Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in support of this legislation before us, which will boost domestic energy production, spur job creation, and grow the economy.

The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act opens up more of our domestic energy resources, brings greater certainty to leasing on public lands, and does take steps to cut red tape that is increasing the cost of fuel and blocking energy development. Increasing energy production on our Nation's public lands and in its waters can create millions of jobs, boost the economy, lower energy costs, and make America more secure.

It wasn't too long ago that an energy-secure America seemed like an unreachable goal. Today, energy security is on the horizon because of innovations that have helped increase our domestic energy supply and that have created thousands of good-paying jobs along the way. I saw these innovative technologies firsthand a few weeks ago when I was out on a deep-sea rig off the coast of Louisiana. With this legislation, we give our Nation's energy producers the certainty they need to invest in the innovations that are essential to American-made energy and American-made jobs.

The oil and gas industry is the lifeblood of so many communities across our Nation, but this President's policies have stifled the development of many of our Nation's energy resources. Red tape and restrictions coming from the Obama administration are keeping America's abundant energy resources under lock and key, away from our job- creating private sector.

As a result of some of these policies, small businesses are feeling the squeeze of high energy costs; families planning their summer vacations are facing historically high gas prices; and new jobs are being sidelined. People are wondering, when will things get better? They're looking for leadership out of Washington. Frankly, this administration has not delivered.

Since the President took office, production on public lands has decreased. While I welcome the administration's announcement that it is moving forward with a long delayed lease sale in the central Gulf of Mexico, it is simply unacceptable that this is the first lease sale the administration has held in the central gulf since 2010. Our Nation's energy producers have been ready and waiting to put their capital on the line to develop our Nation's resources.

Delaying decisions critical to energy development creates uncertainty and slows job creation. In fact, the Obama administration has canceled more lease sales than it has actually held, so I think the big question is, why aren't we doing more? Why aren't we developing more of our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, such as that off the coast of Virginia, where there is broad bipartisan consensus in my State supporting such development?

After years of watching the President fail to embrace a pro-growth energy policy, the American people do deserve more. The future of our country depends on a true, all-of-the-above energy strategy that promotes domestic energy production, job creation, and economic growth.

By adding certainty to the regulatory process, we can promote domestic energy development in an environmentally sensitive way. We can promote economic growth and get Americans back to work. These seven bills, as part of the HEAT Team package, will help bring down high energy costs, which are hurting families and crippling small businesses, so that we can then spur the creation of thousands of jobs.

I want to salute and thank the House Energy Action Team: the bill's chief sponsor, Congressman Cory Gardner; Congressman Ed Whitfield; Congressmen Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman; and Congressmen Doug Lamborn and Bill Johnson for putting forward these measures that will harness our domestic energy resources.

Finally, I would like to thank our whip, Kevin McCarthy, for his leadership and for bringing all of us together, as well as thank Chairman Fred Upton and Chairman Doc Hastings for their leadership on these measures that are essential to our Nation's competitiveness and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Camp.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us to reduce health care costs and expand patient freedom in health care decision- making.

Speaker Boehner and I made clear yesterday that the House will not act to raise taxes on anyone. The bill on the floor today is one step of many that we will need to take this year to ensure that end.

Even though the medical device tax has not yet been applied, the tax has already led to job losses, and threatens to reverse America's role as a global leader and innovator in the life sciences industry. We know if we want to encourage innovators, we cannot tax them.

Mr. Speaker, with all of the bipartisan action in the House and Senate on legislation to improve the approval process for drugs, biologics, and medical devices at the Food and Drug Administration, it would be reasonable to assume that Congress could find common ground on issues that are core to promoting jobs and innovation.

Unfortunately, don't expect this bill to reach the President's desk in a timely fashion, even with Members from both parties calling for the repeal of this harmful tax. The medical device tax was created as part of the new health care law and, for that reason alone, the administration continues to defend this tax which was only created to fund an unworkable law.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the President has threatened to veto our bill because the tax will pay for his health care law. We should not be increasing taxes to pay for a law that a majority of Americans want repealed, a law that even some ardent supporters admit will not work as intended.

Mr. Speaker, the real price is being paid by the American people. A tax on medical devices will harm patient care, not improve it. With this tax, it will now be more expensive for patients to walk into the exam room because the bed itself can be classified as a medical device. The tax will dramatically alter the research and development budgets of medical device companies.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, a constituent of mine from Richmond requested that Congress recognize the vital importance of research funding and the direct impact that it could have for her son, Joshua, who was born with a rare and serious heart defect. Only 8 years old, Joshua has already braved three open-heart surgeries. There's no medical procedure today that can help this little boy. We need to encourage the medical innovations, not stifle them with taxes, so that there can be hope for kids like Joshua.

Further, the tax is directly causing job losses and could directly impact small business growth, as the medical device companies often start with just a few employees. Overall, this tax could result in the loss of tens of thousands of American jobs in an industry that is key to economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, the President's veto threat is notably silent on the other two major provisions of this bill, provisions championed by Representative Lynn Jenkins and Representative Charles Boustany, to give patients more control over their health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements, respectively. Are these provisions acceptable to the White House?

Will health savings accounts even be permitted if the President's health care law remains on the books?

The uncertainty caused by the law highlights, once again, how truly flawed it is, and why all of the President's health care law must be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, there are many difficult issues that Congress must address to ensure America remains a country of opportunity, innovation, and growth. Supporting this bill should be easy.

I'd like to thank Representative Erik Paulsen for his leadership in advancing this legislation to eliminate a harmful tax. And I want to recognize the leadership of Chairman Dave Camp, who is working to put forward pro-growth tax reform that will make our Tax Code simpler and fairer and result in a growing economy.

Mr. Chairman, I would advise the House that at the end of the amendment series is the Lummis amendment. After that amendment, we will be revoting the Connolly amendment. So don't leave. We will need to be revoting the gentleman from Virginia's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that proceedings on rollcall No. 327 be vacated to the end that the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) remain as unfinished business and, further, that the Chair may reduce the time for any electronic vote on that amendment to not less than 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House is not in session. On Tuesday 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 Wednesday and 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. The 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, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. I expect the majority of these bills to come from the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to thank Chairman Doc Hastings and his staff for their tireless work in assisting Members on both sides of the aisle with their bills to responsibly remove Federal red tape that stands in the way of local economic development.

Members are also advised that the House will resume consideration of H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, on Tuesday, our first day back next week. Those wishing to offer amendments to the bill should be prepared to do so as soon as they return to Washington.

The House may also consider two additional appropriations bills next week: H.R. 5855, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, sponsored by Representative Robert Aderholt; and H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, sponsored by Representative Ander Crenshaw. Chairman Hal Rogers and the entire Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle should be congratulated for helping to restore the open process of allocating and prioritizing the Nation's spending.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 436, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, a very important bill for jobs and innovation in the medical device industry, that Representative Erik Paulsen is sponsoring. The Paulsen bill will be combined with H.R. 5842, the Restoring Access to Medication Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn Jenkins, and H.R. 1004, the Medical FSA Improvement Act, sponsored by Representative Charles Boustany.

I thank the gentleman.

I agree with him that all of us should be very focused on the months ahead as we approach the date at which this country will, by operation of law, experience the largest tax increase in its history, that sequester will be imposed, that we perhaps will face another debt ceiling vote as well as many of the items the gentleman mentioned. I think all of us understand the gravity of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have also seen in operation around here, together with the White House, the difficulties that the two sides have had coming together on two very important issues that run throughout all of the matters that the gentleman mentioned, and those two issues are health care and taxes.

As the gentleman knows, we have put forward a solution to the health care entitlement issue, which is the disproportionate cause of the unfunded liabilities of the Federal budget. The gentleman, the President, and his party have rejected our solution that has been validated by the Congressional Budget Office as an actual fix to the deficit.

To date we have not seen any counterproposal with the gentleman, his party, or the President coming to the table saying here's how we would fix it. All we continue to hear, Mr. Speaker, is we need to raise taxes, and we need to raise more taxes on people who have been successful.

The gentleman knows that those are the two issues, the taxes and the health care fix, that we've just had real difficulty in trying to come together. I would say to the gentleman we remain ready to work with him and his colleagues on that other side of the aisle to try and produce a result for the American people so we can re-inject some certainty back into the minds of the American people that the economy is going to get better.

Again, we tried to focus on issues having to do with growth in the private sector. How do we speak to that small businessman or -woman who's having difficulty now assessing what his or her taxes are going to be? How do we speak to that working mother there when she questions whether her health care will still be available given the uncertainty around the Obama health care bill?

These are the kinds of things we are trying to work together on. So many other things elude us because the gulf is so wide philosophically in dealing with taxes and health care.

Mr. Speaker, we remain ready to work with the gentleman. We share the concern about what lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, the House has passed its bill, the Senate has passed theirs, conferees have been appointed, and obviously we're very mindful, as you see, of the expiration of the current authorizing language and law. We are prepared to make sure that there is no stoppage of transportation programming and funding, all

the while desiring a much longer term solution to the problem.

I think the problem remains, as the gentleman knows, just not enough money to address all the things that the country is experiencing in terms of the needs for roads and infrastructure repair, as well as the needed expansion. As the gentleman knows, we all are mindful of the limited resources that are available to address these needs.

Just trying to prioritize, I am hopeful that the conference committee can come to a solution prior to the expiration of the authorizing language in place right now. Again, we are very mindful. We don't want to allow for shutdown of any program at the end of this month.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman I have no further comment.

I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker and I, together with the Republican leader and whip in the Senate, have sent a letter to the President--perhaps the gentleman has seen it--suggesting a way forward on the issue of student loans so that there will not be an expiration of the subsidy provided to students.

We suggested two options to allow for the continuation of the lower rates for students to be paid for by provisions which the President has suggested that he would agree to. The two options are to limit the length of in-school interest subsidy and the other is to revise the Medicaid provider tax threshold and to phase it down so that we can actually achieve some savings so that we can allow for the continuation of the subsidized rates for students who are struggling on their tuition bills.

These are two options that we suggest. They are bipartisan in nature. There shouldn't be any reason why we couldn't get this done prior to the expiration of the current law.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, just point the gentleman's attention back to the student loan issue.

I specifically did not offer up the option of the Federal employee pay-for because I do know that we have a difference on that. So the gentleman explained the differences. We understand

that. That's why we're trying to avoid differences and come together where we can agree, which is why I discussed the two other provisions which are bipartisan in nature and that the President has said he supports, which could, in a responsible fashion, allow us to continue the lower rates.

Mr. Speaker, there were two options: One was the Federal employee pay-for in and of itself, the reductions in the size of the Federal Government, would have taken care of the pay-for, if you will, for the student loan issue. The other option was composed of two different provisions, both of which are bipartisan in nature and the President says he supports. One of those is to limit the length of in- school interest subsidies; the other was to revise the Medicaid provider tax threshold. It was those two components that comprise option two. That is my point.

I'm not quite sure about the note he made about our budget not balancing within the budget window. I would say to the gentleman, we understand that, but it is a plan that we could adopt that would provide a blueprint for getting us back on track as far as managing down the debt and deficit. And my point originally was, Mr. Speaker, there's been no such plan, there's been no such proffer from the President or the gentleman's side of the aisle.

So in order for us to move forward, we need participation from both sides. We can't just have one side providing a solution without the ability to get that solution put into place because the gentleman's party is in control in the other body and in the White House. So how do we go about trying to find commonality if there is no proffer of solution? That was my point, Mr. Speaker. And there has been no solution, balanced or not, provided by the other side.

And I would say lastly to the gentleman's inquiry about the appropriations process, we certainly maintain the position we'd like to see all of our bills brought to the floor through regular order, consistent with the Speaker's policy of an open debate that we have seen thus far in the appropriations bills. We had a successful completion yesterday, and we are continuing in the Energy and Water appropriations measure today and as we come back next week.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, he and I have discussed this before in these colloquies, and I would suggest turning attention to a Senate that hasn't even begun considering its appropriations bills, to suggest that we would come to an agreement with the Senate, I think, you know, the Senate has got to really start to do its work as far as the appropriations process is concerned.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday 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, the House is not in session. 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 and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The 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, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Among next week's suspensions will be H.R. 365, the National Blue Alert Act, sponsored by Congressman Michael Grimm, which will coincide with National Police Week and will help deter the threat of violence against our Nation's law enforcement officers.

In addition, the House will consider two important bills under a rule. The first is H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, sponsored by Congresswoman Sandy Adams, herself a former sheriff. Our second rule bill, which will take up the remainder of the week, is H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Chairman Buck McKeon. This bipartisan bill provides for the funding of our armed services prior to Memorial Day, as is the House's appropriate custom.

I will just tell the gentleman, as he knows, the Rules Committee is the one to decide the process by which bills come to the floor and the rules for those bills; and the Rules Committee will be meeting on Tuesday.

It has certainly been an improved sense of cooperation, and I appreciate that on the gentleman's part in trying to deliver results and trying to make sure we get America back to work.

I would say to the gentleman, as he rightly noted, that this bill has traditionally been reauthorized. The approach that we tried to focus on was to do what it is that the gentleman and I have been trying to do the last couple

of weeks, and that is to separate out things that divide us and try to unite us around the central focus of a particular piece of legislation.

VAWA is a program that calls for the commitment of taxpayer dollars to fund the appropriate services for abused women. This is a bill that is much needed, and it is one that I think deserves our bipartisan support. We tried to stay away from issues that divide us, and we tried to listen to the GAO in terms of its recommendations under this program to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent at their most efficient levels so that we can get more out of the dollars being spent. That is the spirit with which we will bring this bill to the floor.

Again, I know it's an important bill. We all care deeply about making sure that abused women receive the necessary services that they need.

I would say to the gentleman that we are looking to accommodate the needs of the committee as they move forward and with their bills and their agenda. It is our intention to continue with the kind of debate that we had on the CJS bill this week.

As you know, it's been some time since this House was able to see an appropriations process work in a very open fashion like we had this week. We intend to continue to do that with the bills. It's the Speaker's commitment that this be an open process and that Members have a right to air their views, and that those issues and amendments can come to a vote.

I say to the gentleman that we look forward to working with him and looking to the committee to bring forward the bill that they think is ready next to be brought to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the gentleman is it is certainly the intention and the commitment we have to bring these bills forward for an open and fair debate.

I know the gentleman has expressed now twice the fact that his side didn't like some of the votes that occurred on the specific provisions of some bills. This is a democratic process, as he knows. Twenty-three Members on his side of the bill ended up supporting the CJS bill. Again, this is the House's will at work, and we hope to be able to work with him in this very new environment in which we're operating on appropriations bills.

The commitment that we have is still that we want to bring these bills forward under a very challenging fiscal time in our country and do so without earmarks. This does represent a new construct within which we are operating. Again, we look forward to the gentleman's participation towards that end in a successful way.

As the gentleman rightly suggests, we are in conference with the Senate. Deliberations are ongoing. We are very mindful, as he indicates, of the expiration of the existing authorization of the program at the end of June, knowing that is our deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I will join the gentleman in thanking both of our staffs. They did tremendous work, as well as Mr. Miller on the Financial Services Committee and the staff there, Mr. Bachus' staff. Your office can be instrumental, I think, in helping move the Senate along. But everyone from the chief of staff on down in your office--and we want to thank you as well for your team's commitment to working, again, in a very difficult equation where there were a lot of differences that we tried to work through but, in the end, didn't want to unilaterally disarm American business in the name of competitiveness in our country.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 2072, Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act of 2011.

Make no mistake, I am no fan of government subsidies. Export subsidies distort the free market and global trade. And in a perfect world, the Ex-Im Bank, along with its counterparts in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, would not exist.

But like any other barrier to free trade, the best way to level the playing field and open up markets is through negotiation. Our country has long had a policy to negotiate an end to barriers which prevent the free flow of goods and services. And now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, with this bill, it will be U.S. policy to initiate and pursue negotiations to end government export subsidies. This is not just a worthwhile goal; it is actually an achievable one.

Now, I know some suggest that we shouldn't negotiate and that we should just shutter the Export-Import Bank right now, that we shouldn't pass the bill, but I would tell my colleagues that I believe that amounts to unilateral disarmament. American businesses and American workers would suffer from unfair competition with subsidized foreign competitors. This bill, with these reforms, offers a better way.

As important as ensuring that we do not unilaterally disarm American business is, bringing strong, necessary reforms to the Export-Import Bank to protect American taxpayers is equally important. I am pleased to say that this bill accomplishes both.

The bill requires Ex-Im Bank to keep default rates below 2 percent. If the bank's default rate exceeds 2 percent, access to any additional capital is shut off while corrective action to bring the default rate below 2 percent would be instituted. If the Ex-Im Bank fails to fix the problem within 6 months, an audit will be conducted by an independent third party to recommend both to Congress and the Treasury Secretary necessary fixes.

The legislation, Mr. Speaker, includes numerous other reforms, including a risk management review, business plans, and an ``anti- Solyndra'' provision to protect taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, in urging support of this bipartisan legislation, I would like to recognize two colleagues in particular: Gary Miller, the gentleman from California, and Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip from Maryland. Their hard work helped produce a bill that helps American business while also protecting American taxpayers.

I urge passage of this bill.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on the bipartisan U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. This bill reaffirms Israel's right to defend itself against threats and puts the Congress on record about America's long-standing commitment to the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship, a unique and special relationship founded on shared interests and shared democratic values.

My friend, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, and I introduced this legislation to ensure that, during a time of such instability, threats to Israeli and American security will be answered with strength and resolve.

Unfortunately, even during periods of calm, Israel lives in a tough neighborhood; and because our national interests are so often linked, Israel is often at the front lines of responding to threats to both of our security. This is true when it comes to a shared fight against radical Islamist terrorism, and it is certainly true when it comes to Iran. This bill reiterates that our investment in Israel's security is an investment in our own security.

I want to thank Mr. Hoyer as well as Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Howard Berman, who joined us in drafting this legislation. I thank them for their hard work and for their

steadfast leadership as defenders of our great ally in the Middle East.

The strong bipartisan support for this bill speaks to the importance and the urgency with which we must address and enhance Israel's ability to defend itself during a period of profound transition and instability.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 300 members of both parties have sponsored this bill, and we hope to have many more in the final count. The House has always demonstrated a bipartisan commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship, and today we say again, we refuse to send mixed messages when it comes to America's support for Israel. Today we demonstrate congressional support for important steps to make Israel and America more secure.

Among other things, the bill encourages the President to provide additional assistance to support U.S.-Israel joint missile defense efforts, such as Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow; allocate additional weaponry and munitions to the forward-deployed U.S. stockpile located in Israel; strengthen multilateral efforts to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza and to protect against terrorism from the Sinai Peninsula; expand already close intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and Israel; protect Israel's Qualitative Military Edge and ensure that Israel remains the preeminent military power in the region; lobby against and veto the outrageous parade of one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations every year. The bill also extends the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing its perfect record of repaying its loans on time and in full.

Mr. Speaker, this could be a very hot summer in the Middle East:

Egypt is likely to elect an Islamist government. While we all hope Egypt's new government keeps the peace that has held for 30 years, the future is uncertain;

Syria is consumed by civil war, with a vicious dictator backed by Iran and Hezbollah, murdering his own citizens, fueling sectarian tensions, and giving rise to radicalism;

Iran continues its decades-long effort to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions may be hurting Iran's economy, but Iran's leaders thus far remain wedded to pursue their dangerous goal. Iran continues to support terrorism, providing lethal support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban.

The United States and Israel share an important strategic goal: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and combating its terrorist proxies.

Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes the profound threats the U.S. and Israel face in the region and reiterates our commitment to standing side by side with Israel during this pivotal and dangerous period of transition and instability, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we know jobs won't come back until small businesses recover. Small businesses have generated over 65 percent of the new jobs in this country; but the economic downturn, red tape, and higher taxes coming from Washington have simply made it harder for small business to create jobs.

Tax policies should encourage economic growth, investment, and job creation, not stifle it. We need to stop and think about what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be one with lower taxes, more growth, and more jobs; or do we want to be one of more government control and fewer opportunities?

This week, when every American filed their tax returns, the other party in the Senate voted to increase taxes. We should not be taking money out of the hands of those we are counting on to create jobs. We need to let small business owners keep more of their hard-earned money so they can start hiring again.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we'll vote on the Small Business Tax Cut Act to give every small business with fewer than 500 employees a 20 percent tax cut. Our bill puts more money into the hands of small business owners so they can reinvest those funds to retain and create more jobs and grow their businesses, plain and simple.

According to a study, the Small Business Tax Cut Act will help create more than 100,000 new jobs a year once fully in place. One-third of the firms that benefit from our tax cut are owned by

women. One-fifth are owned by minorities. And our legislation won't just benefit small business owners; it benefits current workers by boosting wages.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk with small business owners across the country, I hear they need more opportunity to grow. I hear that taxes are siphoning away their income. I hear they can't access capital.

One small business owner in Spotsylvania, Virginia, called the small business tax cut a win-win for him and other small business owners in the economy. He said that with more money to invest in his businesses he could afford to hire more staff, buy new equipment and expand.

Mr. Speaker, while we continue to work toward tax reform that broadens the base, brings down the rates for everybody, and gets rid of loopholes, Washington assumes the role of picking winners and losers. We need to take incremental steps to give job creators tax relief right away. This Small Business Tax Cut Act is a step in that right direction.

President Obama called small businesses the anchors of our Main Streets. We agree. I hope we can all unite around helping the small businesses which are the engines of job creation in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say in response to the gentleman's assertion towards the definition of small business in this bill, this is the Small Business Administration definition of small business. This is what every program that comes out of this government aimed to help small businesses is premised upon. The SBA definition of a small business is one of 499 or fewer.

As far as the gentleman's allegations about the potential for abuse under this bill, if he'd read the language of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it caps the ability to benefit from the tax cut to 50 percent of the W 2 wages that that small business paid out. This is, straight up, something to help small businesses keep more of their money while they're having so much difficulty keeping the lights on and, instead, giving them the ability to grow, to grow, invest, and create more jobs.

As far as the gentleman's allegations that somehow this bill only affects those millionaires, billionaires and the rest, I think he will see the studies have shown that just 18.3 percent of those people are in the categories of income he suggests, with 80-some percent in the middle class--80-some percent, the true small business owners who we're relying on to create jobs for the middle class to come back.

And I would say to the gentleman, as far as the allegation of gimmickry, the essence of supply-side economics, the centrality issue on taxes is the reduction of marginal rates. That's exactly what this bill does.

Does it provide it for long enough? Does it provide permanency? No. But what we want to do in a permanent way is effect broader tax reform. But since we can't see eye to eye on that, since we've still got work to do, let's give the small businesses some help now.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

I yield myself 30 seconds just in response, Mr. Speaker, to the allegation about those who benefit from the Small Business Tax Cut Act. I would ask the gentleman to perhaps look at the language of the Democrat alternative on the motion to recommit because it, as well, provides the same benefit it's trying to provide to others. All those people, the so-called ``rich and famous'' that he says are the only ones that benefit, also benefit under their alternative.

I will not yield.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to provide the kind of relief to the small business men and women that will benefit from this.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I just want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.

The Ways and Means Committee had two small business hearings on the implications of tax reform in which this proposal was raised. In addition, the gentleman well knows that there was a markup.

If I could finish. No.

There was a markup in committee in which even the gentleman offered an amendment and then withdrew it because it was ruled nongermane. Of course there was a markup. Of course this idea has been the subject of discussion in committee.

Again, I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Again, Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman from Texas indicated that this bill doesn't benefit sole proprietors. Sole proprietors are, in fact, the disproportionate beneficiaries under this bill. According to the Committee on Joint Taxation, 17.9, almost 18 million sole proprietors benefit under this bill, again, to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), not only the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade but, as well, the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to the gentleman. I think he put his finger on the problem here. The problem with his kind of amendment is the problem with the Tax Code today, because it means that if you're a business, under his rule, you would have to come to Washington to seek eligibility for a tax break or seek eligibility for a tax favor. And if you're on the approved list in Washington, then you can go and benefit and have an advantage over others.

That's not what we believe. We believe in helping all small businesses.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the Small Business Committee chairman.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be permitted to control the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, 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 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and 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, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

Among next week's suspensions will be a noteworthy bill, H.R. 2146, authored by Congressman Darrell Issa and known as the DATA Act. This is an important step in our continuing effort to make government more accountable, accessible, and transparent, especially when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

It is also possible that the House will consider a motion to go to conference and motion to instruct conferees on the surface transportation authorization bill.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we expect a full debate next week on the importance of our Nation's cybersecurity. The House will consider a number of bipartisan bills to reduce obstacles to voluntary information sharing between the private sector and government, secure our Nation's infrastructure, better protect government systems and combat foreign threats.

A number of committees have been involved in this effort, Mr. Speaker, including the Intelligence Committee, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce.

Of the bills coming to the floor, we will consider H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, under a rule. This important legislation is authored by Chairman Mike Rogers and cosponsored by Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman we have every intention of going forward, and, at this point, I don't know what could come up and preclude us from doing so. But we look forward to working with the gentleman over the course of the next two-plus months to come to resolution so that we can provide some certainty to States, industries, private sector, public, and the rest with regard to our transportation infrastructure.

I thank the gentleman.

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that, as he knows, working through the committee at this point are the CJS bill and the energy and water bill. It is our intention to bring one of those forward the week that he indicates, May 7, to be debated.

The Speaker has consistently come down on the side of wanting there to be an open process. I think that, given the House's track record on appropriations bills and the debates surrounding them, we are hoping that we can have a deliberate debate around the substance and policy of the issues and set as a model for going forward.

But I would say to the gentleman, as far as we go right now, we are looking at May 7 to be the time in which we bring one of those bills to the floor for deliberation and a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, the gentleman knows that we did pass a budget in the House. We didn't have a conference committee report to vote on because the Senate did not pass a budget, which has then forced us to have to deem what the House passed--again, the Senate having gone way past a thousand days without a budget.

So I would say to the gentleman it is our perception that what the deal was in August, the BCA, was a ceiling. And that we want to try in every way we can to save taxpayer dollars, and that is a rule which we're continuing to follow. The Appropriations Committee has taken up its obligations and is working on the bills, and we will be bringing up those bills consistent with that rule.

Again, I say to the gentleman, we look forward to a robust, policy- oriented debate on the spending issues facing this country throughout the appropriations process and look forward to a deliberative civil process so that we can get our work done and deliver on what the people expect--and that is to begin to shave the spending that has gotten out of control in Washington over the last several decades.

As the gentleman knows, Ways and Means is continuing in their mission to conduct hearings as far as tax reform is concerned. They just had a hearing on retirement provisions and what comprehensive tax reform means when it comes to retirement provisions.

The gentleman knows that tax reform doesn't come easy in this town. And we are all, I think, bound by the commitment to try and simplify the code with the differences that we have. And we're going to continue to look to see what Chairman Camp and the committee's work produces. But with maintaining our commitment that we believe, as you do--Mr. Speaker, I would say the gentleman joins me in wanting to simplify the code, bring down rates, get rid of loopholes, and the rest.

Again, I would say we're looking to our committees to continuing their work. They're doing good work toward that end exposing the issues and identifying them so that we can get this in a way that is responding to what the public really wants to see, which is a simplified Tax Code and a much fairer way.

First of all, I'd say the gentleman has a very interesting question if we're talking about the scheduling of the floor and how we're going forward, but I'll be delighted to answer the question.

The bill that we passed today in a bipartisan way is a bill that responds to the urgency that small business is feeling and, frankly, the people of this country are feeling that the economy is not growing quickly enough.

Is it a panacea? No. Do we want to see comprehensive overall tax reform? Absolutely. But as the gentleman knows, our side and his have big differences when it comes to tax reform.

Unfortunately, the discussions that ensued last year were hung up on the notion that your side really, really continues to advocate higher taxes. You want to start with a baseline that's just higher than ours. We don't believe right now that we ought to assume Washington has a revenue problem. Instead, we ought to fix the spending problem before you start jacking up more taxes, if at all.

So this measure that we passed is something that is a first start towards a pro-growth outlook to empower businesses and allow men and women who are out there taking risks starting businesses and creating jobs a little easier time in doing so, allowing them to keep more of the money to put back into their business and allocate the capital the best way they see of doing so, not Washington.

Again, I know the gentleman knows we have a difference of opinion when it comes to that. But, again, it is a small step in a bridge toward what we all would like to see but are unable to accomplish right now, which is overall tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday next.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Town of Luray, Virginia as it celebrates its 200th anniversary.

The Town of Luray was founded in 1812 and is the county seat of Page County, Virginia. Tucked away in the rolling hills of the Shenandoah Valley, Luray boasts of breathtaking views and is steeped in rich history.

Perhaps best known for the Luray Caverns, Luray is home to the largest and most popular caverns in the East. Upon its discovery by Andrew Campbell on August 13th, 1878, the Smithsonian Institute sent nine scientists to examine the caverns and reported the following: ``. . . it is safe to say that there is probably no other cave in the world more completely and profusely decorated with stalactite and stalagmite ornamentation than that of Luray.'' Even today, this sentiment remains the same. The Luray Caverns now attract more than 500,000 visitors each year from around the world. Luray is lucky to be home to such a historic and significant token of natural beauty.

There is no doubt why the Town of Luray is such a popular attraction for those just passing through or visiting from many states away. When not touring the caverns, you can find visitors of Luray enjoying the 106-mile scenic Skyline Drive, or nestled into a cozy bed and breakfast. The Appalachian Trail also passes through Luray, where hikers can climb through the peaks and valleys of the Shenandoah region and explore the area first-hand.

Luray residents will celebrate and honor the Town's rich history with events and activities throughout the year, which began with a ``Celebrate Luray'' event back in February.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the citizens of Luray as they celebrate the town's bicentennial, and wishing them all the best for their continued growth and success.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House Republican budget resolution offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Paul Ryan.

Mr. Chairman, people in this country are looking. They are desperate to see a strong signal from Washington that we are prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. Today, we will pass our budget that proposes real, honest solutions to create a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country.

Our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order and will manage down the debt and deficit. It also strengthens the entitlement programs which are the biggest drivers of our debt. It reforms the Tax Code and prevents devastating defense cuts from taking place--all without raising taxes.

Mr. Chairman, we are seizing the opportunity to address what even the minority has admitted is the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the aisle seem to refuse to be able to deal with this crisis and actually propose a solution.

The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget in over 1,000 days, shirking its responsibility to the American people. And the President has refused to put forth any serious solution to pay down the historic debt and deficit that he helped create. In fact, the President's budget will actually aggravate the Nation's problems. President Obama's budget saddles the American people with massive tax increases, puts more burden on job creators, weakens our military and fails

to provide a plan to save our entitlement programs. I believe these policies will fundamentally change our Nation for the worse.

In contrast, Mr. Chairman, our budget restores the system of free enterprise that has made America the greatest nation in the world. We propose a simpler, fairer, and more competitive Tax Code that will actually foster economic growth and job creation. Instead of picking winners and losers, our plan levels the playing field. Our budget lowers tax rates for taxpayers, broadens the base, and gets rid of loopholes and preferences so we can grow the economy and see more jobs created.

Mr. Chairman, our budget seeks to save our entitlement programs because we actually produce a plan to solve the disproportionate cause of our deficits in health care entitlements.

This commitment to lead, this commitment to find solutions and to actually put a plan in place is what has been missing from the debate in this town. And we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in that commitment to actually adopt a plan so that we can begin to make progress and send a signal to the American people that we get it and that we are here to help solve the problem.

Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are offering the American people a choice in terms of the direction this country will take. And I thank Chairman Ryan and the members of his Budget Committee for their hard work to produce this pro-growth, solutions-oriented budget. This document does begin to address the serious fiscal challenges we face and grow the economy so that our children have the same hope, opportunity, and ability to achieve success that our parents gave to us and their parents to them.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would simply delay the implementation of what we know is a cost-savings measure to so many millions of seniors--and so many millions of Americans, not just seniors.

Madam Chair, today we will vote to repeal one of PPACA's most harmful provisions, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is emblematic of the two very different visions held by Republicans and Democrats about the path to quality care and how to control costs in our health care system.

Madam Chair, the President and his party want a centralized board of bureaucrats to control decisions about how health care is allocated to our Nation's seniors. He proposes to restrict health care choices in order to lower cost. Our American system of free enterprise, innovation, and ingenuity has made our health care centers the best in the world. Our doctors transform dire health care conditions into promising outcomes and healthy lives. We produce the world's lifesaving drugs, disease-prevention regimens, biologics, and devices. But IPAB hamstrings the best available care for our seniors by imposing artificial and arbitrary constraints on cost.

Neither the President nor congressional Democrats have proposed a solution to strengthen Medicare. Instead, the President gives 15 bureaucrats the power to make fundamental decisions about the care that seniors will have access to. Not to be deterred, the President has proposed expanding this board numerous times over the past year, vastly growing the board's scope and ability to fix prices and ultimately ration care for our Nation's seniors.

Madam Chair, the President and I do agree on this: the current Medicare reimbursement system is broken. But we don't need a board of unelected bureaucrats to control costs. As we have proposed today, there is a better path forward.

During the health care debate, the President agreed with our Nation's doctors that defensive medicine practices are driving up costs. Yet meaningful medical liability reform was not included in the 2,000-page health care law.

Madam Chair, as my colleagues have proposed today, we can model medical liability reforms on State-based laws. California, Texas, and Virginia have all implemented working solutions that drive down the cost of care. We can even propose more creative medical liability reform solutions. We're always open to new ideas and suggestions. But not delay. Moving forward with commonsense medical liability reforms will mean that doctors can continue serving patients.

It means that injured patients will be compensated more quickly and fairly. It means health care costs will go down.

Madam Chair, you don't need a new rationing board to save $3 billion. You simply need to enact liability reform policies that are so commonsense even States like California and others have had them on the books for decades.

When the entire medical community stands opposed to an idea, I would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President would listen. ObamaCare's IPAB is not the solution our seniors are expecting us to deliver. Our seniors deserve better.

Madam Chair, I thank Dr. Phil Roe, the gentleman from Tennessee, and Dr. Phil Gingrey, the gentlemen from Georgia, for sponsoring the PATH Act. I'd also like to recognize Chairman Fred Upton, Chairman Dave Camp, and Chairman Lamar Smith for working to strengthen Medicare for our seniors. Under their leadership, our House

committees are advancing policies that will deliver the quality of health care the American people deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will also consider H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act, offered by Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon. And for the second year in a row, the House will consider and pass a budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, we also expect to take further action on our Nation's infrastructure, with authority expiring at the end of next week. Finally, I am hopeful that the Senate will clear the House's bipartisan JOBS Act today. This bill has been delayed too long, but I look forward to the President signing it into law.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I yield back.

I thank the gentleman.

And I would respond by saying to him that, no, I'm not prepared to bring that bill to the floor because I differ with him in his assumption that there would be enough bipartisan support to pass that bill in the House. And from all that I know about what's in the Senate bill, there is a lot of disagreement over how that bill was constructed, as far as House Members are concerned.

I would say to the gentleman, our plan is very clear. We have been outspoken on this. We do not want to disrupt the flow of Federal transportation dollars, which is why we will be bringing to the floor next week a bill to provide for an extension of 90 days so that perhaps, as the gentleman would like, as would I, we could come together as two bodies and two parties on an agreement to provide more certainty.

But as to the gentleman's suggestion that we need to be doing this to be consistent with what has been done historically, I would say to the gentleman, he knows, as well as I, that we are in very, very difficult economic times. We have never faced the kind of problems that we face today as a country, from a fiscal standpoint. Unfortunately, transportation funding is no different. We're just out of money. So we're trying to take the approach that most American families and businesses would take, that is, to try to spend within our means, to come up with some innovative ways to look at transportation needs and demands in the future and our being able to meet them, and we look forward to working with the gentleman in a bipartisan fashion to try to effect that end.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, I guess we are going to agree to disagree. We're dealing with the reality that we don't have the money, and we're trying to fashion a path forward that both sides can agree upon.

Obviously, we cannot agree upon that next week with all the differences that still exist, which is why we're creating the construct of a 90-day extension, which then gives us the possibility to get into conference with the Senate to try and produce a longer-term transportation funding bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. We will be beginning debate on the budget Wednesday and likely concluding that debate and vote on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, yes, we expect that to be the case. Obviously, I disagree with his characterization of our budget. We are, in fact, saving the Medicare program in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the gentleman knows very well what I refer to, that the disproportionate cause of our deficit has to do with health care entitlements. And actually, as the gentleman knows, last year and this year we are proposing a solution, a plan, that does not resolve the issue overnight, but it puts us on a path towards balancing the budget.

This year, our budget chairman has worked together with the Senator from Oregon on the gentleman's side of the aisle in the Senate to propose a solution that responds to some of the complaints about the path that was taken

before. Again, it is a bipartisan solution. It is a plan to save Medicare. Unlike the gentleman's party or his President, we are actually proposing a solution to the problem and saving the program for this generation and the next.

Again, I'm sure the gentleman disagrees with my characterization and I with his. But to answer his question, to get back on track as far as the schedule and the fashion in which these bills are going to be brought to the floor, yes, consistent with precedent, we will be allowing full substitutes to be offered on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman by saying it is our view that the agreement reached in August at the top line was that, a cap. We all know we've got to do something about spending in this country, and the top line, or 302(a), within our budget resolution will reflect that top line provided in the budget resolution for the second year of the budget that we posed last year.

Again, we view it very much that we need to continue to try--at least try--to save taxpayer dollars when we are generating over $1 trillion of deficits every year, and I think the taxpayers expect no less.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just say to the gentleman this is somewhat of an academic discussion given that the Senate is not going to pass a budget. And I remind the gentleman, again, it takes two Houses to go and reconcile a budget, and it takes two Houses and two parties to actually go forward. So we look forward to working with the gentleman. I told him it is our belief that we need to respond to the urgency of the fiscal crisis and do everything we can to bring down the level of spending in this town. I look forward to working with the gentleman towards that end.