Small Business Tax Cut Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution with an amendment I have placed at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 620 provides a structured rule for H.R.

9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill was introduced on March 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), and was ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on April 10.

The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing with tax policy.

Madam Speaker, today we will be considering the underlying legislation, which will allow the House of Representatives yet another opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across America by giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our economy. It would be an understatement not to recognize that this country, including small business, is under duress.

We are under duress in this country. The economic circumstances, which abound across the entire country, are not only obvious to every one of our citizens but also to this body, and we are here doing our job today following through not just in regular order, but the process to make sure that we are talking about what Congress should be doing to aid small business. I believe that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system and entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because we're allowing them competitive advantages.

Earlier this week, congressional Democrats and President Obama offered their competing plan, and their plan is to raise taxes on small businesses. We disagree with that.

Today, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, under the great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, offer a different vision for America. Despite their best effort, congressional Democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our economy. It's really simple logic. Increasing taxes on job creators will not help create jobs. It will place new impediments and roadblocks for not just job creation, but the opportunity for business and small business to be successful.

Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small businesses across the Nation as we demand less government intervention and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business to get what it needs.

Madam Speaker, as this Congress and the American people know, job creators are small businesses. They are the engine of our economy and, as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in Dallas, Texas, the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was necessary in small business. That same engine of our economy is what we are trying to restart and ignite today. Congressional Republicans will continue to promote job creation through robust economic growth because we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get that done.

H.R. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their domestic business income. So, no matter how they're organized under the Tax Code, under the bill the size of the tax cut is kept at 50 percent of W 2 wages paid, encouraging increasing hiring. I have been in touch with small businesses across Dallas, Texas, and across that area, and we do understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to increase the amount of not just employment, but to help them grow their businesses. In return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously, then, Uncle Sam, gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for unemployment.

Small business, we know, employs about half of our private sector workforce and generates 65 percent of our new jobs. What we are here on the floor talking about today supports ideas that come straight from these small business job creators, directly from men and women, many minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to go to college, ideas that they have.

Entrepreneurship, the American Dream, is what we are talking about today, and we need to keep that dream alive. With an unemployment rate consistently over 8 percent for the past 3 years, it's time that we not only take aggressive action, but that we do the things that are being asked for that will create jobs.

In my home State of Texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million sole proprietorships will see immediate benefits from this bill. They call that relief. They call that competitiveness, and we call it up here giving back to those job creators what they need by listening to them and then offering solutions. Those real Texans are struggling even in the midst of perhaps one of the best economies in this country. Texans are still struggling, and small business needs this opportunity today.

Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the President came together to pass what was known as the JOBS Act, a bill designed and designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business. I was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only passed on a bipartisan effort, but has become law.

This underlying bill today applies those very same principles. But instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation before us enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have earned and to reinvest into their own business and to make sure that that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through their own success.

Democrats, quite likely, as we have heard up in the Rules Committee and seen in the press, will oppose this novel concept because they really want Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, not our hardworking constituents back home, to have the availability to get those dollars. I'm proud to tell the small businesses in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Irving, Addison, and Richardson, Texas, that with this bill those small businesses, not just in my congressional district that I am lucky to represent, but all across this country, will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow and succeed and, perhaps most of all, it is a group of people in Washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business, men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just for them and the American Dream, but also for more employees.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding me the time, and I hope that the substance that I provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's request.

First of all, let me say I know Bruce Bartlett. I had a chance to work with Mr. Bartlett when I served as vice president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Mr. Bartlett was a contributor not just to the NCPA, but of economic terms.

I will completely agree with Mr. Bartlett that there are many out there who have successful businesses. Our point is we want them all to grow. Successful businesses are able to hire new people. Unsuccessful businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the amount of pay, but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. So we want people to be successful. And I think Mr. Bartlett is correct. It's a wide swath.

I want small business, because of the size, not because of how successful they are, to be able to employ more people. And that's what Republicans are trying to do. Guilty as charged.

I thank the gentleman.

Here's what I can give. Mr. Bartlett is wrong, because I know there will be at least one new net job created, and I know that because the testimony and information that I received last week as I was at the North Dallas Chamber, several people told me this is exactly what they need. They needed the jobs bill to get credit. They need this opportunity.

And what's interesting is, on the reverse side, is where Illinois, in January, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes, and they lost 58,000 jobs in Illinois quickly because of high taxes. We're trying to make it easier to grow small business. Mr. Bartlett seems like there will be no new job growth--there will be--and he knows better than that.

The answer is no. And I would reply to the gentleman, I saw in this House of Representatives when former Speaker Pelosi increased the amount of money that we had in our Member reimbursement account, we went out and did more, and I hired an additional person at that rate.

If given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want to add employees, and this is what nobody seems to understand in this town.

We are for growing our economy. No one on our side would do something that wouldn't necessarily work. We are doing it because this is what people are asking for to grow the economy.

Thank you very much for yielding.

As the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the hearing which we had in the Rules Committee yesterday, that while these are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them what to do. There are no limitations in this bill that would say that you must or must not do these things. We don't do that.

We try and encourage, on the Republican side, and believe that this is what small business is asking for. I think you will be shocked with not only the success, if we had testimony from these small businesses, but this is what they're asking for.

Let's go to the worthiness of why would we possibly push an agenda that will never be held to the light of day with a vote in the United States Senate--for the same reason that the President will never get a tax increase from John Boehner. This Republican House will not increase taxes, and so I don't know why the President is doing what he's doing.

I believe that would be correct.

I appreciate that and thank you so much for asking the question.

The gentleman was here in 1997. The exact same arguments took place as we worked with President Clinton, and we were told on this floor a capital gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the Treasury, and $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year.

I would say to the gentleman, if we encourage people to go do things, they will turn things into great opportunities.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) who is a freshman who serves on the Transportation, Homeland Security, and Science Committees, and a man who understands what people back home are asking for.

Madam Speaker, we're hearing a lot of rhetoric today about all these millionaires that are out there. And I would be for their ideas if they worked, but the facts of the case are what they create is less opportunity.

The IRS, on their Web site, shows that there were 37 percent fewer people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. That's the latest information we have on the IRS Web site--37 percent fewer people reported numbers of $1 million or more. That falls right in line with what's happening as America goes into bankruptcy. Because this is about fairness. Well, it shouldn't be about fairness. It should be about opportunities, creating more opportunities. That's the same reason why this same rhetoric, why 63 percent of our children move back in to our homes when they finish college--lack of opportunities. That's not fair. Fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something better of their lives.

What we're talking about today will help some 54,509 women-owned businesses in the State of Texas alone that account for 483,000 individuals. That's what we're trying to help and save. This is the right thing. I'm very proud of it.

I know what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do is call it fairness. All it simply does is cause further economic malaise and deficiencies all across this country of small business.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman who sits on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

By the way, President Obama even admitted that did not work, that shovel-ready proposition that he tried to sell across the country simply did not work. I would be for the President's ideas if they worked. What they're about is the supposed fairness, which diminishes the economic opportunity for this country to grow and have jobs and make small businesses grow.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Thank you very much. In fact, I would tell the gentleman we have no additional speakers other than myself, and I'll plan to close.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, not only for his vigorous defense of the Democrat position to increase taxes, but I would like to, if I can, state what really are the facts of the case and what is in this bill.

The claim is that tax cuts will be available for small businesses even if they ship jobs overseas. Well, the fact is this legislation allows the 20 percent deduction for qualified domestic business income. Domestic. That's here. Domestic business. It would not be allowed to include money that was earned overseas. So I think that that is a good part of this bill. I think what Mr. Cantor did is understand that we are trying to grow American jobs.

There have also been a lot of statements made by our friends, but I think the American people need to hear this about the bill and the substitute, which will be allowed and which was allowed in the Rules Committee, and that is, similar to H.R. 9, which is this bill, the Levin amendment, which would be the substitute, does not include any provision addressing companies that continue to make foreign investment. It's devoid of that. Both proposals do tie the small business tax deduction to domestic wages. Both bills do that exact same thing. So to accuse us of not doing something or something that would create or stop business from having jobs overseas, that's devoid of that in both bills. They are both consistent. It's about domestic works.

Similar to H.R. 9, the Levin amendment does not require job creation to benefit from the tax deduction. No one says you have to go and create jobs. We understand enough about business to know this is what they're asking for so they can grow jobs.

The Levin amendment does deviate from H.R. 9 in one very significant way, and that is the amount of money that would be available to small business so that they can expand the economy, grow jobs, and create opportunities for Americans. Obviously, what we're here today to do is to grow the economy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record an article which is from The Wall Street Journal, June of 2011. I would like to read just a little bit of this:

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes.

By the way--and it's off what is here--this was done for fairness. It is the same proposal that Barack Obama, as our President who was just elected, was trying to push in the campaign. Illinois thought it sounded really, really great. So let's see what happened, what the fairness resulted in, and I go back to the article, that between its passage and June--6 months later--Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to statistics released by their own departments there in the State of Illinois. But here is what's really amazing. It's not just that they lost the jobs, but it's the hysteria that ensued therein. I continue to read:

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.''

So they were not even going to get $230 million worth of additional revenue. They put this tax on, and now they're having to beg people to stay. Madam Speaker, I would be for what President Obama and our friends, the Democrats, are for if it worked the way they said it would. The facts of the case are simple.

The Republicans understand business, but we understand the ability to listen and give small business what it's asking for. They'll do their job. I know small business and I know it well. They'll get their job done, and they'll do it quite well. They will add employment. They will hire their neighbors. They will hire more women and minorities who can come in. They will provide real dreams for people and give them not just that entrepreneurship angle but the angle to make sure that we're adding revenue in this country.

Republicans get it and Democrats, too. We are for fairness in a different way. Fairness comes from a job and job creation and the American Dream, not losing jobs and explaining to people, I'm sorry, we just had to do this just to make things fair.

Fairness and not having a job is not fairness. We're aiming for job creation and the development of that, and that's why we're asking people to make sure that we pass this bill today. I applaud Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor for introducing this legislation. It comes from his listening to people across this country.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has

adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small

businesses that employ millions of American workers as a

precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.

To see the real world effect of this proposal on jobs and

the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful,

cautionary example.

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes. Between

its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to

statistics released last week.

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''

So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's

now allowing the government to pick winners (large,

politically-connected companies) and losers (everyone else).

Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is

simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the

56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.

Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.

We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but

because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.

House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and

providing certainty (not new burdens) to our job creators--

and paying down our nation's debt for our children.

The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed

policies of the President's home state, and House Republicans

will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter

future for generations to come.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 620 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3903) to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective

tax rate for high-income taxpayers. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 26 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honor for me, for the first time in 4 years, to say, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 26 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2 and self-executes an amendment by the majority leader, which is required under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. This is routinely required and is similar to many provisions that have been self-executed since the enactment of statutory PAYGO.

The resolution provides for 7 hours of debate on H.R. 2, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of six committees and the majority leader and minority leader.

It also provides the minority a motion to recommit H.R. 2 with or without instructions.

House Resolution 26 provides for consideration of H. Res. 9 under a structured rule that provides an hour of debate and makes in order an amendment, if offered by Representative Matheson of Utah. It also provides for one motion to recommit H. Res. 9 without instructions.

Lastly, the rule provides for the consideration of a resolution if offered by the majority leader or his designee relating to the status of certain actions taken by Members-elect under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, it was just before midnight that my great new colleague

Mr. Webster and I were here in this Chamber, and we filed this rule following a lengthy 12-hour hearing upstairs in the Rules Committee, and I have to say that there were many, many discussions that took place on a wide range of issues, but I think it's very important for us to note that there are those who argue that we should not be taking up this issue because of the fact that we should be focusing on job creation and economic growth.

Well, Madam Speaker, we know that the overwhelming message that came from the American people is that we have to get our economy back on track, we have to create jobs, we have to make sure that those people who are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder are able to do just that. And that's why, when we look at a $2.7 trillion expansion of the Federal Government, $2.7 trillion in new spending, we recognize something that is common sense, and that is, if you're going to expand the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government by that magnitude, it clearly is going to kill the effort to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

And so that's why today, Madam Speaker, we are taking the first step in fulfilling a key promise that we have made to the American people. With this rule, we are setting in motion an effort to repeal President Obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions, and I underscore that again because all the attention is focused on the fact that we are going to be trying to kill good provisions that are out there. Madam Speaker, we want to start with a clean slate. We are going to repeal President Obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions.

This rule takes two important steps. The first is to allow for consideration of a bill to hit the reset button, so to speak, on the very damaging legislation that was passed last year under the guise of health care reform. The second is a resolution directing each of the committees of jurisdiction to craft responsible, effective, and economically viable health care solutions.

Madam Speaker, the resolution lays out very clearly what real reform looks like. Real reform will help, not hinder, in our goal towards creating jobs. Real reform will lower health care premiums by enhancing competition and patient choice. It will preserve the right of patients to keep their existing coverage if they so choose. It will ensure access to quality care for those suffering from preexisting conditions. It will implement meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go to patients and doctors and not to trial lawyers. In short, it will increase access to health care for all Americans without compromising quality or hurting the very important small business sector of our Nation's economy.

Madam Speaker, the underlying replace resolution which I've offered will begin a robust committee process to tackle the difficult but essential work of achieving these goals and crafting true reform for the American people. This will be a process in which each and every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, will have an opportunity to participate.

Madam Speaker, as Speaker Boehner said the day before yesterday when he accepted the gavel, we are returning to regular order. Once again, our committees will be the laboratories, the centers of expertise that they were intended to be. Rank-and-file Members of both parties will play an active role in crafting legislation, scrutinizing proposals, offering amendments, participating in real debate. Critical legislation is not going to be written behind closed doors by a select few.

Today's rule sets in motion a process that will be both transparent and collaborative, but we cannot get to that very important step without clearing the first hurdle, which is to undo the damage that has already been done.

Now, we will hear people say why is it you're considering this under a closed rule. Madam Speaker, this was a clear promise that was made throughout last year leading up to the very important November 2 election. Everyone acknowledges that elections have consequences. The commitment was made that we would have an up-or-down vote on repeal, and that's exactly what we are doing. We must repeal last year's bill before we proceed with replacement.

Just as predicted, the so-called reform bill is having very real negative consequences for our economy and our job market. It is putting enormous burdens on job creators, particularly small businesses, at a time that is already one of the most difficult that we have faced, imposing significant new burdens and penalties while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. We got the news just a few minutes ago that it's at 9.3 percent. We're encouraged by that positive drop, but only 105,000 jobs were created, not the 150,000 jobs necessary to be created just to sustain the position that we are in right now. So we still are dealing with very, very serious economic challenges, and that's why we need to take a commonsense approach to, first, repeal this measure and then deal with solutions.

Above all, I will say that the onerous, unworkable mandates that have been imposed are adding greater uncertainty, which is job creation's biggest enemy. Anyone who has spent any time talking with small business owners knows this to be the case. While the economic impact is already quite apparent, the fiscal consequences are looming down the road.

While the bill's authors used a host of accounting gimmicks--and I'm going to get into those further, as I'm sure I'm going to be challenged on this, and I look forward to talking about the accounting gimmicks that have been utilized--while the authors used a host of accounting gimmicks, as I said, to mask the true costs of this measure, an honest and realistic assessment of the impact on the deficit shows a much clearer and, tragically, a far worse picture.

The Budget Committee has demonstrated the real cost of the health care bill, as I said when I opened, is a staggering $2.7 trillion once it is fully implemented. It will add over $700 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years. The words ``reckless'' and ``unsustainable'' hardly begin to cover it. This bill is an economic and fiscal disaster of unprecedented proportions. The time to undo it before any more damage is done is quickly running out. Republicans promised the American people we would act swiftly and decisively, and that's exactly what we're doing.

So my friends on the other side of the aisle have asked why there will be no amendments to the repeal bill. Frankly, there is nothing to amend. There is nothing to amend, Madam Speaker, to the repeal bill. Either we're going to wipe the slate clean and start fresh or we're not. Now, that's not to say there aren't some good provisions in this measure, but it is so onerous, nearly 3,000 pages, that we believe that the best way to do this is to wipe the slate clean, have an open and transparent process, and do everything we can to ensure that every single American has access to quality health care and health care insurance.

Now, once that slate is completely wiped clean, we will be ready for this open and collaborative process to develop the real solutions that we have talked about. That's what we promised the American people as we led up to last November 2, and that's exactly what we will deliver here today.

Madam Speaker, first, we undo the damage; then we work together to implement real reform and real solutions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and then, after we've gone through the 3-day layover requirement next week, which is in compliance with another promise that we made to the American people, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, H.R. 2, which our colleague, the new majority leader, Mr. Cantor, has offered, and H. Res. 9, which I have introduced, that calls for our committees to work in a bipartisan way to develop solutions to the challenges that we have out there in ensuring that every American has access to quality health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking people can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions. Well, I've just heard what my friend from Rochester has said. I will say that this is a great day for the people's House because we are going to, in fact, be implementing the commitment that was made to focus on getting our economy back on track.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our new colleague from North Charleston, South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a very hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee who was with us for 12 hours up until late last night.

Madam Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, we have 87 new Republicans in the House of Representatives. There's no more impressive group than the four who are serving with us on the House Rules Committee, among them former Sheriff Nugent. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brooksville, Florida.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the Republican conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if he might repeat that line. I think he said that only in Washington, D.C., can there be an interpretation that cutting $2.7 trillion in spending is actually going to end up costing the American people.

Is that what the gentleman was saying? I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a hard-working member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be one of those committees, when we pass H. Res. 9, that will be dealing with ensuring that every single American has access to quality health insurance, our friend from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, our friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, at this point I am happy to yield 1 minute to another hardworking member of this freshman class, my new friend from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend on the other side of the aisle how many speakers she has remaining?

I am told there are 11 minutes remaining on your side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, then, in light of that, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a physician, another hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentlewoman from Mount Kisco, New York (Ms. Hayworth).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to another hardworking physician, a member of this new freshman class, the gentleman from south Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to another great new Member, the gentlewoman from Archie, Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my home State.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is the first act of the 112th Congress, and I have to say that I am particularly gratified that we have had six new Members of this 87-Member Republican class participate in this debate because, Madam Speaker, they have come here with a very, very strong, powerful message from the American people.

That message is that we have to make sure that we create jobs and get our economy back on track.

Even though we have gotten this positive news of the reduction of the unemployment rate from 9.8 to 9.3 percent this morning, tragically last month only 105,000 new jobs were created. That is not enough to sustain our economy. You have to create at least 150,000 jobs just to be treading water.

We know that the American people are continuing to suffer, and the message that has come from the American people through these 87 new Members is that we have to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and reducing the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.

My friend Mr. Pence and I had an exchange in which we said only in Washington, D.C., can saying that cutting a $2.7 trillion increase-- eliminating that, scrapping that--will, in fact, cost money. It's absolutely crazy, but that is what they are arguing; and through their sleight of hand, with the Congressional Budget Office, they are going to continue to claim that it will somehow save money.

Madam Speaker, we are doing what we told the American people we would do. It is very simple. Beginning last year, we said we would have a very clean up-or-down vote:

Should we maintain this $2.7 trillion expansion with government mandates and increased taxes, or should we repeal it? That's what we are going to be voting on after the 3-day layover next week; and, Madam Speaker, are we, in fact, committing ourselves to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance?

That's what the resolution that I have introduced, H. Res. 9, will do. It will direct the six committees of jurisdiction to begin immediately working on ways in which we can drive the cost of health insurance down.

I personally believe that we need to allow for the purchase of insurance across State lines, which is now forbidden under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I believe that it is very important for us to have associated health plans so that small businesses can come together and get lower rates. We need to have pooling to deal with preexisting conditions. We need to expand medical savings accounts. And yes, Madam Speaker, the fifth thing we need to do is we need to have meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go towards doctors and not trial lawyers.

These are the kinds of things that these new Members are telling us need to be done, and that is exactly what passage of this rule will make happen.

Now, Madam Speaker, let me say I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank my friend for yielding the time.

I would begin a little bit unusually by asking a few questions of my friend and then yielding to him for any response that he may have.

A gentleman named Bruce Bartlett was the former Department economist for President Ronald Reagan. He makes this comment: The serious point here is that the term ``small business'' casts a very wide net.

Indeed, since the only test for being a small business under the legislation, as my good friend proposes, is the number of employees, the ultimate beneficiaries of the Republican bill will be some large and profitable businesses that just happen to have few employees.

What is my friend's response to that?

Then I ask my friend first to just listen, and then I will ask yet another question.

Mr. Bartlett also said this:

The Republican tax plan will do nothing whatsoever to

increase employment. It is nothing more than an election-year

giveaway to favored Republican constituencies and should not

be taken seriously.

But I ask my friend, after hearing what Mr. Bartlett said, and listening to you, as well, saying that it's suggested that there will be jobs, is there a requirement in the legislation as is proposed that requires the creation of jobs?

Can you give me a ``yes'' or ``no''?

Let me offer to my friend a complaint: the fact that this matter didn't go through regular order, did not have hearings. It did have one question period during the Ways and Means Committee markup, and the person that was being questioned on the Committee on Taxation was the chief of staff, Thomas Barthold. And when he was asked about the effects of H.R. 9--and the question was put to him by our colleague, Mr. Becerra: Is there a requirement that you create jobs? Mr. Barthold says: There's no requirement on the result of the tax relief.

I go back to you and ask you again: Is there a requirement that jobs be created in the measure as offered?

My friend says that no one would do anything that would not necessarily work. Well, why are we spending the time on this when my friend and I know that this measure is not going to become law for the reason, whether we like it or not, that the United States Senate is not going to pass it?

Last week, contrary to what you said, in the United States Senate the President's plan and the Democrats' plan was offered where there would be an alternative minimum tax for people that pay a million dollars or more in taxes. It's been referred to as the Buffett rule. You said that it didn't pass. It had a majority. But it didn't come up because Republicans didn't allow for it to have a majority. Whereas, had it come up, it likely would have passed because some Republicans would have caused it to pass, also.

You don't create jobs with your 20 percent. And now you need to answer for me: What if somebody, after they get the 20 percent, rather than hiring somebody, fires somebody; do they still get the tax cut?

All of what my friend says is most regrettable. One of the things that I'm sure Members in your Conference are concerned about is the fact that this is a 1-year measure.

Am I correct about that?

Tell me then, how many times have we passed anything 1 year that's a tax something or another that cuts taxes? Let's take the Bush tax cuts that lasted 10 years that are soon to expire. How is it then that you expect that this is not going to go beyond 1 year? One year already is going to cost $46 billion.

Now my friend is a deficit and a debt hawk, and I like to think that I'm conservative enough to feel that the deficit and the debt are matters that we should address in order to give Americans opportunity. Toward that end, what is a $46 billion measure going to do, other than blow a hole in the deficit, since it's not paid for?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, we can point back. I'm talking about what you're trying to do today. What you're trying to do today is blowing a $46 billion hole in the deficit, which will destroy opportunity.

I thank my friend, and let me move on, now that I've had the opportunity to talk with you.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule and its opportunity- destroying under the underlying bill. When it comes to small businesses, Congress should work to create chances for smart, savvy, small business owners to thrive so that hardworking Americans can get a fair shot at a good paying job for an honest day's work and thereby ensure that our economic recovery continues.

Instead, the Republican bill creates only one opportunity, and that is the opportunity for those that are better off, including those of us in the United States Congress, to pay less than we could and can as our fair share in taxes.

Make no mistake: H.R. 9, despite its name, is not going to level the playing field so that American businesses can create the kinds of opportunities that the average American needs. That's because House Republicans have made the benefits of this bill available to a wide range of enterprises owned by wealthy people, including lawyers. I'm one of the lawyers, not one of the wealthy. But when I was a lawyer and had three secretaries as a single practitioner, if you had given me a 20 percent tax cut, I may have shared some of that with those three employees. I assure you I would not have hired anybody. Had you, when I was a lawyer, given me a 20 percent tax cut and required me to hire somebody, then I would have hired somebody, and it may have done some good. But other wealthy people--lobbyists, hedge funds, private equity fund managers, as well as many professional sports teams, without a single requirement to expand employment or invest in the United States.

In fact, under this bill, a business owner could fire, as I asked my friend,

U.S. workers, hire full-time workers in foreign countries and still be eligible for the full deduction.

According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center, approximately 49 percent of the benefits of H.R. 9 would go to 0.3 percent of people with incomes exceeding $1 million in 2012--each receiving an average tax cut of more than $44,000.

That's not creating an opportunity environment in which small businesses can create jobs. As I've said before and will say again, I have no quarrel with millionaires and billionaires and the wealthiest of us in America. And like my friend from Texas, I want everybody to be able to have significant wealth if that were to be possible. I do, however, have a problem with legislation designed to tip the scales in favor of the best among us in this country masquerading as tax cuts for small businesses.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications for this kind of ``trickle down'' tax policy are inaccurate and debunked by history. In actuality, tax rates have little bearing on economic productivity. Some of the fastest economic growth of the post-war period came in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was above 80 percent. The slowest growth came in the 2000s, when the top tax rate was 35 percent--which I pay, and which some of you do not because you are in better circumstances than mine, but all of us in the House of Representatives are better off than the people we want to really help, other than those that are better off like us.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Republican justifications allow that this occurrence, that the change from the 1950s to the 2000s, is easy to explain. Businesses do not make decisions based on tax rates. They make decisions based on factors specific to their business, like their number of competitors and larger macro- and microeconomic factors.

Bills such as the one before us today ignore this reality in favor of pushing Republican pet policies that ignore the actual difficulties facing hardworking small business owners. In the Rules Committee, I cited Betty's Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where I eat breakfast and sometimes lunch or dinner. Betty's doesn't have more than nine employees. If we were to target our relief to 20 percent, Betty would be in better shape. But if Larry Flynt at ``Hustler'' is going to be in better shape because he has less than 500 employees, I'm taking Betty.

I get my clothes cleaned at Spring Cleaners. They've been in business for over 25 years. The owner of that business, after he retired, left it with his daughter. They don't have more than 10 employees in 2 of their cleaning plants. This kind of measure, if targeted to her, would help her. But a law firm here in Washington or a lobbying firm with 49 lawyers that's making $500 million a year will qualify for this tax cut, and I'm taking Spring Cleaners over those lawyers and lobbyists here in this town.

Simply put, what we have before us is the exact opposite of a jobs bill. It's a boon for the rich, the very antithesis of smart tax reform, and does nothing to create opportunities for middle class, let alone, poor Americans. Instead of this misguided legislation before us today, Madam Speaker, we should pass policy initiatives that stimulate economic growth and job creation such as public-private partnerships.

When compared to measures such as infrastructure spending, today's bill would have a relatively small effect on strengthening our economy and helping businesses create even more jobs. In comparison, for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure construction projects, 18,000 jobs--and nobody controverts that, and if you do, say 15,000 jobs--are supported nationwide. And my Governor turned down a billion-plus dollars for a rail project that had been appropriated and that Republicans and Democrats had sought, and it would have created 18,000 jobs. And yet we find ourselves in Florida, just like other places in this country, suffering job diminution. This wasn't money that did not go to Illinois, California, and the Northeast Corridor for rail; it just did not come to Florida.

There are other circumstances. We yesterday passed a measure here to extend the transportation measure for 3 months. Cut me some slack. Jim Oberstar had been begging us before he left Congress to do a $400 billion infrastructure bill that probably would have put us in the position of not having to have done the stimulus had we done it when he asked for it, and we need to do a better bill than the 3-month extension. This was the 10th extension of the transportation measure that we have done. We are better than that, and we could have done what the Senate offered, MAP 21, and we would kick-start this economy rather than kicking this can down the road.

Let me tell you something about the can. It's getting ready to run up against a wall or a cliff, and there ain't going to be nowhere else to kick it. Some day, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are going to have to stand up and face the fact that we must address this in a significant way, and we can't have this gridlock, and we can't have this continuing standoff.

This is supposed to be the ``land of opportunity,'' Madam Speaker. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for rich people. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for middle class and poor people. Let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for small and large businesses. In short, opportunity for all Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on the Buffett rule, which Representative Baldwin has introduced--and I'm a cosponsor of--as H.R. 3903, the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. This bill would ensure that people making over $1 million a year do not pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans. To discuss our amendment to this rule, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would urge my friend from Texas that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I'm prepared to close if he has no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

H.R. 9 is not about creating jobs or helping small businesses increase hiring. It is another in a long line of Republican proposals that benefit those of us, including those of us in the House of Representatives, that are the better-off Americans at the expense of the middle class.

My Republican friends rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Representative Crowley, which I offered in the Rules Committee in his stead, which would have prevented businesses from eliminating jobs in the United States while creating jobs overseas under this bill.

Procedurally, it is also disconcerting that, contrary to my Republican colleagues' self-professed commitment to an open process, Democrats have been allowed only one substitute in an otherwise closed process. Nor was H.R. 9 the subject of any hearing before either the full Ways and Means Committee, or the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, with the exception of a brief question-and-answer session with Joint Committee on Taxation staff during the markup.

Finally, instead of taking real steps to address the very real need to create opportunities for businesses to succeed in a still nascent economic recovery, House Republicans are more than willing to rush through another tax bill that could, if it were to pass--and it is

not going to, and they know that--only help those of us that are better off in society, while sticking middle- and lower-income families with the bill and creating exactly zero jobs.

And you call this opportunity?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this opportunity-destroying measure and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, and I really appreciate Chairman Graves making it possible for so many of us who care about small business in this country this evening to take a little time to talk about how important it is and what we ought to be doing to support our small business folks all over the country. After all, 70 percent of the jobs that are created historically in the

American economy aren't the big guys. They're not the huge corporations, although we want them to do well and hire a lot of people. But even though a lot of people think it's the huge corporations that are doing all the hiring, it's really small business folks. It's mom-and-pops places. It's people that have fewer than 500 employees. Oftentimes, fewer than 50. Sometimes it's 5, or even 1. These are the folks that historically have created 70 percent of the jobs.

And, unfortunately, I would argue that this administration and the policies that have been implemented by many of the folks on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, have made it very challenging to these small businesses to be successful and to hire additional employees. And there's a whole range of issues that we're going to talk about this evening. We have limited time, so I'm going to turn it over to a couple of my colleagues.

I would like to first recognize the gentleman from Arizona, David Schweikert, who's been a leader in trying to come up with policies that will be supportive for small businesses in this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned the Buffett rule. And maybe I'll talk about that as well very briefly here because I think the gentleman from Arizona did a great job in showing that this is really all about politics, is all this so-called Buffett rule policy is.

There's a gentleman named Charles Krauthammer who happens to be, I believe, one of the smartest, most interesting political commentators or pundits in the land. I saw him talk about the Buffett rule and what a farce it is the other evening, and he illustrated it a little bit differently but it's the same type of illustration. One that brings it, I think, down to Earth.

He had the numbers run on this from a very reputable organization. And if the dollars were collected on the so-called Buffett tax for the next 250 years--so the next 250 years this tax is collected--and he commented that that is longer than the Republic has been in existence, the United States of America. This is longer than our existence. So you collect it for the next 250 years. Do you know how much we would actually collect from that relative to the deficit, which is what this is supposed to do, pay down the deficit? It wouldn't cover last year's deficit alone. So not one year of the Obama deficit would be covered by the so-called Buffett rule if we collected it for 250 years. So it's nothing but pure politics. Don't be fooled by that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as small businesses across the country fight to make ends meet and stay out of debt, the Federal Government continues to dig itself into a hole with its exorbitant spending habits. Small businesses are burdened with massive regulations brought on by ObamaCare. They're further plagued by the threat of tax increases-- significant tax increases--next year, should the relief from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be allowed to expire. And that's what some people, particular those on the other side of the aisle, would like to happen. They would like the tax cuts to go away. In other words, if tax cuts go away, taxes go up. And this wasn't on the very wealthy. It was on virtually all Americans--middle class folks, people that take advantage of the child tax credit, and a whole range of people in the middle. And yes, at upper income levels as well.

So a lot of folks would be hit very hard with this, particularly small business folks, because the so-called wealth in this country, many of them are small business folks. Again, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the jobs in this country are created by those folks. So if you're trying to bring the unemployment rate down, why put additional burden on the people that are actually creating the jobs?

Mr. Speaker, tax issues are the single most significant set of regulatory burdens for most small businesses. A recent NFIB Research Foundation study--the NFIB, by the way, is the National Federation of Independent Businesses--found that 4 of the top 10 small business problems were tax-related. Just this week, struggling families and businesses were forced to give the government more of their hard-earned money to satisfy the hungry appetite of government bureaucracies.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Confiscatory tax rates and fiscal irresponsibility have got to come to an end. Small businesses across the country are fighting to keep their doors open and keep their lights on. It's shameful for the Federal Government to expect these hardworking taxpayers to foot the bill for GSA excursions to Las Vegas and inept corporate schemes like Solyndra while the backbone of our economy, which is the small businesses, continues to suffer. After all, American small businesses are responsible, as I said before, for 70 percent of the jobs that are created in this country. Why do we want to continue to make life so difficult for them? Why are they the target for the left in this House so often?

The America I know is a Nation where hard work creates opportunities for success. After all, that's what our forefathers were seeking in the first place. At the founding of our Nation, small businessowners came to this land to escape excessive taxation and cumbersome regulation. These were families of farmers and builders, traders, inventors, and merchants. It's disheartening that today it's our very own government that's creating the job-killing taxation and regulation.

Our economy is still struggling to rebound from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we must support the engine that will propel America forward. This engine has always been fueled by hard work and an economic climate that rewards success.

When I'm back home in my district in greater Cincinnati, I make a point to frequently meet with small businessowners to talk about their successes as well as their struggles. I too often hear that the burden of taxes and regulations, coupled with great uncertainty, is keeping these businesses

from growing, and in many cases forcing many of them to close their doors altogether.

That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. If passed, this legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow American businesses a tax deduction of 20 percent. This is common sense. It's a fair bill that would help small businessowners to keep more of what they have earned to invest in expansion and hiring. That's the important thing--hiring Americans who now need those jobs.

We still have over 8 percent that are unemployed. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will be a shot in the arm to small businesses across the Nation. If there are any of my colleagues that would have any additional things they would like to say, we would welcome them at this time.

May I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining.

One of the other issues that we haven't covered too much here, and let me talk about this very briefly, is the impact that the high cost of energy, gasoline in particular, what kind of difficulty that's causing small businesses across the country, because I hear this all the time from my small business constituents. It's not surprising that energy prices, and gas prices in particular, have been going up so much. They're double--the gas prices alone at the pump are double what they were when the Obama administration took over, and that's most unfortunate.

But it's really not surprising when you consider the person that President Obama appointed to be the head of energy in this country. The chief mind about energy and what we should do about it is the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven Chu a couple of months before President Obama appointed him to that position said that it was his goal, what we ought to try to do, what we ought to strive for, is to raise the price of gasoline in this country, energy costs, prices of gasoline, for example, to European levels. Think of that.

Now they've got approximately, it depends on the country you're talking about, but it's around $9 a gallon--they do liters over there-- but it's about $9 a gallon. Now we're not there yet, but, unfortunately, we're well on our way. It's approaching $4 back in my district in Cincinnati. Here in Washington, just the other day, I had to fill up, and it was about $4.50. So we're not quite there yet, but we're approaching that. It's just unbelievable that we're in this state.

But really I guess it shouldn't be surprising when you consider that the person that President Obama put in control of our energy policy here in this country said that it was his goal to get energy prices up to European levels. As I say, unfortunately, we're well on our way.

Those gas prices, that's what the delivery trucks have to pay, the small business folks that are delivering things to towns, or getting products from other manufacturers. When they come in, they cost more. So they can't charge the consumers as much; or if they do, they drive those consumers away. So it's a vicious circle. We need to get energy prices down in this country, and, unfortunately, they're on their way up.

Another, I think, terrible mistake that this administration has made is to basically shut the door on the Keystone pipeline. This is oil sands from Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north. Our largest supplier of petroleum, by the way, is Canada. And this is a pipeline that would mean a significant number of jobs here in the United States, tens of thousands of jobs. And if we ever needed jobs, we know it's now. And those are good-paying jobs. Many of them are union jobs. But the President has decided that, no, we're not going to make this decision until maybe after the election. So tens of thousands of jobs are at risk here.

Canada has been pretty clear about what they're going to do. If we're not going to accept the oil in our country and build the pipeline, it's quite likely that they'll go ahead and build the pipeline through Canada to British Columbia and ship that oil that ought to be going to the U.S. to China, who is one of our biggest competitors in a lot of ways. And if you know anything about China, the environmental controls that they have over there are far weaker than what we have in the United States.

So if your goal is to make sure that you're protecting the environment--and that's what many of the President's allies, the really radical left-wing environmentalists who are fighting against the Keystone pipeline--if you buy their argument, what they're saying is they want to protect the environment by not having that oil come down here and be refined in the gulf. But the controls we have here are much stronger than what they are over in China. So you're not protecting the environment at all or climate change or anything else if you're going to allow them to spew out what they usually do in China when they handle refining and manufacturing oftentimes and a lot of other things.

We all know how the administration supported an organization like Solyndra and how much tax dollars were wasted there. And it goes on and on. So the energy policy in this country by this administration is impacting consumers. It's impacting you and me and anybody who goes and fills up at the gas pump nowadays. But it's also adversely impacting small businesses and job creation.

Another way that this administration, I believe, has made a mistake which is causing these high prices is to continue to keep off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. The gulf, the moratorium, was disastrous for jobs in the gulf region after the spill down there; and, yes, it should have been investigated very thoroughly. But a lot of those oil derricks ended up leaving that area. They couldn't hold out with that cost, the expensive capital costs over 6 months' period of time, so they ended up off the coast of Brazil, for example.

And the President famously said, We'll be happy to buy your oil, Brazil. Well, we can look at oil all around the world, but we ought to be self-sufficient. And the President said he was interested in being energy self-sufficient in this country, but his policies are anything but that.

So he continues to put off limits much of the Outer Continental Shelf. We had the disaster in the gulf, and ANWR up in Alaska the administration has continued to put off limits. Now, we need to do all these things in an environmentally safe manner. And we have the ability to do that now. But, again, this administration has shut this down. That's affecting all of us in higher and higher gas prices. So it's long overdue for this administration to take a look, a long hard look, at what their policies are doing to the country and to reconsider this, to allow us to go after oil that we have available to us, clean coal, natural gas, and a whole range of fuels that we have here in this country so we don't have to be buying that from countries that oftentimes don't have our best interests at heart.

It sends a lot of money over to regions and countries where, unfortunately, a lot of terrorism that has endangered the world and endangers us has come from. So those dollars aren't always spent in a way that's going to help the United States. So, it's time for the administration to turn its policies around.

Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my gentleman friend, Mr. Dreier, yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What a week it's been. Since being sworn in on Tuesday, the speed in which the Republican Party is working their promises has been dizzying. Speaking of the Republicans' first days

in office, tea party spokesman Mark Meckler summed the week up nicely when he said, ``I actually don't think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this.''

In November, the Republican leadership, led by Speaker Boehner, traveled to suburban Virginia and made a Pledge to America. Their constituents, including tea party patriots like Mr. Meckler, listened intently as the Republican Party pledged to be fiscally responsible and serve the will of the American people. On page 6 of the Republicans' Pledge to America, the party states: ``With commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.''

The pledge was solemnly made by the Republican leadership despite being largely panned as a political stunt. Despite their promise to follow through on their pledge, on Tuesday, aides to the Republican majority said that the pledge to cut $100 billion was ``hypothetical.''

Now today they are moving forward to do the exact opposite of the actions they pledged, as they introduce legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Republican legislation will add $230 billion to the deficit by 2021. This extra $230 billion won't be spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children, or providing for the millions without jobs. Instead, the $230 billion will be added to our deficit in order to take health care benefits and protections from those who need them the most.

For example, starting this year, the Affordable Health Care Act will begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. Under the law, Medicare beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription drugs. Repeal this law, and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising drug costs alone. Those are the types of protections that I fight for today.

Fiscally, Members of Congress face a $300 billion choice. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have two options: one, do we keep the Affordable Health Care Act and save $130 billion by 2021? Or, two, do we repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and add $230 billion to our deficit by 2021? That may be trouble for some; but for most of us, it is easy. For me, the answer is clear; and I assume to most Americans, it's clear as well.

Because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the Republican leadership has taken to discrediting the Congressional Budget Office. Yet a quick bit of research will reveal that Republicans have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the Congressional Budget Office and have publicly supported the agency before. In fact, in 2009 Speaker Boehner repeatedly referred to the CBO as a nonpartisan institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the Affordable Care Act at the time. But now that the CBO's estimates are detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning the work.

Republican Senator John Cornyn warned against dismissing the work of CBO just because it's inconvenient. Two years ago he said, ``I believe the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy.

``But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the facts. Last week, I commended the director of the CBO, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for saying that the CBO will 'never adjust our views to make people happy.' God bless Dr. Elmendorf for his integrity and commitment to telling the truth. We need to learn how to deal with the truth, not try to remake it or cover it up.''

Now, I couldn't agree more with that. The deficit estimates provided by the CBO are the singular authoritative figures upon which we make all of our decisions and have for decades. Even if some don't like what the numbers tell us, we know that numbers don't lie.

I will remind my colleagues that today's actions are not ``hypothetical.'' We truly face a $300 billion choice. We can choose to provide invaluable benefits to millions of Americans while paying down our national deficit--remember that it will save $143 billion over 10 years--or we can choose to end valuable health care protections for millions of Americans and add $230 billion to the Nation's deficit.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering the first measure from the Rules Committee of this new Congress, and my Republican friends have already produced one for the record books. Let me give you some of the highlights. First of all, the resolution includes a completely closed process for two separate pieces of legislation. That means we get two closed rules in one. Maybe my Republican friends think they can save taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single resolution. I think that's what they meant by bringing efficiency to government.

The first closed rule on the health care repeal bill does most of the heavy lifting. It blocks every single germane amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. Well, that's not exactly right, though. It actually slips in one change without allowing the House to vote on it. This special amendment, slipped in with the famous deem-and-pass maneuver, is very interesting. It allows the House to pretend that the repeal bill is free, even though the Budget Office says it will raise the deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a neat trick; and now we know the secret weapon for reducing the deficit: a blindfold.

This closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal because this Republican bill has had no public hearings, no committee consideration, and is not paid for. The second closed rule in this two- for-one package blocks all amendments to another resolution to correct a flaw in the swearing-in process. Apparently the vice chairman of the Rules Committee was conducting legislative business before he was actually a Member of Congress. Maybe amendments are not important here because no Member in the House has seen this resolution, since the rule allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is introduced.

But if any of my colleagues are concerned about not having enough time to read this surprise resolution, don't worry: the rule allows the House to debate it for 4 full minutes, 4 minutes. Have you ever heard of a bill debated for 4 minutes? Fortunately, the rule generously gives the minority 2 of those 4 minutes, and I guess that qualifies as both efficiency and bipartisanship.

Finally, the rule allows the House to consider a sweeping press release from the Republican leadership, a resolution to replace real patient protections with vague rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the House Rules Committee. Our first action of the new Congress violates the promises that we heard from our Republican friends: no public hearings, no committee consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text no Member has read, 4 minutes of debate on an important constitutional issue, and so on.

For all those Members who were sent to Washington, like I was, to repair our Nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the unemployed, help the millions of Americans in need, the decision should be simple. I encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of Republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents, and vote to keep the affordable health care law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, this is not a dispute between Republicans and Democrats about the $1.3 trillion. CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is saying that.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, our ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, we have got every minute taken. I am not sure everybody is going to show up.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and our leader on health care.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont, former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created 1.1 million private sector jobs.

Update on Job Growth Under Health Reform

Today's jobs report exposes the fatal flaw in the

Republicans' argument that health reform is ``job killing.''

Since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the

economy has created more than 1.1 million private-sector

jobs.

That's an average of 123,000 jobs created per month in the

private sector since the enactment of health reform, compared

to an average of 7,000 jobs lost per month in the private

sector during the Bush Administration, when our health care

system was in a downward spiral and insurers had free rein to

raise premiums on families and small businesses by double

digits and deny or limit coverage with no accountability or

recourse.

12 Straight Months of Job Growth in the Private Sector More

Than 1.3 Million Private-Sector Jobs Created in 2010

Unemployment Rate Drops From 9.8% to 9.4%

113,000 private-sector jobs were created in December, the

12th straight month of private-sector job growth.

In all, more than 1.3 million private-sector jobs were

created in 2010. That's a dramatic

turnaround from the situation President Obama inherited in

early 2009, when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

The November private-sector jobs number was revised up

29,000 to 79,000 private-sector jobs created, and the October

number was revised up 33,000 to 193,000 private-sector jobs

created.

Government employment declined slightly in November; as a

result, net payroll growth for the public and private sector

combined was 103,000 in December.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in December.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of Government Oversight and Reform.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel.

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, if we are able to defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill (H.R. 2378) from the last Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for American workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies.

I yield to the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.