Press Release

What they did was – in consultation with John Boehner – came to an agreement. That agreement had 89 Senators out of 100 agree on a proposition that would continue the middle class tax cut, would give certainty and assurance that as of January 1st there wouldn't be a tax [increase], would give 48 million Americans assurance that they would still have access to their Medicare doctors, and would give 2.3 million Americans an assurance they wouldn't lose their unemployment insurance and therefore their ability to support themselves and their families.

This is not in fact a partisan issue. Thirty-nine Republicans, 83 percent of Republicans in the United States Senate voted for this and the American people are saying if 83 percent of the Republicans and almost 100 percent of Democrats are for something, why can’t you come to agreement in Washington, DC? That’s the question we ought to be asking Speaker Boehner – why can’t you take yes for an answer? Why can’t we give the American people the assurance that they need to have, particularly at this holiday time?

Vaclav Havel was a philosopher, an author, a dissident, a statesman. He was a student and teacher of non-violence. As a playwright, he knew that all the world was a stage, but he refused to believe we are merely players upon it. Mr. Havel taught that each and every one of us could be the authors of our future, and in doing so he helped launch the popular movement that brought down communism in Eastern Europe.

The extreme, Tea Party faction of the House Republican conference has once again walked away from a legislative compromise which addresses critical challenges confronting the American people. This action again emphasizes the extreme views and rigidity of the House Republicans even though 80% of the Republican members of the U.S. Senate supported this compromise.

I’m disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer-term extension of critical policies and insisted on unrelated provisions that do not belong in this package. But the House must return and take action on this bill so that middle class families do not see a tax increase, people who lost their job through no fault of their own do not lose unemployment insurance benefits, and seniors do not lose access to their doctors. And when the next session of this Congress resumes in January, we must begin work immediately on longer extensions of these policies to provide certainty for families and seniors. I hope Republicans join us in that effort, rather than taking this to the brink once again and waiting until the deadline is upon us.

I thank the Gentle-lady for yielding. I want to join her in saying that there were some minuses in this bill. The minuses in this bill historically has been as it relates to the District of Columbia that the Congress has treated the District of Columbia as its own possession as opposed to an independent political jurisdiction and has been granted home rule. And the Congress ought to honor that home rule. And as we urge democracies around the world or dictatorships in the world to honor the views of their people , the Congress of the United States ought to honor the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia. And I always lament when we put in these individual provisions.

I rise in support of this legislation, but this ought to be a lesson for us in some humility. Had I as Majority Leader brought the bill that sits on this Floor, 1207 pages, within the last 24 hours, I think the response from that side of the aisle would have been harsh, accusatory, and not helpful. Now why do I say that? Because it happened. It ought to be a lesson in humility for all of us to understand the legislative process is difficult. We bring different views, we represent different constituencies, we have different priorities.

The 112th Congress, so far, has been truly a “do-nothing Congress.” When comparing this year to the year Democrats took over the House in 2007, the numbers speak for themselves.