Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Jumspstart Our Business Startups Act.

Our Nation's success has been built by individuals who turn innovative ideas into small businesses. By taking risks and working hard, our small business owners drive the majority of job creation in this country.

Right now it's just too difficult to start up a business. The threat of higher taxes and increased regulations has small businessmen and - women and entrepreneurs frozen in their tracks. Small businesses and start-ups simply do not have the bandwidth to comply with Washington's redtape, and yet they are the ones we're counting on to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the JOBS Act will get small businesses and entrepreneurs back into the game by removing costly regulations and making it easier for them to access capital. This legislation also paves the way for more start-ups and small businesses to go public, which will attract new investors and will allow small businesses to grow and create jobs.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to send him a bill that helps start-ups and entrepreneurs succeed. The JOBS Act that we'll be voting on today does exactly that. Our bill brings together commonsense measures that have bipartisan support here in Washington and from business leaders across the country, including former AOL chairman and founder Steve Case.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleagues who have worked on the JOBS Act, including Congressman Stephen Fincher, Whip Kevin McCarthy, Congressman David Schweikert, Congressman Ben Quayle, Congressman Patrick McHenry, Congressman John Carney, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Let's build on this bipartisan momentum, Mr. Speaker. This week, President Obama offered his support for the JOBS Act. I strongly urge Senator Reid to take up this bill as quickly as possible and let's just get it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want to see us get something done and produce results. With the JOBS Act, we do have a window of opportunity for both parties in Washington to come together and produce results. We must make sure America remains the place where extraordinary success can be achieved by individuals who are willing to take risks and work hard.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, now-Congressman John Lewis, our colleague, led 600 brave Americans in a march to protest for their equal right to vote like any other American, and they encountered horrific and despicable violence, preventing them from reaching their destination, the capital in Montgomery.

That day, now known as Bloody Sunday, set the stage for the landmark march to Montgomery led by Reverend Martin Luther King and bolstered by faith and prayer. This act of leadership, courage, and bravery culminated with Congress passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, recognizing the right of every American to participate in our electoral process.

At that time, there were just six black Members of Congress. Today, I am proud to serve with 44 black colleagues. As Reverend King said:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward

justice.

Mr. Speaker, today we will pass a resolution that will add the testimonies of Members of Congress, current and past, who participated in the civil rights movement and commemorative events to the historic record of the House. Their stories are an important part of our Nation's heritage and will serve as a reminder to every American of the determination and sacrifice that shaped the stronger democracy we live in today.

I would like to thank Representative Terri Sewell, who represents Selma, and Representative Martha Roby, who represents Montgomery, for offering this resolution to preserve a powerful and transformative period in American history. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely honored to work with Congressman Lewis to ensure that these stories will never be forgotten.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland. Thank you 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 be 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. 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, including a bipartisan bill dealing with countervailing duties against nonmarket economies like China. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider two bills focused on job creation and our creating an environment for that to happen. The first is H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, sponsored by Representative Scott Tipton of Colorado; and H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, the JOBS Act, sponsored by Representative Stephen Fincher from Tennessee. Both bills are bipartisan, and I would note that the President and many outside entrepreneurs like Steve Case have endorsed the Fincher bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'd hope that Senator Reid would move expeditiously in passing the JOBS Act once this House sends it to the Senate at the end of next week.

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

I thank the gentleman for the question.

As the gentleman knows, there's been a lot of discussion about the way forward given the fiscal reality of the transportation trust fund, and talks are continuing to ensue as we continue to watch what the other body does on this issue as well, knowing full well the March 31 deadline that we're facing.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman knows that both his staff and mine are in constant communication on this bill as late as I think last night and have met to discuss the options as to how we proceed forward. Again, we are very mindful of the expiration, or looming expiration, or need for, if you will, of the passage of this bill and look forward to continuing to work with him and his team to make sure that we get the resolution right and are able to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. He stated this sort of series of events that we anticipate, and we look to making sure that we're doing everything to facilitate that and have the budget on the floor, hopefully, by the end of this month.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say that the gentleman has been a huge supporter and participant in the pilgrimage to Alabama marking that event, that day in history, and I look forward to his participation in the process of making sure that the House Historian has the necessary information to accurately reflect the House's role, the Members of the House's role, and certainly the gentleman's role in the pilgrimage to Alabama celebrating that event. Frankly, as he indicates, Mr. Speaker, a reminder to us all that this country didn't always get it right, but we are continuing to work together to make sure that we are that land of equal rights and opportunities for all.

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 chairman, the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, our government was founded on a promise. This promise was built on a trust between the people and their elected officials. We all have a duty to honor the trust of the American people and to work faithfully on their behalf.

Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or their staff, to profit from information that is not available to the public. People in this country have a right to know and trust that officials at all levels of government are living under the same rules that they are. If there is even the slightest appearance of impropriety, we ought to go ahead and prevent that from taking place.

It is incumbent upon each of us to start restoring the trust between the people and their elected representatives. That's what the STOCK Act is all about.

Madam Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue. I would especially like to express my appreciation to Representatives Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter for their years of work on this effort. Congressman Walz has been a leader on the STOCK Act since he took office at the start of the 110th Congress, and I particularly want to recognize his willingness to reach across the aisle and keep the lines of communication open as we worked to make clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the American people.

This bill we are bringing to the floor today puts in place measures that both

strengthen and expand the Senate's work on the STOCK Act, as well as removes provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than they would have answered. We expanded the bill to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in Congress. We must all live under the same rules.

We also included a provision, championed by Representative Robert Dold, to ensure that Members of Congress who are convicted of a crime do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension after the fact. And finally, Madam Speaker, we added a provision to prohibit Members of Congress, executive branch officials, and their staffs from receiving special access to initial public offerings due to their positions.

Madam Speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the President a strengthened, workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the trust of the American people. And I urge all my colleagues to support the STOCK Act.

Sure. I would respond to the gentleman, I think that is a provision that raises an awful lot of questions. I think there is a lot of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the Senate. And that is why, in the STOCK Act, we are calling for a study of that issue, to ensure that the integrity of this process is maintained.

But I would remind the gentleman, the thrust of this bill is about making sure that none of us, in elected office or those in the executive branch, are able to profit from nonpublic information. The political intelligence piece is outside of this body, and we are talking about us and the perception that has gathered around our conduct.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 1 p.m. in pro forma session. No votes are expected. 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 few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider H.R. 7, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012. The House may also consider legislation relating to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act.

I will say to the gentleman, as I said before and as reflected by the vote that just occurred on the motion to instruct conferees, we, too, desire a resolution of this issue next week. I think the gentleman knows that we've been on this floor before in the same discussion where it is imperative for us to send a signal to the hardworking taxpayers of this country that they're not going to have their taxes go up. So it is my hope that we're going to see some productivity out of the conference committee.

I think the gentleman knows my position as to why there has been no productivity. Frankly, last week, I urged the gentleman to point his ire to the other side of the Capitol because it is that side of the Capitol and Leader Reid who have been unwilling to come forward with a resolution to this issue.

As the gentleman knows, the House has taken its position. We believe we ought to extend the payroll tax holiday for a year and do so in a responsible manner so as not to raid the Social Security trust fund. But there's been no willingness on the part of Leader Reid and his conferees to even offer a suggestion as to how to resolve this impasse.

So, again, I say to the gentleman, we are committed to making sure taxes don't go up on hardworking people in these economic times.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, really it's not productive to engage in politics and division. We ought to be about multiplication here. We ought to be about growing the economy. We ought not be talking in the way that the gentleman suggests, that somehow we Republicans prefer one group of people over another. That's not true. We're here fighting for the hardworking taxpayers.

I just said, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, that we, as Republicans in this House, do not support taxes going up on anybody. We believe that Washington spends too much money. We don't believe you ought to tax anybody, especially the job creators, the small businessmen and women who we're relying on to create jobs and get this economy back to where it needs to be, in a growth mode.

So the gentleman knows very well my position, and it is the position of our conference. We do not want to see taxes going up on hardworking taxpayers. I said it before, and I will say it again: We hope that the conferees can produce something for us to vote on, but we are not in any way, shape, or form advocating for taxes to go up on hardworking people. No. We are for making sure that doesn't happen. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times I can say that to underscore our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, again, the question has to do with the gentleman and his side's and the President's insistence that somehow the math requires us to raise taxes on small businessmen and women. We don't believe that. We don't believe that we ought to let tax rates go up and create a tax hike on the small business people of this country because, number one, that exacerbates the challenge that we're already dealing with in trying to get this economy growing. And number two, it will put more money into the hands of Washington to begin spending that money without paying down the debt.

The gentleman knows very well our commitment to making sure we get the fiscal house in order. He knows very well that we believe you've got to fix the problem and not go in and ask the small businessmen and women to pay more taxes to dig a hole deeper. We believe you ought to fix the problem, stop taking small business money away from the men and women who make it, and let them continue to put it back into their enterprises and create jobs. That's what we're trying to do. And I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure we accomplish that end.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he think that the payroll tax holiday extension for the year needs to be paid for?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would ask in response to that, does he not agree that there is a difference between the nature of the tax relief in the payroll tax and the nature of existing tax rates on the marginal level as well as capital gains? And along those lines, would he not, then, be advocating a position that would say, it's okay to raid the Social Security trust fund if you're not going to pay for the extension of the payroll tax holiday?

Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman, I was not in seven different directions. It's very simple. I asked the gentleman: Are you okay with raiding the Social Security trust fund? Because your response to my question indicated to me that it's fine for you and your side to say: Let's just raid the Social Security trust fund, extend the payroll tax holiday without any pay-fors; is that okay?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I'd say to the gentleman, he has answered the same question in two different ways. And he's also gone off not in seven different directions but nine or ten when he starts talking about the former President George Bush. George Bush has nothing to do with this debate, has nothing to do with the issue before it.

What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is, number one: Does he not agree that if we pay for the extension of the Federal tax holiday, we are making sure that we attempt to address the raid on the Social Security trust fund? And is that not different than talking about marginal rates on small business men and women? Is that not different than talking about keeping the capital gain rates the same on investors and entrepreneurs in America? We need to put investment capital back into the economy, the private economy. And so my point was not seven different directions, my point is just that.

Again, I would say to the gentleman that it bothers me to hear that the gentleman just wants to rely on an IOU. The public is tired of saying, yes, we'll owe it. We'll owe it. We'll pay it later. What we're saying is let's make sure that we don't dig the hole any deeper. Let's make sure we don't raid the Social Security trust fund. That's why we are saying let's pay for it.

But again, to the gentleman's point about trying to expedite things so we can have a result out of the conference committee, there has been no activity, no activity on the part of the Senate. They're not serious. They're not serious on wanting to address the issue--at least, they've not been thus far--and we're running out of time.

So again, I guess the gentleman's solution is go ahead and raid the Social Security trust fund and let's extend the payroll tax holiday. And if that's the gentleman's position, then we know the position I would imagine of the minority on this position.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just wrap it up by saying I don't think there was anybody, any working American that did not benefit from the '01-'03 tax relief. So again, the gentleman's attempt to divide this country, saying that some benefit from this and others benefited from that, it's not the way that I think most Americans look at it. We're all in this together, okay.

So again, we're trying to make sure that taxes don't go up on anybody. We're trying to do it responsibly. And the gentleman does, and acknowledges, that the payroll tax holiday involves a tax that is dedicated to the viability of the Social Security trust fund. And the gentleman knows that if we pass that bill because of his insistence and the insistence of the leader on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate, the majority leader in the Senate, that if we have to go ahead and just do it unpaid for, then we have created more of a problem and raided the Social Security trust fund.

So again, if that's the choice, if the gentleman is saying that his side is not going to support an extension of the Federal tax holiday unless it's unpaid for, then I guess we know where we stand, and the American people know where we stand, because they'll force a raid on the Social Security trust fund.

I'd say to the gentleman, the Rules Committee has announced that there is an amendment deadline for Members to get their amendments in by Monday morning, and it will then proceed in the normal process to vote on a rule to govern the debate on the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman is confusing this majority with the one he was the leader in, because we have now seen all the committees, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, mark up and consider amendments from both sides. H.R. 7, in its entirety, was posted at approximately noon yesterday, February 8. At noon yesterday, it was on line for everyone to see. The vote is scheduled for next Friday, February 17.

Given the process of all the committees and all of the markups and the willingness to entertain amendments from both sides and now posting yesterday, Wednesday, when the vote is next Friday, I think that we are providing and living up to the commitment we've made, that we're going to have a much more open process, that the public is going to be able to enjoy its right to know what we're doing, and Members and their staffs, as well, can do what they need to do to prepare for their amendments and their votes on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows where I'm going on that last comment, because I will just point out the fact that, when he was the majority leader, that bill, the STOCK Act, had sat dormant, and he refused as the majority leader to pick up the bill and bring it to the floor of the House.

Given the vote that we just saw, I think that there was probably legitimate work to improve and strengthen the bill, which indicated and was reflected in the vote that we just had on the STOCK Act. As for the gentleman's suggestion that somehow I'm confusing this bill with others and his reference to the Affordable Care Act, the public doesn't like that bill; right? It doesn't. I'm thinking that perhaps the gentleman is confusing this bill with one that came up during his term as majority leader when the cap-and-trade bill was filed at 2 a.m. and then we were asked to vote on it at 10 o'clock the next morning.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that we have provided for over a week's time and then some for Members to take a look at the full version and to give Members time to prepare their amendments until next Monday so that we can have a full and robust debate on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am just marveling at the fact that I don't understand what the gentleman is seeing here. The Washington Post has just done extensive coverage and a story on that transportation bill and the 5,000-plus earmarks that were involved in the bill that he is bragging about.

We're in a new day here. We're shining the light of day. We're saying no more earmarks. We're not doing things the way we used to do them, and that is exactly what the people want. They want a reformed Congress that belongs to them, that works for them, and not the other way around.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to his amendments that he submits for Monday to be considered by the Rules Committee so that we can proceed, as we have on so many bills, in an open debate on the floor of this House, unlike we ever experienced in majorities past. I would say to the gentleman, let's really try and agree. We have to reform this system. We are standing up for reform, whether it be no more earmarks, whether it be continued positing of positions online so that Members have enough time to review, with an open announcement of how long the amendment deadline is, with a continued pattern of allowing for debate on amendments on both sides of the floor. We're trying to change this institution so it can actually live up to what the people are expecting and for us to be able to abide by their trust.

I believe that what is needed, Mr. Speaker, is some certainty so that the agencies at the State level can operate with their plans going forward for infrastructure needs. I believe that the private sector that is heavily involved with the infrastructure industry can know how to plan so they can make investments necessary so that we can see the maintenance, repair, and expansion of our infrastructure system in this country.

We're about trying to say let's grow. Let's grow. Let's try and work together so we can grow this economy. The economy is dependent upon an infrastructure future that is certain.

The gentleman also knows that we have in the bill a pay-for that is derived from the expansion of the ability to explore in the deep ocean off our coasts because it's an energy resource that we should be utilizing. That, as well, holds a potential for thousands of new jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are all about job creation. And I hope that the gentleman can join us in what is titled the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Again, the gentleman, if he wants to play gotcha----

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just heard what I said: we can create jobs if we open up the ability for more energy exploration. We can create jobs if we provide some certainty to the industries and the State agencies--as well as the Federal agencies--that are involved in planning and charting the course for infrastructure maintenance, repair and expansion in this country.

Growth requires infrastructure that is at top notch, and we know we're a far cry from that in this country. So the gentleman understands my point: growth comes from better infrastructure; growth comes from expanding the ability to explore our natural resources off our coast, something that, unfortunately, most Members on his side of the aisle have not been supportive of in terms of charting a more certain and responsible energy future.

Does the gentleman have any more scheduling questions?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2012.

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. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, which will be announced by the close of business today.

Building upon our legislative agenda this week, the House will consider two more bills next week aimed at reforming the Federal budget process, including H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and cosponsored by Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, as well as H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Scott Garrett.

In addition, the House will act on legislation passed in the Senate yesterday, commonly referred to as the STOCK Act.

Finally, the House may consider H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeff Denham.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is the Republicans on the House side, led by Chairman Camp, have been and are ready to make sure we resolve the issue of the payroll tax holiday extension right now. The issue has been the reluctance on the gentleman's side of the aisle on the other side of the Capitol. So if I thought that working 7 days a week, through weekends and all hours of the day and night would make a difference, I would be all for that as well.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this House continues to act. This House passed a yearlong extension that also did not have the effect of raiding the Social Security trust fund, something that the gentleman and I both want to make sure happens, that we restore the integrity of that fund for the people who are counting on it.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would say the House also, this week, acted on several measures that, frankly, are very relevant to the work of the conference committee, but yet no action by the Senate. One of those things, as the gentleman knows, was passed out of the House this week. It was a measure calling for a pay freeze at the Federal level for Federal employees, including Members of the House and Senate. This was a bipartisan vote; 309 Members voted for that. It allowed for about $26 billion in savings that could be easily included in the conference committee deliberations, something that our side continues to want to include, but yet no answer from the Senate majority leader and his conferees.

So, again, I would tell the gentleman, please, we are as anxious as you are to try and resolve these issues.

We had another vote this week, Mr. Speaker, which garnered 400 votes in the House--a bipartisan bill--which called for some necessary reforms to the TANF program. These were reforms which preclude the use of the monies that beneficiaries receive for purchases of services at casinos and other types of establishments, that perhaps those monies could be better spent not in those places; but again, no response from the Senate.

And I would ask the gentleman if he could please direct his urgency towards the majority leader in the Senate to see if we can get this off the dime and resolve the issue of the payroll tax so we can, as the gentleman suggests, send a very certain signal to the people who are struggling out there, working day in and day out, that their taxes will not go up.

As for the gentleman's suggestion about the job numbers, I don't know if he saw my public statement this morning, but I said that was welcome news, that when you have job creation like that, welcome news, but I also think we can do a lot better.

I was pleased to see that the President came out this week and said he now, too, wants to be a champion of small business; and we say we are happy to work with this White House so that we can provide the help to small businesses. We will be bringing to the floor, before tax day, a small business tax cut bill that goes right at the issue of helping small business people, allowing them more incentive to invest their capital so they can create jobs and we can see this economy really take off.

Let me respond, if you will yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, first of all, I do hope that we can act in an expeditious manner to accomplish the same goal that he's stated. That I agree with. We need to let the people of this country out there who are working so hard know that they are not going to have their taxes go up on them and that we should allow that certainty for a full year, the position this House has taken from the very beginning.

I would say to the gentleman about his assertions of our policies and those under the last President and perhaps their effect on job creation or job loss, the issue is right now--and my question to the gentleman is, as far as that's concerned: Doesn't he agree that we could be doing better?

And that's my point, Mr. Speaker: we can do better. We can do better by focusing on the private sector small businessmen and -women so that we can empower them to begin to invest and create jobs again. We can do better. That is what we intend to do straight up through policies that affect reduction of red tape in this town to make it easier for small businessmen and -women to operate; as I indicated before, a bill to be brought forward to provide for a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses.

And I hope if the gentleman says he's for small businesses that he'll join us in a bipartisan way to support a bill that provides for a 20 percent tax cut for small businesses.

Now, I would ask the gentleman as well, he continues to advocate higher taxes for people, higher taxes. That's what we hear: higher taxes on people who make a lot of money. Well, the fact is, the result of that is putting more money into this town, putting more money into the hands of Washington so that Washington can decide where people's money is spent.

We all know we've got a spending problem, and we all know that raising taxes does not dig us out of the hole. So I would just ask the gentleman, Does he think that's going to fix the problem? It's not as if we're saying we don't want to help the people who are out there struggling. That's what we're trying to do. So I'm looking forward to working with him in a bipartisan way to see if we can get resolution on these issues.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of the 13th. I think there will be adequate time for Members to review the bill and the text, to the gentleman's concern about Mr. Rahall's inquiry last night in the committee. That is exactly why we are allowing for the time, so that Members can review such a big bill, a bill that means so many jobs to so many Americans.

I hope that the gentleman will be true to his nature, which is bipartisan, and to work with us, because this American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act is just that; it's a jobs bill. It is a bill that can provide some certainty to our contractors, some certainty to our communities so that we can start to grow again and see jobs proliferate.

But I find it ironic that the gentleman complains about paying for it, because he talks about our wanting to open up our resources, our resources offshore, our resources in ANWR as, number one, an attempt to allow America to develop finally a national energy policy, but to also promote jobs.

The gentleman knows, as I do, the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty parts of this country, and can do a lot more, and is willing. Private capital, willing to deploy to create jobs.

But I find it also ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman complains that there's no bipartisanship because somehow we're not working with the administration. Well, the administration's been absent on all of this. They're not interested in working with us to create a product where we can see jobs created.

As you can see, the Secretary sits in his office and opines and attacks the bill, saying it is all the negative things that he said. Now, that's not a way to collaborate and work together. And the gentleman knows that as well. The gentleman knows that that is certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to produce a result.

So the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together and that the administration is being trampled by some action here. He knows good and well, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has been absent in so many of the discussions on so many important issues. And the fact that we differ on policy, yes. But I think the gentleman also knows that reasonable people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that we can't work together to find some things that we agree on.

Certainly, we agree on jobs. The gentleman says we agree on small business. I'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit bill. And we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part of our economy. So I'm looking forward to the next week or so, as the bill works its way to the floor, to hopefully garner his support.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I join the gentleman in thinking Secretary LaHood is a fine gentleman, but all I can say is actions speak louder than words.

What I would say to the gentleman about his request for the President's jobs bill and whether we're bringing the whole bill up for a vote, I'd ask the gentleman, How many Members on his side of the aisle have actually sponsored that bill?

I think that there are certainly many elements of that bill that we can all agree on, and, in fact, we have voted on four separate elements, big elements,

of the President's small business agenda that he announced this week that were part of that bill: crowd funding, many offerings to help small business access financing; a bill to provide for 100 percent depreciation; the provisions that will allow for more ability for small business to see money go to the bottom line so they can grow; and a bill that we passed out of this House to eliminate country caps for immigration for highly skilled workers. All these are part of the President's proposals. All these the House has passed, and they sit, and they sit on the other side of the Capitol.

So I would say to the gentleman, he knows, as well as I do, that more stimulus spending as a part of that, the President's proposal, is something we don't accept, but there's plenty in there that we can agree on.

Back to the notion of bipartisanship. Let's set aside differences and find where we can agree. These are areas that we can agree on. So I would say to the gentleman, please work with us. Please point the ire to the majority leader on the other side of the Capitol and say, bring these bills up. These are jobs bills. The President said so this week.

If the gentleman could yield just for a correction. There's no need for pay-fors on these bills. These bills are something that were cleared out of the House in a revenue neutral way.

Right. So, again, the gentleman is correct in saying there is bipartisan support for these bills. The President supports them. Where's the problem? It's across the hallway here, and if we could actually get the majority there to help move these bills, we could make some progress.

It has always been my intention to try and act with dispatch on this very important issue and to get the President a bill that he can sign as quickly as possible.

Again, the underlying notion is, as the gentleman believes, we need to make sure that the people that send us here know that we are acting and abiding by the trust that they place in us. That's what the STOCK Act is about. So what we're going to do next week, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, is we are going to act with dispatch. We are going to take up the Senate bill. We are currently reviewing the actions the Senate took on that bill, and we intend to strengthen that bill, again, to do so in a way that can get a bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people that sent us here that they can have trust in this institution and the Members, and there is no perception whatsoever that anyone here misuses information that they gain in the performance of their duties for their own personal benefit.

I say to the gentleman, first of all, I know the gentleman likes to talk about past Congresses. When he was House majority leader, he did not bring this STOCK Act to the floor, and it was a submitted bill. So let's set the record straight. This majority leader is going to bring a STOCK Act bill to the floor next week.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Walz's bill actually would weaken the Senate bill; and it is our intention to pass and get to the President a workable, strong bill that makes sure that we're delivering on the promise that we made to the people that sent us here. I hope the gentleman--I know he wants to join me in the effort to reinstill the confidence of the public that we are abiding by that trust.

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 fourth grade class at White Oaks Elementary School in Burke, Virginia for their foresight, charity, and patriotism. Recently, these students collected seventy-six dollars and donated it to the United States Treasury to go towards paying down our nation's skyrocketing debt.

At a time when our national debt is over $15 trillion, these fourth graders have realized we must manage down our debt and get our fiscal house in order. Their selfless contribution towards tackling this problem is a promising sign that the future leaders of our country realize that Washington's out of control spending is growing at an unsustainable rate. Just as any family or business must do, Washington must live within its means so that future generations have the same opportunity to earn success that has always made America so great. I only hope that Americans--young and old--can follow the example set by this remarkable group of young students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today in applauding the fourth graders at White Oaks Elementary School for their selfless contribution towards managing down our national debt.

I thank the leader.

Mr. Speaker, a little more than a year ago, America witnessed a heinous attack on Gabby Giffords, her staff, and the citizens of Tucson. This attack took six innocent lives, including Gabe Zimmerman, injured 13, and shook all of us in the congressional community and, in fact, our Nation to its core. This attack was a stark reminder that even in this country, where freedom of speech and public demonstration are the cornerstones of our democracy, citizens and public officials can face violence and danger. We will never forget those who lost their lives on that fateful day or the brave efforts of our law enforcement, community members, and a very special intern who responded in the emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we are inspired, hopeful, and blessed for the incredible progress that Gabby has made in her recovery. Gabby's courage, her strength, and her downright fortitude are an inspiration to all of us and all Americans.

As Gabby leaves the House today, Mr. Speaker, she has decided to focus her energies on recovery, but she has refused to give up her fight for the people of her beloved Arizona and her country; and as such, today we will vote on her legislation to help secure our Nation's southwestern border. Gabby's bill gives law enforcement greater authority to penalize those who seek to do us harm by engaging in illegal activity along the border. I commend Gabby for her commitment to work on this and her unwavering commitment to a safer, more secure America.

For the past 6 years, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords has served Arizona's Eighth District with dedication and dignity. I want to recognize her accomplishments here and thank her staff for their exceptional service, dedication, and, yes, courage during these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I especially want to recognize her chief of staff, Pia Carusone. I know, having met with Pia personally, her having worked with our office, she has demonstrated incredible dedication to her coworkers, to you, Gabby, and, Mr. Speaker, she has demonstrated unparalleled leadership for the people of the Eighth District of Arizona. And for that, I know they are and we are very grateful.

On Sunday, Mr. Speaker, I received a call from Captain Mark Kelly--as we all know, Gabby's husband--who informed me of Gabby's decision. Mark has been steadfast in his support of his wife and forever by her side as her best friend and partner. Though Gabby may be leaving Washington today, I know this won't be the last we see of her or Mark.

We wish you, Gabby, we wish Mark, together, the best as they continue the process of Gabby's recovery.

And I'll say once again, Mr. Speaker, Gabby Giffords' strength against all odds serves and will continue to serve as a daily inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 25, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the selfless service of the Virginia National Guard, which is now celebrating 400 years of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and our nation.

With its roots dating back to the Jamestown Colony in the early 1600s, the Virginia Guard has established itself as one of the oldest institutions of our nation's armed forces. From protecting the colonies during the earliest days of the Commonwealth to its role in the Revolutionary War, the Virginia Guard was an essential force in the inception of our great nation.

For over four centuries, Virginia's guardsmen have come from all walks of life and volunteered to be ``a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.'' These men and women have gone into harm's way time and time again to preserve peace and ensure their fellow citizens of the Commonwealth are kept safe. Members of the Virginia Guard also have a proud history of public service to the nation at large, including five Virginia Guard officers who later went on to become U.S. Presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Tyler.

More recently, the brave men and women of the Virginia Guard have again selflessly answered the call to duty. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, over 14,000 Virginia soldiers have been deployed across the world to protect our country. The enormous sacrifice of these soldiers and their families is something for which we will forever be grateful for.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the sacrifice and service of all past and present Virginia Guardsmen as we celebrate 400 years of courage and bravery in protecting the Commonwealth of Virginia and our country.