Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011

Floor Speech

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (H.R. 3630). The title of this bill is misleading at best. H.R. 3630 does not create jobs or relieve the struggles of the middle class. Instead, it drastically reduces federal benefits for the unemployed and slashes health care funding by over $17 billion. Moreover, it contains highly partisan and controversial policy riders that would have no chance of becoming law if considered under regular order.

Let me be clear. Congress must extend the payroll tax cut and offset the extension responsibly. Federal unemployment benefits, in their current form, must be extended before the end of the year. We must prevent a 27.4 percent cut to Medicare physician payments that jeopardize seniors' access to necessary health services. Action is urgently needed to address these issues. However, the House Republican proposal before us today unjustly places the burden of paying for these fixes on those in our society who can least afford it: the unemployed, low-income families, and seniors.

In this bill, House Republicans cut the weeks of unemployment insurance by more than half: from 99 to 59 weeks. Over 43,000 out-of-work Minnesotans will lose unemployment insurance as a result of this change. This is economically counter-productive and morally wrong. This provision will do real harm to Minnesota families and undermine our fragile economic recovery. The result of this cut would be more foreclosures, more repossessions, more homelessness and more anguish for struggling mothers, fathers and children.
Remarkably, my Republican colleagues are heaping insult on this injury by inserting a provision to allow drug testing of applicants for unemployment insurance. Notably, this provision does not apply to the millions of Americans who receive federal funding through other programs and tax benefits. With this ridiculous provision, Republicans are telling millions of unemployed Americans they are untrustworthy and irresponsible. Republicans are choosing to waste taxpayer funds on a big-government drug testing program instead of providing much-needed support to families struggling with unemployment. I could not disagree more with the shameful priorities expressed through the inclusion of this provision.

H.R. 3630 also cuts more than $17 billion in federal funding from hospitals and health providers. This cut will reduce reimbursements for outpatient services, cut payments for unpaid health care debts, shrink the prevention and public health fund, and impose an increase in Medicare Part B premiums for certain beneficiaries. These cuts threaten to restrict access of low-income Minnesotans and seniors to needed health care services.

The House Republican majority had other options for offsetting the costs of H.R. 3630. Among those options was a small and temporary increase on the amount of taxes paid by those Americans least affected by the Great Recession. House Democrats will attempt to improve H.R. 3630 today during floor debate by replacing cuts to health care and unemployment insurance with a 3.6 percent surcharge on incomes over $1 million a year. At a time when income inequality in America is at an all-time high, this is a necessary step to restore economic fairness and opportunity. I will support this motion when it comes to a vote this afternoon.

This Democratic motion is also important because it includes language requiring Members of Congress to publicly disclose their personal trading activity in the stock market. Increasing transparency to prevent Members of Congress from inappropriately profiting from insider knowledge is a common-sense reform that should be immediately enacted. If these improvements to H. R. 3630 are not included, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the legislation.

This bill is likely to be a missed opportunity for true compromise. It does important things, such as extending the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans and preventing a 27.4 percent cut to Minnesota physician reimbursements with a two-year fix. In addition, it extends the physician work geographic adjustment, which ensures Minnesota providers are not additionally penalized by the Medicare payment system. Yet, the decision to pay for these measures with cuts to seniors, low-income families and unemployed Americans was entirely avoidable and thus, completely unacceptable.

Source