this esteemed award are exemplary citizens who have made momentous contributions to their community in a variety of ways. These individuals have not only dedicated themselves to bettering their community, but have also worked selflessly to bring together people of different backgrounds, cultures, and creeds. This award is unique in that it does not honor people only in one area of service, but rather highlights individuals who have made significant contributions to society, each in their own way. Recipients of this year's award have done everything from establishing a college preparatory program for minority students, to founding an environmental program, to creating a 5K race in honor of a fellow Marine killed in action, to providing free health and education classes, among many other accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I congratulate all of the recipients of this year's Freedom Medal: Atnre Alleyne, Nasim Badat, Roger W. Barker, Lori Braunstein, Sister Helen Cole, Hardon H. Durrani, James E. Hannold, Linda Holscher, Melinda Kane, Mary Lamielle, Thelma Lenore Long, Robert Morrell, and Larry and Trudy Painter. I join the county in paying tribute to these 13 individuals and I thank them for helping carry out Dr. King's legacy with tireless dedication.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we hear that there is agreement over some basic principles here. Just about everyone thinks we should extend the middle class tax cut for the rest of this year. Just about everyone thinks we should make sure that doctors don't see a nearly 30 percent cut in the payments that they receive to take care of our seniors and disabled persons under Medicare. Most of us think that unemployment benefits should be extended at a time when there are four people unemployed for every one job opening in the country. Most people believe that most if not all of this should be paid for; that is to say that we shouldn't borrow the money to do these things. The amount of money that's needed to do that is about $3 out of every $1,000 that we're going to spend here. It's significant money, but it's about $3 out of every $1,000 that we spend. So here's the idea behind this motion. Since there is such broad agreement that this middle class tax cut and the other provisions need to happen, since there is such broad agreement that it ought to be offset in part, if not fully, and since it's such a relatively small amount of money, $3 for every $1,000 we're going to spend, let's not wait until the very last minute to do it. The history of 2011 is littered with the majority waiting until the eleventh hour. And it was more than just an inconvenience for the legislative process. In August when the markets melted down, it turned out to be a crisis for the country and the global economy. Let's not take that chance again. So if everybody is so much in agreement, vote for this motion. What it says is let's not wait until February 29. They gave us a leap year this year, so let's not stretch it. Let's not wait until February 29 at midnight. Let's get this done no later than February 17 to get this done in an orderly fashion. The American people are tired of a Congress that has the study habits of a student who parties all semester and crams for the finals. Let's get serious, let's grow up, and let's vote for this motion.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, as the Congress meets for the first time in 2012, the people of the country are burdened by a deficit of jobs, a deficit in our Federal budget, and a deficit of hope that things could get better. It is our responsibility to work together to try to make them better. Now, to reduce the deficit of the country, yes, you should restrain spending. The parties came together in August and passed--with about half of each party voting for it--a deficit-reduction plan that cut spending in our departments by about 5 percent each, made reasonable reductions in defense spending and some reasonable reductions in social problems. We should keep those reductions on the books. We think that in reducing the deficit, that the very wealthiest and most successful in American society should have to pay a little bit more of their fair share. Not everyone agrees with that, but we think that is an important part of reducing the deficit. But by far the best way to reduce the deficit is to create jobs for the people of this country. You have a hard time creating jobs when there is a deficit, but you have an impossible time of reducing the deficit when there are no jobs. 132 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and put forward four good ideas to create jobs in this country. First, he said that we should cut taxes for middle class and working Americans. Well, we managed to eke out a 2-month agreement to do that. Let's get to work today in extending that middle class tax cut for at least the rest of the year. The President then said that we should put people back to work, building science labs in our schools and fixing bridges and roads that need to be repaired. The Congress hasn't acted on that proposal at all in this House. The President said that we should cut taxes for small business people who hire people, who create jobs. This House has not acted at all on that proposal since September 8. The President took due note that as private sector jobs have risen, police officers and teachers and firefighters have lost their jobs in the public sector. And he said to help our States and cities keep police officers on the beat, keep firefighters in the apparatus, keep teachers in the classroom, let's give some aid to those States and cities to keep those people working. The House has not acted at all on that proposal. Ladies and gentlemen of the House and Mr. Speaker, rather than going through an exercise here where people can pontificate about how much they deeply care about the deficit, let's do something about it. Let's put on the floor of this House each of the President's proposals to create jobs and let's take a vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. And to those who say they have better ideas, let's put their ideas on the floor. The American people did not take the month of January off; neither should we. Let's put these job-creating proposals on the floor, put them to a vote and do our job to help put the American people back to work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial anniversary of the Barrington Band and commemorate its many contributions to the cultural community of South New Jersey. This community band comprised of approximately thirty members ranging from teenagers to seniors has delighted audiences with their patriotic and seasonal repertoire for one hundred years, and today we thank them for the joy they have brought to their many listeners this past century. The Barrington Band formed on January 1, 1912 when four townsmen rang in the New Year parading through the streets with cowbells, whistles, a clarinet and drum. They had such fun that they decided to form a community band. Recruitment proved to be easy, as many members of the Barrington Improvement Association were eager to join despite a lack of musical knowledge. This was soon remedied as local musicians were hired to teach the new band, and this day July 4, 1912 the band held their first performance at the flag-raising of the Barrington Fire Company. Since that day, the Barrington Band has been marching and playing at all sorts of community building events including 17 Philadelphia Mummers Day Parades, the inauguration of New Jersey Governor Harold Hoffman in 1935, on the way to the shore on the Wildwood Boardwalk, and at the annual Concert at the Gazebo in Cape May. Through decades of excellent musicianship, the Barrington Band has built an unparalleled reputation for providing a fun and entertaining show comprised of marches, patriotic and Broadway songs. Beyond being a staple at Barrington civic events and nursing homes, the band has established the Harold Houck Award for musicianship and academic achievement, to be given to a member of the Woodland School eighth grade graduating class. The award was named after Harold Houck, son of the original band director, who played with the band from fourteen to eighty-nine years old. He started a tradition of lifelong participation that continues to this day, a unique legacy for this talented band. Mr. Speaker, the Barrington Band has been an integral part of the South Jersey community for one hundred years, bringing people together through the shared joy of music. I join the township and all of South Jersey in paying tribute to this exceptional band on its one-hundredth anniversary.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the beloved Maurice J. ``Bud'' Maley, one of the great pillars of the Mount Laurel, New Jersey community. Let us remember him, today and always, for both his benevolence and his endless drive to work toward the betterment of society. Always a venerable man of action, Bud never shied away from helping a community in need. After graduation from Northeast Catholic High School in Philadelphia, he recognized that need in his country and gallantly enlisted in the United States Army. It was decisions such as this one that truly separate Bud from the rest; he was always willing to serve. After his time in the military, Bud moved to New Jersey to share his talents and kindhearted spirit with the Cinnaminson and Mount Laurel communities. Until his retirement in 1989, Bud worked in communications sales for Western Electric and Alcatel-Lucent, surely with the same enthusiasm and dedication that he came to be known for. There is no doubt that Bud loved his community, but he took it a step further: he worked to better it. He was an avid member of the Saint Bernard's Home and School Finance Committee, the Knights of Columbus, the Western Tip and Ringers, and more. His work with these organizations undoubtedly touched many lives and helped the area prosper. Communities are able to stand strong because of people like Bud Maley. As for his passions, Bud had several great loves. He was a devoted and caring husband to his wife, Mary Lou, and a dedicated father to his three children, Jim, Maureen, and Marianne. Outside of his family life, Bud fell in love with videography and photography. His artwork was able to capture glimpses of his life that can now be cherished in his memory. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maley's extraordinary actions and character are qualities to be emulated by future generations. His friends and family are in my thoughts and prayers during this time. He will always be remembered as a man of truly remarkable measures.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Specialist Four Charles Rouse, a courageous and gallant American veteran. Not only did he risk his life to defend America's ideals in Vietnam, but he served with such heroism that he was awarded two of the most distinguished military honors one can receive, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. Mr. Rouse's patriotism and allegiance to his country are nothing short of astounding, and we all owe our livelihoods to individuals like him who make similar sacrifices and bold choices every day. Like so many others who were drafted to serve in Vietnam, Mr. Rouse had the task of carrying out necessary missions and protecting the lives of his fellow soldiers. Mr. Rouse not only performed those responsibilities with utmost dedication, he chose to go above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver and Bronze Stars are only given to those few individuals who exhibit extraordinary valor and courage in the face of the enemy. To receive even one of them is an extremely high honor. Mr. Rouse was one of those very few who received not only one of these prestigious awards, but both of them. We are so fortunate and so proud that he wore a U.S. uniform. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rouse's unfaltering love for this country and its people is truly remarkable and should not go unrecognized. To his family and friends whom he holds dear, you certainly do not have to be told of his magnificent character. While serving his country, Mr. Rouse exhibited the extraordinary courage that is required to do what most of us cannot even imagine. It is for these reasons that we honor him today and why his legacy will live on forever.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in just over 2 weeks, Americans who are fortunate enough to have work will get their first paycheck of 2012, and the paycheck will be lower because there's a tax increase. The question before the country today is: Should we stop that, yes or no? In 11 or 12 days, a senior will go to see her doctor, and there's a very high risk that the doctor will not see that Medicare patient because the doctor has seen a 27 percent cut in what the doctor has been paid. The question before the country is: Should we stop that, yes or no? In just over 11 days, over 2 million Americans will see their unemployment benefits expire and they will have virtually no income to pay any of their bills. The answer is: Should we stop that, yes or no? Now, the other body has taken up a bill that gives us the answer. The taxes would not go up on the middle class, the senior would be able to see their doctor, and the unemployment benefits would not expire. Eighty-nine Members of the Senate voted for this. The President of the United States said he'd sign this. Virtually every Member of the Democratic side of the House is prepared to vote for this. But this is not on the House floor today. Now it's just fine for a Member to say, yes, I support this compromise or, no, I don't support this compromise, but it is an abrogation of the basic duty of this House not to take a vote on it. The choices ought to be, yes, we support the bill, or, no, we don't support the bill. It shouldn't be we don't want to take a vote on the bill; we want to duck the question. We are compensated to cast votes and explain our votes to the American people. By refusing to let this bill come to the floor today, the majority is abrogating its responsibility to the country. We should oppose this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter on December 15, 2011, I was absent from votes. As such, I am submitting these remarks to indicate how I would have voted if I were here: I would have voted No on the Journal Vote, and Yes on H.R. 886, H.R. 2719, and H.R. 443.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for many American families, they will only be able to celebrate this holiday if they forget about the burdens of their daily lives. Some are about to lose their jobs, others are about to close their businesses for the last time; some are worried they can't pay for their health care, others are worried that they're next in the layoff line. This Congress has an opportunity on this day to address those problems. Yesterday the House took action on a bill that, frankly, isn't going to go anywhere to address these problems, and today is the day we ought to act on a bill that will. On January 1, everyone who earns wages in this country is facing a tax increase if this Congress doesn't act, a $1,000-a-year tax increase on the middle class. We should suspend that tax increase today. Many people will lose their unemployment benefits. They will have no income, no check. And to those who say, well, they should go find a job, you should walk in the shoes of those who are in that predicament because here's what you would find: For every one job that's available in this country, there are four people looking for it. So failing to extend unemployment benefits is craven, in my opinion. On the 1st of January, doctors who take care of our seniors--our grandmothers, our grandfathers, our disabled citizens--will see a 23 percent cut in what Medicaid pays them if we do not act by December 31. Now, yesterday's bill was deficient in so many ways, but here's two of the real big ones: First of all, it attached extraneous provisions about whether to build an oil pipeline. Some people are for it, others are not. It doesn't belong in that bill; and Second, a large way the bill was paid for was to blame the unemployed and to say we're going to pay for what's in that bill by cutting their benefits. That's wrong.

Mr. ANDREWS. What we ought to be saying is we can hold down the taxes on the middle class, we can fairly extend benefits for the unemployed, we can make sure our doctors will continue to see our seniors and our disabled people if we ask the hedge fund managers and the millionaires and the billionaires of this country to pay just a little bit more. We will give the House an opportunity this afternoon to vote on that bill. That's the bill we should be considering. If we do, we can then proceed immediately with passing this badly needed defense bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with profound respect for our Constitution and for my colleagues and friends who care deeply about the impact of this bill on that Constitution. It is because I have considered those issues that I would respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues and argue for the propriety and constitutionality of this bill. I would deplore the idea that an American citizen or a permanent resident alien could be rounded up and put in a prison in the United States of America. This bill does not authorize that scenario. I would deplore a circumstance where any person--even a person who is not here under some permanent legal status--could be rounded up and put in a prison and only a military prison. That is not what this bill authorizes. It leaves open the option that such a person could be detained in a regular civilian prison or in a military prison. I would reject completely the proposition that any person could be held in any facility--military or civilian--anywhere in our country indefinitely without the right to have the charges that are levied against them heard by some neutral finder of fact. It is our interpretation that the habeas corpus provisions already extend to these individuals. That is to say that a nonresident or nonlegal person in the country who is held under such circumstances in fact has the right of habeas corpus. I think the law requires it. I think the Constitution demands it. There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not that conclusion is correct. That is the state of present law. This bill does not amend present law in a way that I would like to see it amended by clarifying that right of habeas corpus, but it absolutely does not erode or reduce whatever protections exist under existing law. So those who would share our view that the right of habeas must be clarified should work together to pass a statute that does just that, but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Ninety-eight days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and proposed to create jobs by cutting taxes for middle class families by about $1,500 per year. For 98 days, the majority refused to take up legislation that would enact that jobs plan. So finally today we have their version of it, which unfortunately does not cut taxes for middle class people the way we proposed but at least avoids a tax increase on those families which is looming on January 1. But I can't support this bill because of how it pays for that middle class tax relief. First let me say this: I agree as a general rule when we cut taxes here on anyone, we ought to pay for it, not increase the deficit. But the majority has never subscribed to that principle until today. So when the wealthiest people in America got an enormous tax reduction in their tax rates in 2001 and again in 2003, there was no requirement that we offset that in order to pay for it. But now that middle class families are getting some relief, all of a sudden, there has to be. Let's talk about what that offset is. One major portion of it essentially reduces unemployment benefits for Americans down the line. And as I understand this, there are some reforms that really ought to take place. When I hear about GEDs and drug testing, I think that is fairly sensible. But it isn't sensible to say to someone, If you've been looking for work day after day and week after week and trying your best to find your next job, it's your fault if you didn't find it. But that is essentially what this bill says. If you are unemployed, look in the mirror. It's your fault. I don't think the authors of this bill know many unemployed people. I know they don't know that for every four unemployed people in America today, there is one job. For every one job that's listed as being open, there are four unemployed people for that job. I don't think they understand that even though there is a law against age discrimination in this country, age discrimination in this country is an everyday painful fact of life for a lot of people over about 40 years old in this country. So I would say to all those who are about to vote to extend middle class tax relief by blaming the unemployed for their own plight that they ought to walk for just a day or a week or a month in the shoes of a 50-year-old man or woman who has been out of work for a year and a half, who has circled every want ad, gone to every Web site, taken every job interview he or she could get, and still cannot find a job. We should vote against this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I'd like to thank the chairlady from Florida and the ranking member, Mr. Berman from California, for their very forceful and effective advocacy. Iran made a choice to ignore international standards and comity and secretly develop a nuclear weapon. Iran made a choice to eschew sincere diplomatic efforts to come up with a deal, an agreement where they could have their civilian nuclear energy program but have the fuel manufactured outside of Iran. Now, Iran must, in my view, be confronted with a choice as to whether it will enjoy economic stability or give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. I think the time is here to force that choice upon the Iranians. I think it's unfortunate it has to be done, but it has to be done. We cannot let the world's most horrific weapon fall into the hands of one of the world's most horrendous regimes. For that reason, I strongly support the legislation by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 25 days from now, if the Congress doesn't act, every middle class family in this country is going to have a $1,000 tax increase. Twenty-five days from now, if the Congress doesn't act, doctors who take care of our Medicare patients are going to have a 23 percent cut in the fee they get to see Medicare patients. During those 25 days, several million Americans who are out there looking for a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits check. These are the issues confronting America today, and what are we doing? We're debating a bill that says that some regulation the government might do someday in the future should have a procedure where Congress can reject it. There already is such a procedure. And for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those regulations? Once. So this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a regulation to the floor. What we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax increase on the middle class. What we ought to be doing is making sure our seniors can see the doctor come January 1. What we ought to be doing is making sure Americans who are diligent in looking for work don't run out of employment benefits. But that's not what we're doing. This is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. Let's put on the floor a bill that puts Americans back to work and focuses on the real priorities of the country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House should listen to the voices that have been raised about the jobs crisis in our country. These voices are speaking loud and clear. We should also listen to the quiet voices of desperation of so many Americans who will sit down this Friday night to try to pay their bills and find they have 70 cents worth of income for every dollar's worth of bills that they have. Or the Americans who retired a few years ago and thought that they were set for the rest of their lives but are now looking at the want ads every day because they think they have to get a job to continue to pay their bills in their retirement. Or the quiet, anxious voices of small business owners who are thinking that maybe this Friday will be the last Friday they keep their business open and they shut for good. These are the voices that should be heard in this country, and they're not being heard by this majority. Eighty-nine days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and proposed four good ideas to put Americans back to work: Build more roads and bridges and schools to put construction workers back to work--we haven't taken a vote on that; Cut taxes of small business people that hire people in the private sector--we haven't had time to take a vote on that; Take teachers and police officers and fire fighters who have been taken off the job because of this economic disaster at the State and local level and put them back in the classroom, put them back on the job--the majority hasn't had time to vote on that; and, finally, Let's avoid a tax increase of $1,000 a year or more on middle class families that's coming January 1, in 25 days, January 1--but the majority hasn't had time to vote on that. We do have time today to vote on the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship Extension Act of 2011. This is entirely appropriate. Bankruptcy judges are very busy in America today because when small businesses don't have customers and customers don't have money in their pocket and people don't have jobs to pay their bills, bankruptcy judges are very, very busy. It is one thing for the majority to oppose these ideas the President brought here 89 days ago--that's their prerogative and their right--but it's quite another to refuse to even put these ideas up for a vote. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's take this moment. Let's take this bill, let's take this day to put on the floor of the House legislation that would postpone and cancel the tax increase on middle class Americans that's due in 25 days. Let's not have it. And let's extend jobless benefits for those who are diligently trying to find a job in this difficult economy. Let's find time to do something for the American people today.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Mr. Hal Bruno and his longtime dedication to political journalism and fire fighters across the nation. As a former Political Director and analyst for ABC News, Mr. Bruno's legacy is one that deserves to be recognized to the fullest degree. Mr. Bruno's journalism career spanned five decades, and he was greatly involved in many high-profile cases including the Cuban Revolution, Watergate, Chappaquiddick, and 9/11. His breadth of knowledge and myriad of resources will remain as testaments to his tenacity as a political analyst. Equally important in his life was the service he provided as a volunteer firefighter, and later as a Chairman Emeritus for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. In recognition of his service, the Congressional Fire Services Institute selected him as its ``Fire Service Person of the Year'' in 1995. His passion for fire fighting began in the 1940s, Mr. Bruno's dedication to fighting fires continued until his passing, as he always had an emergency scanner and a bunker gear, helmet, and boots in his car ready to assist in an emergency. Commended not only for his analysis and service to his community, but also his moderation of the 1992 Vice Presidential debate, Mr. Bruno made certain to maintain a fair environment despite a highly political atmosphere. The debate only reiterated Mr. Bruno's determination to provide the people with fair and balanced information to decide for themselves. Mr. Speaker, Hal Bruno's incessant dedication to provide assistance to members of the fire fighting community and their families in addition to informing the American public about events of import in Washington, DC is more than commendable. I take this time to remember the services this great man provided our nation. Hal Bruno will be greatly missed. He has left a legacy that will positively impact the fire service for generations in our country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, I would like us to pause for a moment and think about an American family who is not here. The husband works in a Home Depot, the wife works as an administrative assistant in a hospital, and they make together about $50,000 a year. And they're among the fortunate Americans who have jobs, but they're frankly very worried because it seems like the harder they work, the less ground they gain. They're going backwards the harder they work. The House needs to understand that a month from tomorrow, unless this House acts, that family's taxes will rise by $1,000. A month from tomorrow, unless the House and the other body and the President act, that family's taxes will go up by $1,000 a year. President Obama has said he will sign legislation that prevents that tax increase from happening. The Democratic leader of the other body, Senator Reid, has said he will move and support legislation that prevents that from happening. Last night the minority leader, the Republican leader of the other body, indicated that he was now moving to a position in favor of legislation preventing that from happening. House Democrats are prepared at this moment on this bill, on this day, to support legislation that will postpone that tax increase on middle class families. The American people want us to work together, and I would trust that the vast majority of American people would say that in these economic times working together to suspend a thousand-dollar tax increase on a $50,000-a-year family is something we ought to work together on. President Obama agrees. Senator Reid agrees. It looks like Senator McConnell agrees. Leader Pelosi and the House Democrats agree. But we don't have that bill on the floor this afternoon. This is our opportunity, colleagues, to move away from the daily back-and-forth of Republican versus Democrat politics and do something for which there is broad agreement and, I think, urgent need. Now, we have 30 days to get this done, and our track record is not very promising on meeting deadlines around here. My suggestion is let's move this agenda on this day at this time and put before the House a bill that would suspend this thousand-dollar tax increase on middle class families, all wage earners, across the country. Certainly this is something on which we ought to agree, certainly this is something the House should be able to devote its time to, and certainly we should act on it here today.