Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jay Pierson, who has dedicated the past 34 years to this legislative body and our Nation.

As a floor assistant, Jay's knowledge of the House rules and procedure, and the guidance he provides Members and staff have allowed this institution to run smoothly in service to the American people. As a dedicated, revered, and unwavering presence on House floor, Jay himself has become an institution.

Members and staff on both sides of the aisle call Jay their friend for his assistance and his incredible kindness. Known not only for his expertise on House rules and procedure, Jay is a historian of the House and holds a doctorate in English. None may know Jay better than the staff of the Library of Congress from whom he is constantly borrowing and returning books.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am joined by current and former members of Congress and staff when I say that we all feel honored to have worked with Jay. I thank Jay very much for his service and I wish he, his wife JoAnn, and his sons Joel and Jeff the best as they enjoy more time together.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business.

Members are advised that, due to the ongoing negotiations regarding the fiscal cliff, a weekend session is possible and, therefore, last votes for the week are not yet known.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday. Additionally, we expect to consider a conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013, and a number of other expiring provisions of law are also possible.

As was announced last week and the week before, the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress until action has been taken to avert the fiscal cliff. Members are advised to retain flexibility in their travel schedules through the end of the year to the maximum extent possible.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman he is correct in assuming that the Defense bill will not be ready. We don't know for sure, but probably likely by Wednesday or after, so, without complete surety, I will say to the gentleman, likely a suspension debate on the floor on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

He is correct. We've had this discussion before at the end of each week, and I would say to the gentleman that suggestion that he has, has certainly been brought to me on several occasions this week.

I would say to the gentleman I know that he joins me in the desire to try and address all the aspects facing this country in terms of the fiscal cliff, namely, to try and actually put us on a path to managing down the deficit and the debt; and, as the gentleman knows, we are trying, in terms of negotiating with the White House. And the Speaker has been very earnest in his desire to want to address the spending problem, not just the revenue problem, and the gentleman's suggestion would not go to that.

And I would say to the gentleman his proposal would leave the issue of increased taxes on small businesses making over $200,000 a year. And if the concern is to try and focus on generating more jobs and helping heal the economy, I'd ask the gentleman, in return, what is his suggestion about helping those businesses because, as we know, the preponderance of the jobs created come from those small businesses making $200,000 and up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again.

I think, as the gentleman has heard me say before, the majority of business income comes from those small businesses with incomes over $200,000; and the higher the percentage of income derived from a small business, the more jobs are created by that individual. And that is the point.

We also know, and the gentleman has heard me recite these figures before, there was a third-party outside study conducted which would indicate that if the gentleman's proposal is passed, that we are going to see the reduction of 700,000 jobs going forward. Again, if the focus is on jobs, as it should be, it raises certain concerns.

I would also remind the gentleman, he and I both feel very strongly about trying to do something about the fiscal health of the Federal Government in attempts to try and heal the economy, and the fiscal health of the government has much more to do about getting control of the spending rather than bringing more revenue in. More revenue in can come if we grow the economy, but just by statically increasing tax rates without doing anything to try and address the spending problem will actually make the problem worse and will leave that mountain of debt untouched.

As the gentleman knows, our Speaker has tried and tried to get the White House engaged in actually discussing specifics the way those specifics were discussed a year-and-a-half ago. These kind of things that we all know need to be done on the entitlement programs, the White House needs to come forward and say that they'll join us in trying to fix the problem, and that is what we have not seen.

We have seen, Mr. Speaker, Speaker Boehner go forward and put revenues on the table, and we asked the White House to join us in trying to fix the problem on spending. And that's where things have stopped, and hopefully we can resolve that. As the gentleman knows--and I'm committed--and as we have announced in the schedule, we will stay here until we can resolve the problem.

I'd say to the gentleman, on issues that we have agreement on, I think the gentleman and I both have agreement on many of the spending issues. I think the gentleman has been outspoken in his commitment to say, hey, we've got to modernize, if you will, the age eligibility of some of our entitlement programs. I think the gentleman, if I'm correct, has said that he is in support of adjusting the age eligibility for Medicare.

I'd say to the gentleman this is exactly the kind of conversation that we should be having about fixing the problem rather than just kicking the can.

Again, the gentleman has been very upfront about, I think, his commitment to do some of those more difficult political things that I agree with him on. But, unfortunately, we're not having those conversations. We're not having those conversations because I believe there are others in his party in the House and elsewhere--certainly in the White House--that refuse to engage in the specifics about how we address the mountain of debt and the continuing spiraling upwards of spending. That is what we've got to do.

I think the gentleman would say, with running the risk of putting words in his mouth, that many folks out there who are wealthy would say, sure, I'll pay more taxes. But I would say back to those individuals: I believe that you say that because you would trust that your money is being spent to pay down the debt and the deficit. That's what we're trying to get to.

None of us on this side of the aisle believe raising taxes is good in this economy or it's something that we should do by feeding more money into the Federal Government, and certainly if the Federal Government is not fixing the problem. That's what we're trying to do, Mr. Speaker. I know the gentleman understands my point of view on this, and we've had this discussion continuously.

Mr. Speaker, along those lines, the gentleman talked

about the '01, '03 tax cuts. He is talking about mostly the 98 percent that he refers to that continue to need that tax cut. I'd ask the gentleman, Is he now saying we need to pay for that tax cut?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman I know the gentleman understands that my view is you don't have to pay for giving people back the money that they earned, but the gentleman takes that view; but that's exactly the point of these discussions. Where is the discussion about the specifics on where we are paying for things in terms of reducing spending? That's exactly the point.

If the gentleman would be so kind as to go to the White House and engage the President to say, hey, give us some specifics, because the President so desperately wants to raise those taxes and to grant the 98 percent the tax relief. If the gentleman's contention is the President's, where are the specifics on the other side of the ledger? That's exactly what we're saying, Mr. Speaker. We need to solve this problem.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

I will say this, again, the gentleman has been very good, not in the negotiations with the Speaker and the President, but somehow knowing the state of affairs. Because this is the problem: if the gentleman says that we ought to look to the President's budget proposals as our guide as to what he would accept and propose on the specifics, just yesterday, I think, the news came that the administration has now decided not to uphold its commitment on the Medicaid reduction in spending.

So what are we to believe as far as the President's proposals in his budget from months and months ago and how that applies to the discussions and negotiations around the fiscal cliff? Which is exactly why we need the specifics now. I understand and take the gentleman's point as far as the 800 billion, but we have not dealt at all with the spending side of the ledger. And the commitment should be balanced. As the President always says, we need a balanced approach. Yet we don't have any discussion on the spending side of the ledger other than to reference a prior proposal by the administration which has now said, no, we are not sticking to that on the Medicaid piece.

So what are we to believe? Which is exactly the point. We need real specificity in terms of the spending. And I take the gentleman's point on the 800 billion. Yes, but it takes two sides, and this White House and President have refused on the spending side.

If the gentleman would yield, we have just seen the administration backtrack on its commitment on that list.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I believe that, in all fairness, looking at the credit-rating agencies and their view towards debt ceiling increase discussions, some of that certainly has to do with the continuing increasing of debt and its burden on this country, our citizens, and its economy. And if the gentleman recalls a year and a half ago when we were engaged in the discussions around the increase in the debt ceiling, we established a proposition which said that if we're going to increase the debt ceiling, we ought to be decreasing the spending in a commensurate amount.

That's very simply put. The difficulty was we could not get the gentleman's party and/or the White House to go along with us in terms of agreement of those spending reductions. It's an echo of the original discussion the gentleman and I just had as far as the fiscal cliff is concerned.

Our commitment is to try to reduce the mountain of debt that is strangling this country and try to stop the spending that continues to spiral out of control. So any discussion of the increase of debt for us has to be accompanied with a real commitment to the reduction in spending, otherwise those credit rating agencies are going to continue to do what they did.

In order to engender confidence in those agencies and the markets and throughout the American economy and the public, we have got to gain some credibility on the spending issue and stop the spending. That is our position. The gentleman knows that. Yes, we all agree, America is a country that pays its bills. We need to stop racking up so many of them because we've gotten to a situation where we are generating a trillion dollars of additional annual debt. We can't do that. That is why we take the position we do, to try and arrest that, to get our economy back on an even keel so we can heal that economy.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is a mischaracterization of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. All I said was we feel this White House has a tin ear in terms of the spending problem. What we're saying is we need some balance. Just as the rhetoric comes from the White House that we need a balanced approach, we need a balanced approach on both sides, spending and revenue. That's what the whole discussion is about on the debt ceiling issue because it is accessing additional funds for the Federal Government, but instead of through taxation, borrowing. Equally, if we are going to increase that, we better be decreasing the other side of the ledger so we don't continue to increase and mount that debt.

As the gentleman knows, on the farm bill we are committed to trying to address the issue of the farm bill prior to leaving for the year.

As far as the Violence Against Women Act, as the gentleman knows, I'm in discussions with the Vice President. I know it is of particular interest to him. There are many Members on our side whom I've met with today, as well as Members of the other body, who are interested too. We have met, and we are trying to work out the differences. I'm committed to do all I can, as the gentleman knows, to bring this to a conclusion so we can see its passage.

As far as the supplemental bill, I know that the White House--and the gentleman has heard me say this before--has submitted its request. Our Appropriations Committee is doing its review of the request to see that that supplemental aid gets to the victims that need it, to the localities and the States that need it, and is money that will be spent directly as a result of the very catastrophic storm of Sandy, and we hope to be able to resolve that as well.

We are operating in an environment of the post-Budget Control Act where we have put in place budget mechanisms for disasters. As the gentleman knows, FEMA has indicated it has the money it needs to operate for at least a little while, but we're committed to making sure that adequate funding does get to the victims of that very catastrophic storm.

I think the gentleman is aware, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the committee, Chairman Camp, is speaking with the ranking member to try and see what it is that we can do to go forward on that issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday. Members are advised that this is a change from the original House calendar.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday. Additionally, the House will appoint conferees for the National Defense Authorization Act now that the Senate has completed its work.

As was announced last week, the House has a number of outstanding legislative items that we must resolve, and first amongst them is the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' Though the House's target adjournment set in October of last year was December 14, that is no longer the case. Instead, Members are advised that the House will now be in session the week of December 17. Exact days will be announced next week. Members are further reminded that the House will not adjourn the 112th Congress until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been found.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I don't think it is a good thing right now to bring that bill to the floor because we hope that we can have successful negotiations with the White House.

I think, as the gentleman said earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, that our side actually put on the table, in our letter to the President, some specific proposals that actually deserve a response from the White House. That's what we're looking for: Are we going to get a response to our proposal about putting revenues of $800 billion on the table, of putting out there a framework for spending reduction?

I know, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has agreed with me that we've got to do something to address the spending problem because you can't keep taxing and borrowing without doing the other side, which is to take care of the problem of spending. I think that the letter and the proposal that we sent to the President deserve a response, Mr. Speaker; and if we don't get a response, then perhaps the President will be willing to meet with us--one or the other--because it doesn't seem to me to be upholding the obligation to the American people that we're going to resolve this issue if we just stand still.

We put these specifics out on the table. The President has not responded. We ask the President to respond, Mr. Speaker. And I'd say to the gentleman that I hope that that's what can happen, either a response from the President--not just a summary rejection but a specific, serious response in the nature of our proposal--or if the President would agree to sit down and talk

about it. That's what we've got to do to fulfill our obligation. I don't think bringing that bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, is going to further that likelihood.

I thank the gentleman.

That's what, really, discussions are for; that's what meetings are for. It's to try to get to the specifics. And although he and I differ, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I differ about the specifics of our proposal and the President's proposal because, frankly, I know and I think both sides know where each other are on taxes right now. Certainly the President was in a different place back in the summer of 2011 when he had indicated that--what was said was, Give us $1 trillion in additional revenues which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates is what the President said. Certainly the position he's taking now, that absolutely we have to have rate increases, is different than that. But that's what the President has said this time. So we know where each other is there. It's the specifics on the spending.

The gentleman points out, Mr. Speaker, that the President has submitted budgets in the past. There's been no discussions of specifics whatsoever, even when the Speaker or I have suggested in meetings that we've had as to where are your specifics. They have just not been forthcoming. So if the President is serious to actually do something about the problem, then I think we do need to come together and say to the American people we're willing to cut the wasteful spending here and, in the gentleman's own words, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we actually spend, not to just keep spending what we don't have. I think it could really move the ball forward on these negotiations.

So I accept the spirit in which the gentleman suggests we should have more discussions to get the ball moving forward; it's just the White House doesn't seem willing to do so. And instead, we see the President going on a television interview and saying that he summarily rejects our position instead of trying to get down to the specifics of the problem, which is reducing wasteful spending.

I accept the gentleman's good intentions, and I know that he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the American people to pay more of their money into Washington if the money is not going to be spent in a way that is something that they would like.

So if it's wasteful spending, or if it's spending just to aggravate the deficit situation, and that's from the perspective that we come, fix the problem. If the obsession is to raise taxes, you know we don't agree with that, but fix the problem.

So if you're asking for somebody to give more of their money to Washington, then at least be able to tell them that we are going to manage down the debt. That's what we're about here, which is why the focus is on spending, and how we have to ratchet down the spending in this town.

That's where we've heard no specifics or willingness on the part of the President to engage in discussions about specifics on spending.

As far as the math is concerned, again, it was a very different President in the summer of 2011 when he said $1.2 trillion in additional revenues could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. That's what he said. So, again, all of a sudden that math doesn't work, but it worked for 1.2 before.

Regardless, we sort of understand now, at least this round, where everyone is on taxes. Let's get to the problem, and maybe then we can resolve the taxes question.

I'd just say, the gentleman is really saying there is a need for discussions, and that's what I'm saying today, Mr. Speaker.

We need to sit down and discuss. We do agree on that. Obviously, the White House doesn't agree on that, and we're trying to urge some real serious commitment to resolving this on the part of the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I'll try and be brief. On the farm bill, the gentleman is correct. We're going to face some very dire consequences if we don't act on the issue prior to leaving here. And part of what I had indicated last week is that is something we are focused on and know we've got to deal with the issue prior to the end of the year.

On the issue of VAWA, as the gentleman and I have discussed many times on the floor, he knows that we can't go to conference with the Senate bill. The Senate bill has a blue slip problem.

I am speaking with the Vice President and his office and trying to resolve the issue of the differences surrounding the VAWA bill. This week I've actually been encouraged to see that we could very well see agreement on VAWA, and I'm very hopeful that that comes about. But I am encouraged about the discussions that my office is having with the Vice President's office right now, that bill being a high priority of Vice President Biden.

On the issue of the supplemental, I imagine, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has seen the press reports that I have that the White House is anticipating sending up a $60 billion supplemental request for damages related to Sandy, and I think tomorrow would be that day, at least according to press reports. As the gentleman may know, the FEMA Director testified to the House yesterday that the agency can meet its needs associated with the disaster through the spring. Approximately $2 billion has been delivered, with about $5 billion remaining in the disaster relief fund.

So, again, no one is here saying that we don't want to deliver the necessary aid to the victims, because that is a priority. But we're looking forward to receiving that request and taking a look at the numbers and the need to make sure we can move forward on that as well.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, postal reform. The gentleman and I have, yes, talked about this a lot and know that the issue has to do with the obligations of the Postal Service and how we can address those to create a more balanced prospect for the future to allow for its continuance, so we're looking at that as well. And the gentleman knows there's a lot of discussions, both bipartisan and bicameral, on that issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that getting our economy moving again needs to be our top priority, but jobs will not take off until American businesses have the workers they need to drive innovation and growth.

The immigrants who come to this country for school and for work have always been key players in driving our Nation's economy. Unfortunately, current immigration policies are preventing American businesses from hiring foreign students who earn advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math from our best universities.

From growing startups to U.S. multinationals, American employers are desperate for qualified STEM workers, no matter where they're from. Microsoft, for example, has over 6,000 job openings waiting to be filled by scientists, researchers, engineers, and developers. For now, these openings and many others will remain vacant because too few American students are graduating with STEM degrees, and foreign STEM graduates can't get the visas they need.

Every year, the U.S. invests in educating thousands of foreign students in STEM fields at our top universities only to send them back to compete against us. Chairman Lamar Smith, along with Congressman Raul Labrador, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and, of course, the chairman from California, Mr. Issa, have all been working on this, and we've now put forward the measure before us to spur job creation by providing a pathway for American-educated foreign graduates with advanced STEM degrees to work here and contribute to our economy.

This bill also keeps immigrant families together by letting the husbands, wives, and minor children of immigrant workers wait in the U.S. with their families for their green cards.

The STEM Jobs Act reallocates existing visas currently distributed through a random lottery and directs them, instead, to the highly skilled foreign graduates of U.S. universities who have enormous potential to help grow our economy, which is our top priority.

The Partnership for a New American Economy found that every immigrant with an advanced STEM degree, working for a U.S. company, creates about three new American jobs, and one-quarter of all STEM-focused companies in the U.S. count at least one immigrant as a founder. At American multinationals like Qualcomm, Merck, GE, and Cisco, immigrants filed up to 72 percent of the patents filed, giving those businesses a competitive edge and helping them expand and create jobs here at home. Our commitment to foreign STEM graduates is a commitment to American job creation.

Foreign students are drawn to our shores by our world-class universities, and they want to stay because they know, in America, there is immense opportunity. We need to bet on the students who bet on America. We are a Nation that was built by people who risked everything for the promise of opportunity, and we must continue to be that Nation. We must make sure that U.S. companies can hire the top foreign talent we are educating instead of sending those graduates into a bureaucratic maze--or worse, to our competitors.

This is a commonsense solution that should have bipartisan support. Let's pass the STEM Jobs Act to make sure diplomas come with green cards, not with a spot on a government waiting list.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the former Democratic whip and now the new Democratic whip, for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. No votes are expected on Monday evening in order to accommodate the annual White House Holiday Congressional Ball. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Wednesday. Members are advised that this is a change from the original House calendar.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. As Members are aware, the House has numerous outstanding legislative items that we are actively working to resolve. First and foremost is a resolution to the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' We're also awaiting action from the Senate on items like the annual Defense and Intelligence authorization bills, an extension of FISA, and others. Negotiations on these and many other issues will continue regardless of the daily legislative business of the House, and Members are advised that we will not adjourn the 112th Congress until a credible solution has been found that meets these challenges.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the 2013 House calendar is now publicly available at majorityleader.gov. The House will convene the 113th Congress at noon on January 3, and we will be in session for a total of 126 days.

I thank the gentleman.

In direct response to the gentleman's questions, it is not the intention of this majority leader to bring forward to the floor that bill, for several reasons.

First of all, Madam Speaker, the notion of increasing tax rates in an economy that still is struggling, where we have entirely too many Americans out of work, is something anathema to a job-creating future. And secondly, Madam Speaker, raising tax rates, asking Americans, small businesses, to pay more of their money into Washington when Washington cannot seem to get a handle on its spending problem will just make matters worse.

We've got to stop the spending madness. As the gentleman knows, that is very much what this majority has been about. We want to finally provide the fix to some of the entitlement problems, the unfunded obligations that we continue to incur daily in this country.

Madam Speaker, it is not the intention for us to vote to increase tax rates on anybody in this failing economy, but we do look forward to continuing in our discussions with the administration, with the White House. The Speaker and I met with Secretary Geithner yesterday in hopes of trying to find some common ground so we can avoid the fiscal cliff, so we can get back onto a road of confidence and job creation in this economy.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, where we don't agree is asking anyone to pay more out of their paycheck to Washington when Washington seems to be incapable of getting hold of its spending problem, which is why, Madam Speaker, we continue to ask this President in these negotiations to be specific with us.

We want to address the problem. We realize that we are digging the hole deeper every day and that taxpayers are on the hook. That's why we say it is now not the time to ask anyone to pay money into Washington when we keep increasing the debt the way we are. So there is not agreement that we ought to raise taxes. There is not agreement at all until we get the problem fixed. That's all.

We can see eye to eye on this, but let's all start where we know we've got to go, which is addressing the spending problem. Then, finally, we can perhaps fulfill the promise of rebuilding the confidence that people need to have in this Federal Government.

Will the gentleman yield?

Look, Madam Speaker, just imagine that those individuals the gentleman likes to say are perfectly willing and capable to pay more taxes, the small business man or woman who may make over $200,000 individually, $200,000, that individual will see a tax increase come January if that bill is passed or if nothing is done.

So, Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman can be technical in his argument and say there's no tax increase, but the end effect of passing that bill, as if it resolves the matter, would mean an increased tax bill for a small business man or woman, a working man or woman at that income level. So let's be honest about what the impact is of saying that that bill is the final resolution here. I mean, the gentleman knows that is correct.

So, again, we've been through this. All I would say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman is we are earnest in our desire to want to resolve things, and we are earnest in our statements that we don't want to go over the fiscal cliff. We've got to come together and solve this problem. Allowing taxes to go up on a certain portion of the population doesn't just fix the problem. The problem is in the spending. The gentleman knows that, he's been a real committed deficit hawk. He continues to say we've got to pay for what we buy. Well, we've bought these incredible entitlement programs, and they've got to be sustained for the people who are relying on them, which is why we want to save them. That's solving the problem. That's where we need to go on this.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to belabor the point. But I just want to tell the gentleman that I did not say he was technically correct. I said he was being technical in his argument.

I then went and made the case that the real impact of what the gentleman is advocating will be that taxes will go up on many people, those job creators and others. That was all.

Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that both the Speaker and I have both said that we will deal with the issue of the farm bill or the issue in and around the farm bill before leaving this year.

I would tell the gentleman it is our sense that the farm bill, in being brought to the floor in regular order, does not have the votes to pass this House. And we understand the importance of the issues surrounding the farm bill and working with Chairman Lucas and others.

But on both sides of the Capitol, we look forward to hopefully reaching

some type of resolution on issues surrounding the farm bill prior to leaving this year.

Well, I would tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the Chair is actually the author of the House bill.

The House bill was passed out of this House. It had broad support. It was a bill that did not intend to target any specific group. It tried to streamline the grant-making process so that the benefits designed to address the needs of abused women and others could reach the victims; and I am committed to seeing if we can get this bill done.

The gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, that the Senate bill has a blue- slip problem. The Senate bill is not over here. So we continue to negotiate and discuss ways for us to resolve this by the end of the year. The Vice President and I have even spoken, because it's an issue very near and dear to his heart, to try to see how we can resolve this.

So I commit to the gentleman that I am looking to see this resolved and passed by the end of the year and to see where we can land in a way that preserves most of what that bill is about that we can have in common rather than emphasizing the areas of difference.

Madam Speaker, I will tell the gentleman I think he would agree that the best policy is to allow the administration of FEMA to come up with the estimate and the most accurate prediction of what the costs are before we move. So that would be in response to the first part of his question.

Secondly, as the gentleman knows, when we passed the Budget Control Act last year, it had in it the mechanisms to actually budget for disaster relief and imposing a formula for a 10-year rolling average, allowing for the preservation, if you will, of those dollars dedicated to disasters was what we accomplished there. And it is that process that is much different than prior to the BCA, and I think it obviates the need for us to engage in this discussion that he wants to engage in regarding offsets.

I will tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that we did, as he knows, observe a moment of silence in memory of those who lost their lives in that horrific storm to hit the east coast of the United States. Certainly all of us, our thoughts, our prayers, our sorrows go out to the loved ones who have lost family members, friends in that awful tragedy of a storm. I have not looked at Mr. Nadler's bill but will do so, I will tell the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and their continued excellence in providing American military leaders with an unparalleled look at the challenges facing Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. JINSA's annual Generals and Admirals Trip to Israel offers recently retired American generals and admirals the opportunity to consult with Israel's senior political and military leadership on the persistent threats Israel faces across its borders and the shared threats our countries face in the region.

America has a long standing commitment to the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship, a unique bond forged by shared interests and shared democratic values. No country in the tumultuous region stands aligned with our ideals more than Israel. Amid a rising tide of radicalism and violent extremism in the region it is imperative that the United States stand by her ally and ensure that Israel can maintain its Qualitative Military Edge so that threats to Israeli and American security will be answered with strength and resolve. America's military and intelligence cooperation has proven successful and our joint missile defense efforts such as Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow have saved lives from the rockets launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip. These collaborations have also prevented weapon smuggling in the Sinai Peninsula and have effectively protected Israel against terrorism.

Unfortunately, as Iran expands its influence in the region, the threat of terrorism and conflict grows. Iran's radical mullahs call for death and destruction of Israel, America, and all that we stand for. Iran also continues their long-standing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and today they are closer than ever to a nuclear bomb. The sanctions we have implemented have impacted Iran's economy, but Iran's leaders remain undeterred from their pursuit of their dangerous goal and continue to support various terrorist factions such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. Iran's leaders are also strategic patrons of Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad, a brutal despot and sponsor of terrorism whose violent suppression of his own citizens has fueled sectarian conflict and extremism in violence in Syria. The United States must act as a global leader in order to thwart Iran's nuclear capabilities, combat their terrorist proxies, and ensure that the security of the United States, Israel, and our Arab allies is assured.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing JINSA for another successful trip that seeks to solidify our nation's support for Israel, with whom we share a commitment to freedom, a respect for human life, and a commitment to security. Global security depends on strong U.S. leadership. The U.S. must stand tall for Israel, now more than ever, and must not abandon our ally at a time of enormous instability in the region.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, since we were elected to the majority, the House Republicans have put forward solutions to spur job creation and economic growth by, frankly, focusing on and helping small businesses get off the ground to grow and hire. We've worked hard to drive small business job creation and innovation by enacting patent reform, the JOBS Act, and the removal of regulatory and tax burdens that are impeding small businesses' growth.

The STEM Jobs Act we are voting on today is part of our commitment to help small businesses, to help them create jobs by ensuring that top foreign students in American universities have the opportunity to launch or work for American businesses.

The bipartisan STEM Jobs Act takes 55,000 visas currently awarded based on a lottery and instead awards them to foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This legislation provides students with the opportunity to stay here in America where they can contribute to the American economy rather than leaving for other countries, taking their venture capital with them to compete against America and her businesses.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, as well as Congressman Henry Cuellar for introducing this legislation. I'd also like to note that Congressman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Congressman Raul Labrador from Idaho have also been instrumental in getting us here.

But there's a reason why we in America are the world's leading innovators and have within our borders the world's leading innovators and why they choose to launch their companies here. Our Nation offers immense opportunities to those who come to our shores.

My grandparents, just like so many others who immigrated to America, knew what foreign students know today: that America has always been a place which puts a premium on ensuring that, no matter who you are or where you're from, everyone here should have the opportunity to go and achieve and earn success.

According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. So we must start to take advantage of our status as a destination for the world's best and brightest. We must continue to do that. We want job creation and innovators to stay here and help us compete.

Over the past two decades, the number of international graduate students enrolled in our Nation's top-notch universities has grown. But, as the Congressional Research Service shows, the percentage of these students who gain visas has largely remained the same since 1990. The STEM Jobs Act says to our foreign graduates, You choose America and America chooses you.

More talent in our workforce will mean more innovation, more start- ups, more entrepreneurship, more jobs and a better economy. It's time our visa system adopted this commonsense advancement. It's time for us to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope there is a broad bipartisan base of support when the vote occurs.

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership in bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to condemn the violence against our diplomatic missions in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and elsewhere.

We acknowledge and honor the personal sacrifice of the brave Americans who gave their lives in service to our Nation. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and Security Officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty tragically lost their lives far from home in Benghazi, Libya, where they were promoting American interests and helping the Libyan people secure the hard-fought gains of the revolution. These heroes died upholding the liberty, democracy, and moderation we value as a Nation.

In the wake of their deaths and the ongoing protests and violence, Americans want to know what our strategy is for protecting our diplomats, our interests, and our values in a region that is undergoing a profound--and unfortunately sometimes violent--political transformation.

Americans are rightly worried about the anti-Americanism and Islamic extremism that has reared its head. I share the concern that Americans have about the situation in the Middle East, and I believe the President should explain his strategy for navigating the uncertain waters before us.

But I know that one policy we must not pursue is to turn our back on this troubled region. Withdrawing from the region would embolden the extremists and justify Osama bin Laden's strategy, leaving the moderates who share our values and who desire democracy to combat the forces of violence alone.

We are not alone in this fight. From Morocco to Indonesia, there are brave Muslims who oppose violence, who desire good relations with the United States, who respect religious freedom, and who risk their lives by preaching tolerance and moderation. We should redouble our efforts to stand with these Muslims who seek to protect a great religion from being subverted by extremists.

We should not abandon Libya because terrorists seek to undermine a government that is making progress towards establishing a democracy and that is joining the fight against terrorism.

Egypt's democratic revolution is unfinished, and much work remains to ensure that its first election is not its last. We should work with Egypt's leaders to help them build a democracy that respects individual rights, women, and religious freedom while being clear that we will not tolerate policies that give any ground to terrorists or undermine our security or that of our ally Israel.

American assistance is not an entitlement, and Congress expects Egypt's new leaders to respect the parameters and conditions of our generous aid.

America must not abandon its partners, just as we should not apologize for our perceived sins. We must demonstrate leadership. We should lead a coalition against the radical mullahs in Iran who foment instability and support extremists throughout the region. America should combat Iran's support for terrorism and thwart its aspirations for nuclear weapons.

America should be leading an international effort to bring overwhelming pressure on the Assad regime in Syria to end, once and for all, its state sponsorship of terrorism and to bring about a new government in Syria before that society fractures beyond repair.

Mr. Speaker, America has long been a force for good and stability in the Middle East. When we have retreated in the past from playing this role, we have paid dearly. Withdrawing from Lebanon in the 1980s ceded that country to Syria and Hezbollah. Failing to respond to al Qaeda's attacks in the 1990s led Osama bin Laden to believe he could attack the American homeland.

The extremists in the region believe today, as bin Laden believed then, that we do not have the stomach to defend our friends and our interests, that we will abandon the Middle East. We must prove them wrong by responding to this challenge with purpose and strength. We must stand with our friends and hold our enemies to account.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the House. On Wednesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of American universities in the STEM fields, an issue being championed by Chairman Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas, as well as Bob Goodlatte from Virginia and Raul Labrador from Idaho. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 118, sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rules submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The House will also consider H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act, sponsored by Bill Johnson of Ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create American jobs.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that with the Senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the House during the week of October 1. This is a change from the original House calendar.

I thank the gentleman.

Before I get to the farm bill, I would just like to respond to the initial statements about the House's work in terms of jobs and taxes.

The gentleman well knows that we have sent to the Senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin to invest and create jobs again.

We've also, as the gentleman knows, passed H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. We did that on August 1. It was a bipartisan vote, including 19 House Democrats. This followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform in this Congress. What we did in that bill, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. We don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers, and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his job bill, we passed a jobs bill. We passed numerous jobs bills--in fact, over 30 jobs bills--sitting in the Senate. The inaction has been on the Senate.

So, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, I, in fact, just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. We're trying to look for ways forward. Yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster of the drought. As the gentleman rightly said, we passed a drought relief bill on the livestock issue. It's sitting over in the Senate. Again, inaction.

The gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. There is nothing in the bill that is controversial. It's a fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. Well, one thing we know in common is we're all for allowing the relief on the livestock issue for the farmers.

Why can't we get that done? Why can't we just finally decide to say, You know what? There are some areas of disagreement, and we realize that, reasonable people do, and certainly in election season it sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. But we also know there are things in common. Addressing the livestock drought issue is something we do have in common. We passed that out of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman any indication that he could give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, I think, a positive thing for the farmers. We continue to work on how to go forward, and, yes, there could be a possibility there is some action next week on the issue of the farm bill, looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say that there is not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. The reason is, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work, or underemployed, or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. We're concerned about those people, and the best thing we can do is create a job and see them go back to work.

We saw that this summer Ernst & Young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policy--the gentleman's tax policy, the President's plan to raise taxes--is going to destroy 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from the economy, and lower wages for all working Americans by 1.8 percent. That's what that study said.

So, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that because if you raise taxes, there are going to be less jobs, there is going to be less growth. We're trying to focus on those people who need to get back to work, who want to get back to work. That's where the agreement is--that we all want to help people. We just don't believe that you help people right now by laying down a tax increase, putting more money into the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. That's what we want to do, fix that problem, help those people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, no, that's not why these bills haven't passed. First of all, the Violence Against Women Act passed out of this House. It's sitting over in the Senate because the Senate's got its own bill that has a blue slip problem. Let the legislative process work over there, send us a bill, and we'll get something done. The gentleman did not, on his side, overwhelmingly join us in the VAWA bill. Okay. So the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. We went and did our work.

And I'll say more to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. The postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is his side, Mr. Speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. Everyone knows the post office needs reforms. Everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the U.S. taxpayers. We're trying to fix that problem. But because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a 5-day delivery--this is something that the President supports. But because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. Again, it's this insistence: We can't do that. We all know that's common sense. Common sense is reforming the postal service--something everyone knows needs reform. That's why that bill didn't pass, Mr. Speaker.

We've got another issue on the farm bill. There are issues of policy differences. And the gentleman knows throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the SNAP program and the rest. We have GAO recommendations year in and year out about that program, but unwillingness on the part of the minority to ever engage in a discussion of real reform in those programs.

Again, let's remember what we're talking about in a farm bill. Most of it by far are not farm programs, they're food programs. Again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward, we need to understand the specifics and know there are real policy differences. Yes, we're all willing to work together--or at least we are on this side. So I really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. No. We want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. That's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or run their family. It's not all or nothing. It's not black or white.

Would the gentleman yield for that fact? Because that's not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, it's not true. We don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits under VAWA, and he knows that. It was simply a matter of new language inserted by the Senate that, really, we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. We want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others, and the gentleman knows that. It's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. All of us care about those victims.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again.

First of all I'd ask, was there over 8 percent unemployment then? That's the first thing, Mr. Speaker.

We are about trying to do something to get people back to work. And if you're worried about the 98 percent, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs. And so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that that tax hike that he's advocating is going to affect 53 percent of all small business income. The Joint Committee on Tax says that.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. Okay?

And the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 percent.

It's about jobs. I mean, that's the thing, Mr. Speaker. We always hear somehow that we're favoring some big bad business. No, we're about the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration definition, create jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the gentleman's mind, somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets a benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike under our plan will go out and create a job.

I absolutely retract that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely retract that. But the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. And what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs. That's the prescription we need right now is more jobs.

Our policy is about helping those small businessmen and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. That's all.

Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very plain. The gentleman has a way of simplifying things. According to what I took from what the gentleman just said, if we'd just raised taxes, all those jobs wouldn't have been lost, and everything would have been fine. Again, our proposition is completely the opposite.

We believe that we've got a real spending problem here, Mr. Speaker. We've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The gentleman talks about Members having to pay more when, in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require Members as well as Federal employees to pay more towards their retirements. The gentleman wasn't supportive of that. We've got some serious unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The

American people know that. We are trying to solve problems. The problems are not solved by raising taxes.

Now, if the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes--again, because there is a 2 percent that he just wants to pay more--I ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of.

You've got to reform the programs. Mr. Speaker, we've been the only ones to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem--the President has not; the Senate has not; and the gentleman has not.

It's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim America in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I'm going to try and make sure that I don't bring on even more because I know our colleagues are waiting to speak.

I would say to the gentleman there is not unanimity on his side, as he knows, on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected Bowles-Simpson and the President has not endorsed Bowles-Simpson, which is part of the issue that the gentleman seeks some clarification on, which is: Where is the plan to get us out of this? The President was unwilling to even adopt that.

The gentleman I think knows the reason why our side rejects Bowles- Simpson. We believe there are some good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I do look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can work together in a cooperative fashion to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. I'm looking forward to that.

But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach, unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with $1 in cuts is balanced. We don't believe so, because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy.

We also believe that the Bowles-Simpson revenue target of 21 percent of GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which we've been at pretty much over the last 70-something years, save for 3 years. We believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into Washington for Washington to make the decisions.

We've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. Yes, it's a totally legitimate discussion point, but it's an issue. It's not just rejection out of hand like the minority leader and the President have said. They reject that. We say this is why, and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. How are we going to deal with it?

Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address this fundamental problem of growing unfunded liabilities. We want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. That's our position.

So I do look forward to working with the gentleman. There are some great things about tax reform in Bowles-Simpson. I want to work with the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a conversation about resolving the deficit and the spending.

Again, I'm trying not to invoke any more time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, September 18, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey and commend the gentleman from Florida on bringing this bill forward.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us is not about tax rates. Because I think that that issue will be resolved one way or another here shortly in this election. We know that there's a difference between the two sides. Unfortunately, our counterparts on the other side of the aisle think it's very important in this tough economy to raise taxes. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. The bill before us simply asks the President to give us his plan for replacing the first year of cuts in the sequester.

It has been 126 days since we passed our plan to responsibly replace the sequester with cuts that maintain our fiscal discipline. Our plan controls unchecked government spending and reduces wasteful and duplicative programs. But still there has been no action and no proposal coming from the other side of the Capitol, coming from the other side of the aisle.

It has been 126 days since the President said he would veto our plan. But he has failed to put forward an alternative. And the letter that some of us Republican leaders wrote on July 14 asking the President to engage with us to come and find a bipartisan solution to the sequestration, that letter has gone unanswered.

Madam Speaker, inaction carries a very high risk. Instability and unprecedented political transformation throughout the Middle East, a civil war in Syria, Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons in support for terrorism, as well as challenges posed by a rising China and geostrategic shifts in the Asia Pacific make maintaining American military preeminence as important as ever. And the deadly and tragic attacks on Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Office Sean Smith, and two other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, make clear that Islamic extremist terrorism remains a tremendous threat to the Middle East, the United States, and the international community.

If the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term security and our ability to meet challenges we're facing. Implementing these cuts will mean reductions in shipbuilding, aircraft and missiles, shrinking our current force to levels not seen since before World War II. And that means fewer defense-related jobs. According to a study conducted by the Aerospace Industries Association, the job losses will reach 2 million. Let me put that in perspective. The economy added less than 100,000 jobs last month. Worse, more people dropped out of the labor force than were added to it. Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the economy has made. According to the same study, the jobs of more than 200,000 Virginians, my own State, are on the line. A small business in my district called Produce Source Partners, which provides fresh food to military bases, says the sequester threatens the jobs of their 200 employees. Another small company in Virginia, HI-TEST Laboratories, could be forced to reduce their staff by as much as 30 percent. Removing these jobs from the community will shrink the local economy and set back an already underutilized business zone. That same predicament faces hundreds of hardworking men and women in towns from here to California.

Madam Speaker, we are here today asking the President simply to come forward with a plan. We are here today because the minority has failed to work with us to find a solution to prevent these cuts that would hollow out our military and result in massive layoffs.

Madam Speaker, the House has acted. Now we need leadership, Mr. President.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, the choice before us is very clear. The priority for all of us is jobs, and the choice of how to best create an environment to create jobs is are we going to have taxes go up or not. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have put forward solutions to stop the tax hike so we can help create jobs for small businesses and beyond.

Given that economic growth has stalled under President Obama's policies, it is downright puzzling that he and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would push for raising taxes on working families and small business owners. Nearly 2 years ago, President Obama opposed the same small business tax hike he now supports. Back then, he acknowledged that raising taxes was the wrong thing to do if you want to bring about job creation in a tough economy.

This raises the question: Does the President actually think that the economy is doing so well that we should now tax job creators? Our Democratic colleagues offered their own tax proposal. Instead of offering a plan that

would spur economic growth, the minority put forward the President's small business tax hike. As we saw, Mr. Speaker, the only plan with bipartisan support that passed this House this week was the plan to ensure that taxes do not go up on any American.

As many on both sides of the aisle have made clear, the last thing small businesses need right now is a tax hike. There's no mystery as to how small business owners will respond when faced with higher taxes from Washington. They're rational actors, Mr. Speaker. And when something costs more, you get less of it. With less money to the bottom line, small businesses won't be able to grow as much, and they will not be able to expand as easily.

As was said before by my colleagues from Michigan and Illinois, I think all of us agree on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol that we need tax reform. This bill before us paves the way for pro-growth tax reform. This measure puts us on a path toward a simpler, flatter, fairer Tax Code. If you support comprehensive tax reform that will spur economic growth and make this country more competitive, you will vote for the bill. It's that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and for his leadership this week and in many others in his shepherding the movement for tax reform in this body. Ultimately, today's vote on this bill should be the easiest vote we take all year. Do we believe small business owners are the backbone of our economy? Do we want them to grow their businesses and create jobs? If the answer is ``yes,'' then you will support this bill.