Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 5, 2011, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 112th Congress, except that House Resolution 514 shall supplant House Resolution 10.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's the first night of Chanukah and Christmas is fast approaching for families across America.

And what do families see coming out of Washington? Dysfunction and half of Congress unwilling to do its job. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to work for the best interests of the American people. In this tough economy, middle class Americans and working families need to know that their taxes won't be going up at any point next year.

So far the House has passed a bipartisan year-long plan to ensure that taxes do not go up. The Senate, on the other hand, has passed a 2- month plan. According to experts, the 2-month plan is simply unworkable. Families, employers, and workers can't live their lives month-to-month. Washington needs to stop adding confusion and more uncertainty to people's lives.

I think we can all agree that the 2-month concept doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, bottom line, a 2-month patch is irresponsible. That's why the House is taking a stand. We believe all Americans deserve certainty. We want a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut which will prevent a tax increase on every American with a job.

Luckily, Mr. Speaker, everyone claims to agree. In fact, the President himself said it would be inexcusable not to extend the payroll tax cut for a year. The leader of the Senate says that we should be working on extending the payroll tax for a year, but only after the new year.

Mr. Speaker, a great Virginian once said, ``Never put off to tomorrow what you can do today.'' That man was Thomas Jefferson.

Let us dedicate ourselves to that spirit. People across our great country are tired of hearing why Washington cannot do things. They're seeing day in and day out that Washington is not working together, but we have the ability to give them some hope. Let's show the American people that there's a reason to believe that we can work together and deliver results.

Truth is, we're not far apart on this issue. The negotiators got extremely close. We owe some stability and good tax policy to the hardworking people of this country, not more gimmicks and political games.

Today, this House will vote to go to conference and work these differences out in regular order. We need to come together in a responsible manner to find common ground where we can accomplish everyone's goal of a year-long payroll tax extension.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the House, the Senate, and the President cannot spend the next 2 weeks working to get that done. America will be waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman. As he has just read, we have sent out a notice electronically to all Members. Our intention is for the conferees to do their work. We have requested the Senate to do the same, appoint their conferees so we can iron out the differences so we can afford yearlong tax relief for the working people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman, it is very clear--I know he is holding the same piece of paper that I am--and it reflects the electronic message that went out to all Members. Our intention is for the conferees to go to work to iron out the differences, which are narrow, to ensure what all of us wants to happen--that we afford yearlong tax relief to all working people in this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is the House has acted. We have again taken the position that all people, I think, in this building have taken, which is that it is so much better and more desirable for us to provide certainty to the working families of this country who deserve the yearlong certainty of tax relief.

No one thinks that a 60-day extension is even workable, and I think most experts would say could cause unnecessary uncertainty, could cause additional costs to be incurred by businesses, and it could hurt workers.

So I would say to the gentleman, the House has acted. It is up to the Senate to act to stave off this tax hike.

I would say to the gentleman, if the gentleman wants to do his part in trying to make sure that the process moves forward, certainly the Democratic side of the aisle and the minority leader has the obligation to appoint conferees.

And if we are all to continue to work together--which I believe we can because I think the people of this country are tired of hearing what Washington can't do and want to see what we can do. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, the people in this country are beginning to wonder about the body on the other side of this Capitol and are wondering what the leader over there has against the middle class of this country.

So we would say, Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to come together. All of us, including the President, believe it's inexcusable to not allow for a yearlong extension of the payroll tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, as Members are aware, there are ongoing conversations in the Senate over how to proceed on the House's Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. At this time the fate of the Senate's conversations are unclear. Therefore, we will conclude our business for the week at the end of this vote series.

Should the Senate follow regular order and amend the House's bill, I

would expect us to return to review and potentially consider their proposed changes.

As all of my colleagues are painfully aware, the Senate has the ability to move both as quickly and as slowly as it wants. So it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to predict if or when we may need to return.

My best guess is that the earliest we would return is this Monday, December 19. But I can assure my colleagues that we will provide at least 24 hours' notice prior to scheduling any further votes in the House this year.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish all of my colleagues a merry Christmas, a happy Chanukah, and happy holidays.

Yes.

As I indicated earlier, it is all pending the Senate's action. As I indicated, no one really knows how quickly or slowly that will occur and if it will occur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I too want to join the gentleman in expressing our sorrow and extending our thoughts and prayers to those in the Hokie Nation in Blacksburg who, unfortunately, have endured more pain today, reminiscent of the pain that so many have felt in that fine university in the past. Hopefully, things can look up. I know that there are reports that law enforcement was involved. We also want to extend our thanks to law enforcement in that community as well as everywhere else in this country--certainly in this Capitol--for what individuals of the Capitol Police and other police forces across the country do for us every single day.

Again, we express our sorrow to those who are mourning the loss of life and extend our thoughts to President Steger at Virginia Tech and to that community.

I do thank the gentleman from Maryland 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.

At this point, the House is scheduled to be in session for the remainder of the week, with a weekend session possible. Per our usual weekly schedule, I would expect morning hour on most days to begin at 10 a.m. and legislative business to start by noon. However, because this will likely be our last week in session prior to the end of the year, the daily convening times may fluctuate to accommodate our year- end business.

I can assure Members, however, that we do not expect votes on Tuesday, December 13, prior to 1 p.m. That is as far as Tuesday, December 13 is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, our legislative business next week will include a number of suspensions, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we expect to consider a conference report on the remaining appropriations bills for FY12 as well as a conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to thank both Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Buck McKeon for their incredibly hard work throughout the year.

Finally, we anticipate a vote on a year-end package of expiring laws that will include extensions of the payroll tax holiday, unemployment benefits, and the physician reimbursement issue.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to highlight a bipartisan event that took place here in the Capitol this week.

Yesterday the Democratic whip and I hosted the first-ever Facebook Hackathon, allowing private sector programmers and software developers to get together with us to work on ways to utilize social media in making Congress more accessible to the public. I'm happy to report that over 200 developers from all over the country participated in this bipartisan event and shared their ideas.

I thank the gentleman for joining me and for his help in facilitating this noteworthy cause, and I look forward to working with him to continue to make Congress a more transparent and accessible institution for the people who have sent us here.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying that we are still in discussion about that bill and in drafting; and we do intend to abide by our necessary 3-day notice period so that all sides and all Members, as well as the public, can enjoy their right to know what will be in that legislation. But the gentleman is correct, we do expect that bill on the floor next week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I understand the point he is trying to make.

Well, you may have made the point.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say is that I disagree with the gentleman, that if the provisions dealing with the Keystone pipeline are in the measure that makes it to the floor that we shouldn't join together and do what was done in the past, and that is demonstrate a strong bipartisan vote in support of that project. Because, as the gentleman knows, organized labor in this country is very supportive of that bill, of that provision. It means immediate jobs. The President continues to say he is for creating jobs, doing all we can to get America back to work. This is a provision that allows for that.

We also have seen, Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's concerns about Nebraska and the issues raised by its Governor as well as its State legislature, I believe and am told that there have been many discussions in which an alternative route has been determined, and there is agreement on that to allow for the proceeding of the construction of the pipeline.

Again, knowing that there is strong bipartisan support for the project, knowing that labor is in support of it, knowing that it puts people back to work immediately, it would seem to me that this is a consistent provision to go along with making sure that we deal with the unemployment situation in this country through an extension of the UI provisions--with, hopefully, some reforms--as well as the extension of the payroll tax holiday.

As the gentleman knows, our side is concerned. We don't want taxes to go up on anybody, especially in an economy like this. But again, I hope the gentleman can consider joining us in terms of helping promote an environment for job creation.

I'd just say to the gentleman I've already responded to the notion of issues arising in Nebraska that I am told have been resolved, so the issue that he is concerned about has apparently been resolved.

I would say to the gentleman there are 47 Members on his side of the aisle, including five ranking members of committees, that have supported the measure allowing for the construction proceeding on the Keystone pipeline.

There's no gratuitous move here. It's an attempt to try and bring the two sides together on the most important issue, which is creating jobs. This is a provision that I believe has been demonstrated has support on both sides of the aisle.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman could refrain from trying to say and impute motives here. We're trying to work in a fashion--open, transparent, together so that we don't come to any kind of end that doesn't produce a result for the people. That's it.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments.

Sure. Absolutely.

First of all, the issue of insider trading is something that we abhor as well, do not tolerate, and believe that all Members of Congress should fall under the same laws that apply to anyone, and want to make sure that is the case, if it is not.

And transparency is the key because the public needs to know what their Members are doing. We intend to take this issue, make sure that concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the aisle are being vetted. This is an issue of extreme import for the confidence of the public towards this institution. We intend to do so in a deliberate manner.

There were issues raised again by Members on both sides of the aisle about this bill not being brought up in a vetted way. There are many other chairmen who have jurisdiction in this matter who need to be involved in this with a full vetting, and we intend to do that. And I do hope the gentleman will work with us in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, December 12, 2011, 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 will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. However, no votes are expected in the House.

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. We currently expect last votes for the week no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday, but Members are advised to keep their plans flexible as we continue to work towards adjourning for the first session.

Similarly, Members were informed yesterday that we now expect to be in session and voting the week of December 12. The exact voting schedule is not known and will depend on the progress of our legislative business.

Next week the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules on Monday and Tuesday. A complete list of these bills will be announced by the close of business today.

For the remainder of the week, the House will consider two bills which are part of the House Republican jobs agenda: H.R. 10, the REINS Act, sponsored by Representative Geoff Davis of Kentucky; and H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, sponsored by Representatives Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Robert Hurt of Virginia.

In addition, we may be able to go to conference on a couple of year- end items, and we may consider legislation related to expiring provisions of existing law.

Mr. Speaker, as I've said earlier, it is our intention to finish legislative business for the week next Thursday at 3 p.m. and again to remain flexible while we monitor the progress of all of the discussions going on with the gentleman's side of the aisle, both in this Chamber and the one across the way.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman again the request is for Members to leave their schedules flexible. As I indicated we do expect to be in session the week of December 12 but the exact voting schedule is unknown at this time and will depend upon the discussions surrounding the issues that we need to address prior to the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman I join with the Speaker in saying that we want to be out of here by the 16th, and it will all depend on whether we get the work done. It is not our desire to be here the week running up to Christmas. And I would say to the gentleman that it is my hope that we can finish our business by the end of the week of the 12th.

The gentleman is asking about the shape or form of an appropriations package and what it is we'll be voting on. As the gentleman knows, the committee on both sides of the aisle is engaging in discussions to try and finish up our work, and I look forward to that happening, again, within the time frame in which both of us would like to see it happen.

Our hope is, again, to be able to avoid that so that we can have a full appropriations package to dictate the priorities that we can agree upon for spending in the rest of the year.

Again, as the gentleman knows, we are operating within the context of the Budget Control Act, the agreement that was put into law at the end of the debt ceiling discussions at the beginning of August of this year. The amount of spending reductions is not enough for many of us on our side of the aisle and perhaps may not be enough or too much on his side of the aisle; but we are operating under the

deal that was agreed upon, and the hope is to try and finalize all bills; and we're working towards that end at this point.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

As I said earlier to the gentleman, our intention is to operate and abide by the terms of the Budget Control Act.

I'd say to the gentleman that I don't know the quote from which the gentleman pulls as to the Speaker's statement. I know that I share with the Speaker a commitment towards fiscal discipline and that there will be the requisite cuts to go along with the increase in the debt ceiling that will occur by law at the end of this year.

It is my hope that we can act in a bipartisan way to find a way to implement cuts that can replace the across-the-board cuts that will do what, I believe, is irreparable damage to the Defense Department and our ability to defend this country.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, quote from Secretary Panetta, who said as recently as Monday, ``If Congress fails to act over the next year, the Department of Defense will face devastating, automatic, across-the- board cuts that will tear a seam in the Nation's defense.''

He went on to say, ``The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned.'' Furthermore, ``the Pentagon's ability to provide benefits and support for U.S. troops and their families also would be jeopardized if the automatic cuts,'' as designed, ``are allowed to go into effect.''

Mr. Speaker, he ended his statement by saying, ``Our troops deserve better and our Nation demands better.''

I'd say to the gentleman that it is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to try and do that which eluded the supercommittee and the other efforts along the way this year to try and come up with the requisite cuts. Again, I hope that we could do so and make sure the cuts are there, not avoid the cuts, but also not allow them to eviscerate our ability to defend this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, no one is talking about walking away from fiscal discipline, and I share in the gentleman's desire to try and address the real problem here, which is Washington spending.

As the gentleman knows, the Republican majority in the House has the only plan on the table that actually is a big deal that fixes the problem. Unfortunately, there's just not an agreement on those very big issues.

As I've said and indicated earlier, there have been at least three attempts this year to chase the so-called big deal, and the problem is there's no agreement. There's no agreement on doing what's necessary to fix the real problem. And so if we've been there--and the President, himself, has said that there may be some issues that have to be disposed of or resolved in next year's election, but it doesn't mean we can't make some incremental progress.

I disagree with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that somehow if we make some progress, that that somehow takes away from our ability to solve big problems. We have already demonstrated around here the bar is pretty low when it comes to fixing big problems, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that we can't work incrementally together to address priorities.

I'm with the gentleman. I know that the response from the markets and otherwise are not going to be as positive if we don't fix the problem through a so-called big deal. But the point of contention is, one, the unwillingness to fix the real problem, because it's we in the majority that have put forward the only fix, long term, as CBO would say; and then the other point of contention

is we don't believe that now is the time to raise taxes on small business men and women.

And it's not the millionaires and billionaires; that's not the point. We don't believe that when you want to grow the economy, when you want to create jobs, that we should be putting a higher burden on the small business people of this country to create the jobs we want.

So if we know that there's that divide--we have already seen it play out for 8 or 9 months--let's try to work incrementally together in a bipartisan way, the way most people do that have differences, come together where you can set aside the differences.

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to some of the gentleman's questions, first about Bowles-Simpson.

I think maybe some of the position that was taken by the House Members on Bowles-Simpson reflects the fact that it didn't fix the real problem. Again, it didn't fix the entitlement problem we have in this country given the demographics, and so that's the real problem.

And so if you don't fix the real problem and you go raise taxes, which the Bowles-Simpson plan suggested and gave you options to do, it's like throwing good money after bad. And I think the American people are tired of it. We have to fix the problem, and that's what we want to do.

And as far as the sequester is concerned, I want to reiterate that we're not talking about, and I'm not suggesting, on not doing all the cuts, because we believe--and this is the change that we put in place here when we became the majority. We believe you shouldn't be raising the credit limit of the country without turning things around and stopping the spending.

So we're not talking about or not suggesting not doing all of the cuts. What I am saying is we need to work together to find the commensurate cuts that aren't those that disproportionately affect the defense of our country. And I think the gentleman agrees with me; a priority is the defense of our country.

That's why if we can't see our way clear to even finding $1.2 trillion through the Joint Select Committee process, then let's look to see how we come together in an incremental way. But I think the American people are looking for some progress here.

But I want to tell the gentleman, again, I don't believe that raising taxes is a good thing. And, again, the gentleman continues to talk about balanced deals, and that is a euphemism for saying raising taxes.

But, look. If we disagree on that, if the gentleman thinks it's good to raise taxes, then we have a disagreement. So let's, instead, focus on areas where we can actually find common ground, and the common ground should be, as the gentleman suggests, on small business.

Now, every economist there is will tell you that uncertainty, that added costs will provide an impediment to job creation. Now, I'm sure the gentleman has visited small business people in his district like I have in mine. And the kind of regulatory measures that we brought forward, whether it's regulations being proposed by the EPA, those being proposed by the NLRB, or any of the other measures, the ones that we passed on the floor today, these are measures to remove the uncertainty of added costs to our businesses, our small business men and women. Today's measures and this week's measures went to the fact that we need some common sense put back into the regulatory process.

We want to make sure that agencies take into consideration their actions and the consequences that those actions have on small businesses. We want to make sure that the agencies are going through a cost-benefit analysis that's a balanced and sensible approach. And yes, I think you will find agreement among economists, if you've got that kind of certainty, you will lend the process towards a better economy to create jobs, and I yield back

I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman asks what regulations did we put forward, bills removing impediments in the regulatory process. Well, I mean the Keystone Pipeline, look at that bill. That bill says we'll create 12,000 construction jobs right away if we can remove the necessary government redtape getting in the way of that project. So I don't see that there's any disagreement over that, but somehow we have your side saying that we shouldn't do that.

And if the gentleman is so interested in paying for things--because I don't believe that that's an issue now because we're not saying remove the sequester. What we're saying is finding cuts elsewhere but imposing that discipline. But if we're talking about not paying for things, what about the stimulus? My goodness, that was an 800-plus billion dollar effect at the end, didn't pay for anything, and it ended up imposing all kinds of debt now on us and our children and theirs.

And so I am with the gentleman: let's be courageous. Again, our budget was put out there. In the joint select committee process, our side proposed a plan to come together, and I think that the gentleman knows on his side there were comments made that there was never any coalescence on the part of the Democrats as to a way to come to some solution.

So I'm for the courage, but seemingly, after looking at the three processes that have taken place, the Biden talks, the White House talks, and those between the Speaker and the President and the leader on the other side of the Capitol, as well as now the joint select committee, all of those did not come to a result. So if that's the case, let's then say, well, wait a minute, maybe something's not working here. Then let's try and see what can work and what can't work. We really can come together in a bipartisan way and find some things that we agree on. Let's set aside those big differences, and the President even suggested back in the spring those big differences may get in the way. So, fine, let's find a way for us to at least make some progress because some progress is better than none. So incremental progress is better than no progress. That's for sure.

Again, I'd say to the gentleman, I think our side has demonstrated--we've put forward a number of plans, both in these processes that we're talking about and in the joint select committee, as well as with our budget. And I think we come from the perspective, Mr. Speaker, let's fix the problem. If you don't fix the problem and then you want to raise taxes, especially on small businesspeople, you are throwing good money after bad and you're aggravating the crisis that is gripping this country right here and now as well, which is the jobs crisis.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, let's agree to work towards common ground. We have laid out very well several times where differences are, but it's time for us to really work to transcend those differences and work in a bipartisan manner and see where we can come together. We've done it. We've done it in the House on the trade agreements. We've done it in the House on the 3 percent withholding bill. We've done it in the House when it comes to the veteran hiring bill. We can do this. Now, yes, it's not everything that all of us want, and I share the gentleman's frustration.

The gentleman has been here a lot longer than I have. But I will tell you I think the gentleman's career has been built on progress. So let's work towards progress again. That's all.

We've always said, certainly, there needs to be more revenue. But we need to be focused on how we can have a sustainable revenue flow, and that's from a growing economy.

The gentleman asked me before whether we have economists that will endorse our Republican jobs-creator agenda. And, yes, the Speaker, as he knows, has issued a letter with 132 economists listed on that letter. And I'm going to send it to the gentleman so he can be reminded yet again that, yes, there are plenty of economists who embrace the notion that if we take away the impediments that Washington has put in place, that we can see a growing economy and produce more revenues.

I would say to the gentleman about his assertion about fixing the problem, he's correct, we need more revenues. We believe we need more revenues. Let's first see if we can fix the problem, because just paying for things by raising taxes doesn't fix the problem.

We know the demographics of this country. We know 10,000 people every day turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. We know that Medicare is supported by premiums and taxes paid in. And those revenues cover only a little over half the cost of the program. We know that means that every day times 10,000, you're 50 percent in the hole. You cannot tax your way out of that. You can't grow your way out of that. You've got to fix the problem.

Back to my original notion. We're the only ones that have put a real fix on the table to that problem. And so what the gentleman says is, No, no, no, we don't want to fix the problem; we just want to tax people more until sometime, somewhere we come up with a solution to fix the problem. That's like throwing good money after bad. And raising taxes on small business people is going to get in the way of getting more revenues into Washington because you're not going to spur the economy into a growth mode.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have been over and over this for months. We know where our differences lie. Let's come together.

I would say Keystone pipeline: again, the gentleman has a lot of support on his side for the unions in this country. They want to see the Keystone pipeline built. Twelve thousand new jobs right away-- almost 13,000 construction jobs. We've got manufacturing jobs and spin- offs that will come from that. Why can't we come together on jobs?

So, again, we can do this. We really can. It's time for us to begin to work together towards a productive end. Let's get America back to work, get this economy growing again, and then maybe we can then tackle some of the bigger problems that have eluded us in this quest to try and accomplish it all that has failed this year.

I just want to thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with him over the next 2 weeks.

I just want to clarify, no one is talking about removing the sequester, absolutely not. The gentleman knows where I stand on that. I'm talking about making sure that we come together to find the cuts commensurate with those aimed at the Defense Department, and in lieu of those cuts, putting others in place so we can maintain our priority of the national defense of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Richmond men's basketball team for a remarkable 2010-2011 season, which culminated in an Atlantic 10 Conference Championship as well as a berth to the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament.

The University of Richmond, which is located in the heart of Virginia's Seventh Congressional District, boasts a long tradition of excellence on the basketball court. Since 1984, the Richmond Spiders have earned an impressive 9 bids to compete in the NCAA Tournament and have reached the Sweet Sixteen on two of those trips.

This past March, along with cross-town rival, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Spiders captivated the entire City of Richmond as one of two teams advancing to the Sweet Sixteen--a feat matched by only two other cities since 1980.

The 2010-2011 season was one full of accomplishments for the Spiders--setting a school record for number of wins, 29, and points scored, 2,577. On several occasions, the Spiders defied the odds to beat top-tier programs. In November, the Spiders pulled off the upset by shocking the then-8th ranked Purdue Boilermakers by a score of 65- 54. After gaining a berth to the NCAA Tournament, the Spiders carried their seven game win streak into a game against the fifth seed, Vanderbilt, and proceeded to knock off the favorite in the opening round of the tournament.

Several Richmond players took home individual honors this past season as well. Senior guard Kevin Anderson--the 2010 Atlantic 10 Player of the Year--continued to pile up individual accolades, garnering both First-Team All-Conference honors as well as being named the 2011 A-10 Tournament MVP. Senior forward Justin Harper also earned First-Team All-Conference honors and subsequently was drafted 32nd overall in this past June's NBA Draft. Kevin Smith, a senior forward, also was named to the A-10 All-Defensive team.

The Spider's success on the basketball court should come as no surprise. Led by head coach Chris Mooney, the University of Richmond has established itself as not only a leader in the A-10 but also one of the nation's elite. Mooney's Spiders have reached the NCAA Tournament in back-to-back years, and have also finished inside the Top 25 of the ESPN/USA Today Coaches poll the past two years. The Spiders have shown that they do not shy away from competition--having won seven of their last ten games against ranked opponents.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the Richmond Spiders men's basketball team, Coach Mooney, President Ed Ayers, and the entire community at the University of Richmond for a spectacular season and I wish them well this season.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that many businesses across this country are feeling the ill effects of the regulatory and tax burdens placed upon them by continued policies coming out of Washington and this administration. Small businesses in particular, the backbone of our economy, face a cloud of uncertainty. This uncertainty prevents entrepreneurs from taking a risk, from starting a business and from creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans want to work with our colleagues across the aisle, and we want to help empower these small businessmen and women to, once again, be the engine that drives our economy. This is the focus of the House Republican plan for America's job creators, Mr. Speaker. This is about jobs.

There are some who repeatedly claim that they want to vote on a jobs bill. Well, we passed one yesterday on a bipartisan basis. And today, we'll have another chance, and we will pass another. Currently, the House has passed 16 bills focused on job creation that are sitting idly in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the President has traveled the country telling Americans, ``we can't wait'' to pass some jobs bills. Well, we aren't waiting. We continue to pass jobs bills. Perhaps it's time for the President to deliver the ``we can't wait'' message to the other body in the Capitol.

Today, the House will take another step in solving our jobs crisis by repealing the 3 percent withholding rule. Under this rule, Federal, State, and many local governments will be required to withhold 3 percent of all government payments made to contractors and suppliers. The impact of this rule will be huge accounting burdens on governments and potentially harmful cash flow disruptions for suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors. Those are dollars, Mr. Speaker, that could otherwise be used to grow a business or hire more workers.

The cost of this law would then be felt by State and local governments and by universities like Virginia Commonwealth University, which told me it is an ``unreasonable burden on an institution of higher education,'' that it is an unreasonable burden on heavy equipment dealers and on other businesses across the country. Compliance costs would move capital that otherwise would be used to hire additional workers to the government.

Many of my fellow Virginians in the county in which I live will be severely impacted. For example, if this law had been in effect in 2009 and 2010 in the county of Henrico, Virginia, an estimated $15 million would not have reached small businesses that are already operating within small margins of profit.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to be adding additional costs to our job creators. In May of this year, my county manager stated, ``The effect of this law may also be harmful to the economy with a significant amount of money being directed to the Federal Government instead of to businesses that will potentially use those funds to create jobs and grow their business.''

By passing another jobs bill, House Republicans are helping companies cope with this era of uncertainty. This is another bipartisan and commonsense solution to support the small business men and women so that they can support and begin to regenerate our ailing economy.

In this past week, Mr. Speaker, we passed the long-awaited free trade agreements and the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act. Next week, we will further help entrepreneurs access capital with the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act.

The President says, We can't wait.

We agree. It's time to get America working again. We call upon the Senate, not only to act on this jobs bill, but on the other 16 jobs bills that currently sit idly in the Senate.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, our current economic environment has left millions of Americans without the hope of a brighter future. The constant threat of tax increases and the continued threat

of excessive regulations coming from this administration sends the wrong signal to our entrepreneurs, our investors, and our small business people, the very people we need to create jobs. It sends the signal that America is not open for business. And there is a sense that we may be falling behind other nations in the global marketplace.

We face big challenges, but America has always stood up when times were tough. We are a country of entrepreneurs and innovators. Madam Speaker, it is time to energize our small businesses and job creators and get the economy growing again.

When House Republicans released our plan for America's job creators, we outlined our ideas to get our economy back on track, to promote an environment for job creation, and to ensure America remains the land for opportunity without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. And part of that plan was passage of the free trade agreements with Colombia--yes, Panama, and yes, South Korea.

But our support for passing these agreements is not new. On December 22, 2009, I, along with other House Republican leaders, wrote to President Obama outlining what we called the ``No Cost Jobs Plan.'' In that letter, we noted that passage of these trade agreements would, according to experts, increase exports by 1 percent. That 1 percent increase in exports equates to a quarter of a million new jobs. We noted in our letter that the only thing standing in the way of creating those jobs was for the President to submit the trade agreements to Congress for approval. Since then, we have repeatedly called on the President to move forward with these agreements so we can clear the way for thousands of new jobs and create an environment for economic growth. Nearly 2\1/2\ years later, on October 3, the President finally submitted all three agreements.

I am glad that the administration has recognized the importance of expanding market access for American companies, both small and large. As majority leader, I introduced all three agreements the very same day the President submitted them, and I am pleased today that the House will approve all three agreements.

By moving forward on these agreements, Madam Speaker, we will help manufacturers in my home State of Virginia and those across the country increase exports and increase production. The more manufacturers produce, the more workers they need, and that means more jobs.

Our action today is proof that when we look for common ground and work together, we can produce results. I'd also like to note that today, Madam Speaker, the House is acting on another bill that is part of the President's jobs plan. The House will pass the VOW Act, the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act, to help our soldiers and veterans with the challenges of reentering the workforce.

Madam Speaker, there is no more time to waste. We have said over and over again that we should not let our differences get in the way of producing results, and we want to find common ground so that we can work together to improve the economy. I hope today's action will encourage the Senate and the President to join us in helping to pass these trade agreements and other pro-growth measures to help the American people get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Henrico County Public Schools on their significant achievement of being named the American Association of School Librarians' 2011 National School Library Program of the Year.

Each year the American Association of School Librarians honors schools with exemplary library programs that share their commitment to ensuring that students and staff are effective users of ideas and information. The Henrico County library program met these criteria with its guiding mission of ``empowering students and staff to become critical thinkers, enthusiastic readers, skillful researchers, and ethical users of information.''

The collaborative efforts of the staff, teachers, parents, and members of the Henrico County community have a profound impact on the program, helping to implement student-driven inquiry, research, and creativity, while facilitating student growth. A strong education system is essential for the future of our country. The hard work and dedication of the librarians and staff at the Henrico County Public Schools will ensure their students are prepared to learn and succeed in the future.

Henrico County is composed of 69 schools with approximately 49,000 students in grades pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The library program is staffed by 82 full-time librarians, 39 full-time support staff, and 34 part-time staff, all of whom have contributed to the program's success.

I commend the Henrico County Public Schools and ask you to join me in recognizing the librarians, teachers, staff, and students for their outstanding accomplishment.