Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session in observation of the Columbus Day holiday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate 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. on Friday.

On Tuesday, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Also on Tuesday, the House will complete action on H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, and take up the rule for the three free trade agreements and the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill; therefore, Members are advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series will be longer than usual.

On Wednesday, the House will consider H.R. 3078, the United States- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3079, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and H.R. 2832, extending the Generalized System of Preferences, as amended by the Senate.

On Thursday, the House will consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, sponsored by Representative Joe Pitts. Then finally, on Friday, the House will consider H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Representative Dave McKinley of West Virginia.

The Boiler MACT bill, the three free trade agreements and Mr. McKinley's regulatory relief bill are all part of the House Republican plan for America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that I am very entertained by the nature of his question since, I guess, it starts from the fact that some might believe that Congress creates jobs. But I would say in general, Mr. Speaker, that what we need to be doing here is to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses and investors can actually feel confident again to put capital at risk to create jobs.

I would say to the gentleman further that the administration, itself, has accepted the notion that the passage of the three free trade agreements will have the potential--there's no guarantee--but the potential of the creation of a quarter of a million jobs.

Again, there have been a lot of promises made in this town, Mr. Speaker, about how we're going to control the level of unemployment and make sure it doesn't go beyond certain points connected with the stimulus bill, but I think the American people have had just about enough of broken promises. So we are proceeding with a focus, a focus like a laser, on creating an environment for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs without making promises, Mr. Speaker, that will then let people down. We're trying to regain the confidence of the people and put some sensible regulatory policy in place with a lower tax environment so we can see growth return to a badly needed macroeconomic environment.

I thank the gentleman for all that information.

I just say to the gentleman, in quoting Moody's Analytics, perhaps what he portrays as our way forward, Moody's chief economist was also the one that made the prediction of an unemployment rate that would not exceed 8 percent as a result of passage of the stimulus bill.

And it makes my point, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this country are tired of Washington making promises it doesn't keep. We're trying to abide

by the trust that the people put in us to try and deliver results.

And right now, as the gentleman correctly points out, the economy is in bad shape. We are trying to do all we can to not only put money in people's pockets, because if there were unlimited money, that would be fine. But what we are trying to do is to encourage investment. We're trying to encourage economic activity so we can see growth happen and occur and jobs created.

That's the way it's done in America, is that we need the private sector to take hold of a signal from Washington that we do believe in free enterprise, that we're not about this government dictating where activity must occur, where and who is deserving of government support.

I mean, this is the essence, I think, of our difference, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to set aside the divide, because clearly we don't agree with the President's approach thus far. We didn't agree with the stimulus approach, and I think the facts have borne out that we were right, that stimulus spending out of this government did not produce the results that the administration promised.

We believed then and we believe now the key to economic growth going forward is to increase the competence, is to bolster the entrepreneurial private sector in this country. It's about innovation. From innovation comes jobs, comes manufacturing; but we need to get Washington out of the way and out of the business of creating harm.

The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, quotes all kinds of people; but I can quote my constituents, as I am sure many of his go to him and say can you stop making it so difficult for us to create or run a business? We need to be a startup country again, Mr. Speaker, and we need to see that type of economic activity. That's what will bring on growth.

So what we have said is, no, the President's all-or-nothing approach is unacceptable. It has been rejected by the American people. They don't want the my-way-or-highway kind of conduct.

And what we see out there, Mr. Speaker, is some conduct on the part of the administration that is just not becoming and of a helpful mode. How is it helpful out there to aim at particular sectors of industry, to aim at business in general when we're wanting the businesses to create the jobs?

So what we have said is, no, we are not for voting on tax increases in this House, which is what the President's proposal is about. We're not for accepting his desire to make it more difficult for charities to be successful. That's what's in the President's plan. I'm sure the gentleman would not agree that we ought to limit deductions to charities, and that's what the President's bill does, something that's not very helpful in today's economy when people are so in need of help by charities.

So we said, fine, set aside those differences and let's look at where we can agree. So we said we'll bring the trade agreements to the floor. We've been asking for that, as has the gentleman. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, he has been a stalwart of trying to help get those bills through, and I appreciate that, as do many of the Members on both sides who support free and fair trade.

But I would say we also note the President's remarks in his speech to the joint session where he said he would support our efforts in regulatory relief so that we can make it easier. We can make it easier for people going into business in a sensible way. We continue to bring bills forward on that note every week. We brought two forward this week and, as I indicated earlier, will again next week.

We will also be bringing forward the 3 percent withholding bill at the end of October that the gentleman well knows is a big concern to not only, to not only the private sector, but also to institutions like public universities that have already come and approached me and said, you know what, if you don't do something to remove that requirement, we're going to end up having to pay more for our contracts to our vendors.

So we're bringing that bill to the floor. We also are having bills that will come out of the Financial Services Committee that echo what the President said in his speech to us, that echo the President's stated desire to want to help small businesses access financing. We've got to make sure that we're doing everything there so it's not so difficult. We also intend to bring forward measures towards helping small businesses take advantage of their expenses so they can expense the costs that they incur to grow their businesses and take advantage of that to see if we can grow.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicates we need to have hearings and we need to do things on the President's jobs bill. I think we've indicated, and again, the Ways and Means Committee had hearings related to unemployment insurance reform, something that the President indicated that he wanted to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, no, we're not going to bring up the President's bill in whole because we don't believe in raising taxes and in more stimulus spending, but we are going to take the parts that we can agree on. And we've taken that posture again and again. It's a reasoned approach when you have two sides that have disagreement to say we're going to focus on commonality and transcend those differences.

If I could just respond, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I need to correct the record about the gentleman's statement about my not appreciating history. Of course I appreciate history. It is just one's sometimes biased interpretation of that history that I take exception with.

Mr. Speaker, without getting into specifics, I think the gentleman and I do have a different view perhaps of history at times, not always.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman well knows that the President's jobs bill, as submitted by Mr. Larson, has been referred to many, many committees. There isn't one committee that's going to have a comprehensive hearing on the bill. So as I said before, we intend to take the areas that we can agree on to work together towards forging a solution so we could actually, as some would say, put a win on the board for the American people.

I would say also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there are no cosponsors on the bill that's been submitted as the President's jobs bill. There are no cosponsors. So if there is such support on the other side, I would guess we'll see a lot of people, a lot of Members signing up for that bill.

I would say, though, to the gentleman that the reason we don't believe that bill is helpful right now is because we don't believe that raising taxes is something you need to do to grow the economy. In fact, it's harmful to growing the economy.

And as far as the gentleman's admonition or statement about the joint select committee, again, if he says ``balanced approach,'' that's a nice way of saying we want to raise taxes. We don't want to raise taxes. As the gentleman knows, he and I have been at the process of trying to forge a solution. Both he and I do want to see outcome and success, because I don't feel that it is in any way helpful to anyone to see the joint select committee fail.

The committee is charged with coming up with commensurate savings in order to increase the Nation's credit limit, so that means we've got to get the cuts. But when the gentleman talks about ``big deal,'' I'm all for trying to fix the entitlements because we know that's the problem facing this country, that the disproportionate driver of the deficits is the entitlements.

We know how to fix them. In fact, our side is the only one that has proffered a wholesale formula to address reform that would last a generation. That's the kind of certainty that I think will help in terms of increasing investment and the appetite for risk in this country to help entrepreneurs grow. The gentleman, his party and the President have rejected our approach and have failed to offer a single formula that will fix the entitlement problem and instead want this so called ``balanced approach'' that will simply take money out of the private sector, out of the people who have earned it, the small business owners, to continue to fund Washington to let Washington spend money.

And we say if you are not willing and courageous enough to fix the problem, why should we go and make prospects for economic growth that much dimmer by raising taxes?

So, yes, I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I'm all for as much savings as we can actually accomplish and reform that we can complete, but, clearly, we have demonstrated there are a lot of differences.

So, instead, I would look to the joint select committee to do its work. And I have the full confidence in the appointees by our Speaker that we can see it do its work without a lot of hyperbole and fanfare so we can continue to focus on how we're going to get Americans back to work.

Just one final note, Mr. Speaker, we should just stop buying so much. That's my point.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it shall meet at noon on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the people of Louisa County following the earthquake that rattled the East Coast on August 23, 2011. The 5.8 magnitude earthquake--which was centered in the 7th District of Virginia--was one of the most widely felt in American history, ranging from Alabama to as far north as Canada.

The August 23rd earthquake and its aftershocks had a devastating effect on the Louisa community--destroying homes, closing businesses, and severely damaging schools. The effects of the earthquake cannot be measured by dollars alone. This was a rare event that has disrupted lives, changed routines and has forced the citizens of Louisa County to adapt in ways that they never expected.

The day after the earthquake, I had the chance to visit the community to survey the damage and meet with local officials, first responders, business owners, and families who were affected by this sudden and unexpected natural disaster. Communities and individuals were suddenly faced with the need to complete unexpected and expensive repairs in order to live and work in their homes and businesses. We should all be proud of the way the greater Louisa community has responded and its ongoing efforts of people to help their neighbors during this difficult time. I also want to commend our local and state officials who have worked tirelessly over the past several weeks with federal officials to assess the damage and determine what is needed to help people recover and get the community back on its feet.

While in Louisa, I also visited the North Anna Power Station operated by Dominion Virginia Power, which is located only 12 miles north of the epicenter of the quake. The team at North Anna acted promptly and decisively to safely shut down the two nuclear reactors and thus far no major damage has been reported. I was extremely encouraged by the workers at the power station, who did everything they were supposed to keep the plant and the surrounding community safe in an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the residents of Louisa County for coming together during this time of crisis. I commend them for their continued strength and resolve as the community continues to rebuild following the unexpected disaster.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon in pro forma session.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 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. on Friday.

The House will consider a few bills under a suspension of the rules on Tuesday and possibly Wednesday. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow afternoon.

The House will also consider a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government, and Members are advised that the rule debate for that measure may take place on Tuesday. I do not expect the resolution, itself, however, to be debated until Wednesday.

Finally, we will take up H.R. 1705, the bipartisan Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation, otherwise known as the TRAIN Act, which will measure the full consequences of regulations on job creation and, in particular, the Utility MACT and Cross-State Air Pollution Rules.

If any additional legislation is added to next week's schedule, it will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

I'd say to the gentleman that what will be in the CR is the budgeted amount for all of fiscal year 2012, which is $2.65 billion, will be in the CR, front-loaded. In other words, the agency will have access to all of those funds prior to the expiration of the CR November 18.

In addition to that, we have, as the gentleman knows, funded out of this

House the emergency supplemental, which was $1 billion more than that which the agency had requested, all of which was offset. That, too, will be in the CR.

Yes, that is accurate.

Sure, I do. And, Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is committed to paying for what we spend, and he, if anyone, would put as a priority that we ought to act accordingly.

I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman is defending what occurred during the Bush administration, as I will posit what occurred during the Clinton administration, because President Clinton, under his administration, actually signed four separate supplementals that were offset, including flooding and the Oklahoma City bombing.

So the gentleman is correct; there's precedent on either side. I think he would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for us to begin to really put forth a concerted effort to act responsibly, not just say we're going to act responsibly and attempt to off-lay the obligation to the Joint Select Committee. We have an opportunity to do so now.

And the gentleman refers to the offset that some on his side have raised as an objection. I would say to the gentleman, the facts are: There's currently $4 billion in unobligated budget authority remaining under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program, and this so-called pay-for just rescinds a billion and a half of that total, and the program will have remaining in it $2.5 billion.

I think it's worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, that this money has been laying around since September 30, 2008. That is 3 years.

So I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that anyone is intending to do anything damaging to potential job creation here. What we're trying to do is finally face facts. We in this body, in this town, must stop the Federal Government from continuing to spend money it doesn't have.

And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to the gentleman.

First of all, the gentleman knows good and well that the situation with the Federal debt was entirely different back under the Clinton administration times.

And there was also a Republican Congress that was at work trying to help job creation then at that time as well. So if one wants to claim, we both can claim credit. But as the gentleman knows, I prefer to look forward to see if we can work together.

So with that in mind, the gentleman, of anyone in this body, has been committed to trying to take a fiscally responsible approach, and that's what we're trying to do here. I would say to the gentleman, instead of just trying to claim numbers, as if there is some panacea going on here and as if the move to offset using funds obligated for this program would somehow threaten job creation, if you look at the numbers, this year, all that has been allocated from the available $4 billion is $780 million. That's all that's been allocated and approved under this program. Again, remember, the money has been laying around since September 30 of 2008. That's 3 years.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, the gentleman claims the 33,000 jobs that were actually created by this program, but many would

say that these jobs already existed at existing Ford Motor Company plants. And the administration, I know, has claimed that these jobs have been saved when there's no indication that, in reality, that is the case.

So, again, instead of trying to make all these claims and trying and continue to make promises that, frankly, can't be substantiated, what we're trying to do is do what every family's got to do around its table and every small business person has got to do at the end of each pay period--figure out how they're going to make it through the end of the month.

Just as if a family was facing a situation where they had saved $25,000, $30,000 and they wanted to use that money to buy a new car, and God forbid somebody got very sick that needed that money in their family. Most families are going to take that money and decide not to buy the new car and instead help the family member who needs it.

That's what we're trying to do here, Mr. Speaker. We're not trying to suggest that perhaps there isn't some laudable intent under this program. What we've identified is moneys unspent that have been obligated, moneys that apparently do not go out as quickly as the gentleman may suggest to, as he says and claims, create jobs, and take that money and prioritize it by saying it belongs to help the people in a disaster so they can get the relief they need.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman may have seen remarks I made earlier in this week and last week about the President's job plan. What I said is there is a lot of area I think that we can actually work together on. I do reject the President's demand for an all-or-nothing approach, that perhaps his way is the only way, because there are items in the President's plan that we take strong disagreement with.

So I do think the American people do want us to try and drive towards results here, and I do think there are some areas we can work on together.

We support the extension bonus depreciation. We support removing the pending application of the withholding on government contractors. We support facilitating and increasing small business access to capital. We support incentives to hire veterans. We support reforming the unemployment insurance system in this country, free trade agreements. We would love to entertain serious discussions on how you reform this system so that we can get a better return and improve infrastructure spending in this country.

There are many areas. Small business tax relief, the President discussed. We have our own ideas. As the gentleman knows, the House is proceeding on our agenda for job creation. It's rolling back regulations that are impeding job growth, the one that was just passed prior to the Members leaving the Chamber today. We will have one every week that we believe, after having consulted with small businesses around this country, are getting in the way of their jumping back in the game of job creation.

So we all have ideas. It's not just the President's plan that will come up in this House. We are going to work together to find areas of agreement.

So I look forward to working with the gentleman to achieve that end so that, yes, the middle class in this country can get back to work as we see small businesses beginning to rev up again towards an economic recovery.

I thank the gentleman.

I think, as the gentleman knows, we've been really trying to stick to the schedule and to afford Members some certainty so that they can schedule their business and their time with their constituents in their districts. The hope is at this point for us to absolutely stick to the schedule. We, at this point, have no changes in the recess times.

As for whether we are going to go longer than December 8, obviously the work of the joint select committee bears greatly on that. As the Speaker and as the gentleman knows, the joint select committee is expected to report by November 23. If all goes well, we should be able to live up to the schedule as printed. Again, it all depends on the work of the joint select committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 391) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, on the 10th anniversary of that date, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, my friend, 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, with votes 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 of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday.

On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

The House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules on Monday. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business this afternoon.

As for the remainder of the week, we have a number of items to consider. We will complete action on H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act. We expect to consider an additional FAA extension. We will vote on a resolution of disapproval relating to the President's debt limit increase request. And we will consider H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, the first bill in our fall agenda, Mr. Speaker, relating to job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we are still in discussions with the other body on the other side of the Capitol, as well as the committee, on exactly the construct of that bill, but do intend to bring that forward next week.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying, first of all, the President has not sent a text of his bill, and we will be awaiting that. I would also like to respond by saying that the President came last night, and there were several things and proposals within his speech that seemed to reflect some areas that we can both agree on and build towards consensus. I would say to the gentleman that insisting that this body and the two sides here agree on everything is not a reasonable expectation. But I feel, and have said so many times since the President's speech, that this is an opportunity for us to set aside the differences that we have, because good people can differ, and begin to focus on things like allowing for tax relief for small businesses, like allowing for the rollback of regulatory impediments that stand in the way of small business growth. As the gentleman knows, we have put forward a fall agenda that is squarely focused on those two goals: rolling back regulation proposals that are standing in the way of middle class job creation, and affording tax relief for small businesses to create an environment for middle class jobs.

First of all, I would say to the gentleman, he knows as well that my district was the epicenter of the earthquake and damage there for that as well as extremely hard hit by the high winds associated with Irene. We had almost 900,000 people out of power. There are still some people out of power. So I understand the situation that people are suffering and we need to get them their relief. The gentleman knows that I share his commitment to making sure that happens. I also applaud the gentleman for saying that, yes, because he has always been, Mr. Speaker, someone who says we have to pay for what we do here.

I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't and have never said we should be holding up any relief at all for people who need it. I also think we can work together to act responsibly.

The gentleman has been an advocate always for paying for what we do. And so I would say, as to the request as to where and when we were doing the supplemental, we still have not heard from the administration because, as the gentleman knows, there's a process that goes on at the local and State levels to make a determination about the need and to make a determination that the need exceeds the capacities of the local and State governments so as to then turn to FEMA and the Federal Government to come in.

So I say to the gentleman, we need to understand exactly what the costs are going to be, and we will make sure that we find the money. I will also say that we continue to try and get out of the sort of ad hoc way of appropriating for such emergencies. The fact is in the past that we, in this Congress, have not adequately funded the disaster accounts and have found ourselves caught shorthanded when disaster hits.

As the gentleman knows, part of the debt ceiling agreement included a 10-year rolling average to now be the amount for which we will budget for the disaster fund. Hopefully, that will get us on a much more even keel and allow for the adequate funding of what's needed, both in the short term and long.

But as for the supplemental, we are still waiting for the administration's determination of what is needed. And if it is FY12 monies, we will have the opportunity to roll that into the process of budgeting for the disasters the way we set out to do that in the debt ceiling agreement.

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

I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, the House will now meet in pro forma session only tomorrow. Therefore, no votes are expected in the House on Sunday. Given the critical fiscal and economic situation, however, Members should be prepared to return to Washington quickly if needed. We may only be able to assure a few hours' notice, at most.

Lastly, I would say to the gentleman that the House will be in legislative session on Monday, and first votes are expected as early as noon.

Madam Speaker, it is time to be honest with the American people. At a time when our government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends, we have got no choice but to cut spending and begin living within our means.

Contrary to what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle continues to say, no one, no one wants to bring default onto our country. And with millions of Americans out of work, we've got to focus on getting the economy growing again.

We, as Republicans, as the new majority in this House, as the gentleman from Maryland knows, have put a plan on the table that ensures Washington does not continue to spend money it doesn't have. House Republicans have a plan to cut, cap, and balance our way to prosperity. This commonsense legislation provides a straightforward plan to curb our massive debt and to finally begin to limit spending.

The legislation before us would require, one, a balanced budget component; two, a supermajority requirement to raise taxes on the American people; and, three, a limit on spending as a percentage of

I will not yield.

So I know it makes for good politics to go throw the shiny ball out there, Madam Speaker, that somehow Republicans are wed to that kind of policy to sustain these preferences, when all along, in our budget and in our plan, we have said we are for tax reform. We have said we are for bringing down rates on everybody.

And that's it, Madam Speaker. Let's get serious and stop playing politics. It's not about that. There is no disagreement that any of us want to support those loopholes.

But what's really going on, Madam Speaker, in all of the debt discussion, in all of the negotiation, is the fact that the minority and its party and the President continue to insist that we raise taxes on the small business people that we need so desperately to begin creating jobs and hiring people again.

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

Madam Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. This is a change from the legislative schedule that was announced at the end of last week. We will be sending out an announcement shortly so that all Members are aware of this change. Again, Madam Speaker, the House will now convene on Monday of next week, not Tuesday.

It is critical, Madam Speaker, that we solve our Nation's fiscal problem and intend to schedule the House's legislative business as intended to accomplish that goal.

On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for the 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. on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules on Monday, which will be announced by the close of business today. I do not expect any other legislative business besides suspensions on Monday.

On Tuesday, the House will consider the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which would provide the President with an increase in the debt ceiling so long as cuts are made in the short term, spending caps are put in place over the coming years, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is adopted so that we never find ourselves in this position again. I would encourage as many Members as possible to participate in this important debate on Tuesday.

During the remainder of the week, the House will consider legislation relating to the expiring authorization of the FAA, a series of bills reported by the Financial Services Committee that deal with the impending transfer of authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and, finally, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say back to the gentleman that the bill is currently being drafted and will be posted online later this evening, consistent with our 3-day layover requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that, as he has heard me say before in those meetings and on this floor, I don't want to pass August 2 without increasing the debt.

I, as well as the gentleman, understand that there is a lot of uncertainty if that were to happen, a lot of risks associated with that, risks that I am not willing to take.

To the gentleman's suggestion that it is imperative that we do that above all else, I would also add to that, it is imperative that we demonstrate that we can arrive at meaningful solutions to the current fiscal crisis the country is facing. That is what the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act tries to achieve. It offers a way for us to cut spending in a meaningful way this year and throughout the budget window. It also suggests ways to enforce discretionary levels so that Congress can actually begin to do

what all of us would like to see us do, which is to stop spending the money that we don't have.

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act also provides for caps on total spending levels recommended in our budget resolution. These levels are spending as a share of GDP, and it provides, lastly, for ensuring that even beyond the 10 years that we actually can get back to balance. That's what the people of the country want. I know that the gentleman shares with me a desire to manage this situation back down to balance. So I'm hopeful that the gentleman and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle take a look at this legislation. As I have said to the gentleman, it will be posted online to comply with our 3-day layover requirement to provide adequate notice to the public and Members.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say regarding the gentleman's discussion about what happened at the White House this week and my insistence that the President's, at least, statements in that meeting-- because we don't know what the details were of his proposal on this so- called ``big deal.'' My insistence was consistent with our speakers that we not raise taxes, and that's why that construct doesn't work. We don't have the votes on this side of the aisle. I am not supportive of raising taxes on people who are trying to make it right now and can't.

So I would say to the gentleman when he refers to the other groups that have been out there, all of whom he states suggest that somehow we need to raise taxes, what the gentleman is talking about is how are we going to produce more revenues.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, that you produce more revenues by having growth in our economy. We don't believe that you promote growth in the economy by cranking up the government spending machine by taking money from people who earn it, washing it through Washington's bureaucracy, and sending it back out. We don't believe that.

We believe that growth is created through investment, through hard work in the private sector by entrepreneurs, small businessmen and - women, people who want to succeed but want to earn their success and are not waiting for government to grant it to them. So I would say to the gentleman, if the aim is for us to create more revenues, one word in response: It's growth.

I would say to the gentleman as far as his reference to the Gallup Poll and when he says that overwhelmingly people in this country want to have taxes raised as part of the so-called ``solution'' to our problem----

I will yield to the gentleman when I am finished.

To the gentleman's suggestion that that is where the American public is, I just disagree.

I haven't talked to anybody right now--when we have got unemployment over 9 percent officially, when people are out of work and month after month can't find a job, when small business people are having trouble just keeping the lights on, I don't talk to anybody that says, ``Please raise my taxes.''

That's what we should be focused on are the hardworking people, the people of this country who want a job, who want to see this economy return to growth. They are the ones who understand that it's cutting taxes; it's cutting the overly burdensome regulatory system in this town that will bring back middle class jobs.

So to the gentleman's suggestion that somehow we have not been talking about jobs in this institution, I know it's not surprising to him that I disagree with that.

Right. Because I say to the gentleman, week after week we brought bills to the floor, yes, that deal with our fiscal situation-- that cut spending--because we have got to address that, just like people address it in their homes, their families, their businesses.

But we brought numerous bills week after week to the floor that go to the root of the cause of uncertainty in the business community in this country, and that is Washington's overly aggressive and burdensome regulatory reach. We have got to get back to a growth posture, Mr. Speaker.

That means cut spending, lower taxes and implement a balanced and sensible pro-growth regulatory system as well as, finally, hopefully, returning to a monetary policy that promotes a strong dollar.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon 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 debate and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate 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. on Friday.

On Monday, the House will begin amendment debate on H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water appropriations bill; and consider H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, under suspension of the rules.

For the remainder of the week, the House will consider H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011; H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011; H.R. 2434, the Financial Services appropriations bill; and potentially legislation relating to the expiring authorization of the FAA.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a scheduling notice, Members are advised that the House will now be in session during the week of July 18. I expect legislative business for the week to begin on Tuesday, July 19, at 2 p.m., with first votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. The last votes for the week are expected to conclude no later than 3 p.m. on Friday, July 22.

And I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman is correct.

It is my hope that we can have some deliberative processes and open discussions so that we can arrive at an appropriate conclusion of the challenges surrounding the issue of the debt limit expiration. That is correct.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I have said before that America pays its bills just like the American people are expected to pay their bills at home and in their small and large businesses; but the fact is I think that the American people are expecting us to live up to the promise that we are not going to let spending get out of control again.

So the purpose of the deliberations that are ongoing throughout this Capitol, at the White House, et cetera, are focused--and should be--on making sure we change the system, on making sure that we accomplish the necessary cuts which would exceed the amount that we raise the debt limit, as well as to signal to the American people that we have changed the system; that this kind of unbridled spending ceases and that we begin to live within our means and get the fiscal house in order so that we can focus on the overriding need for this country right now, which is to create an environment where jobs return.

I know the gentleman has seen today's jobs report. ``Disappointing'' is an understatement, so I make the point again:

As the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, he and I were at a meeting at the White House yesterday with the President in which I said, again, the import of our need to act and act responsibly and not--not--to raise taxes on the American people and the small businesses, and that we need so desperately to begin to create jobs again.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman, as he knows--he and I have had plenty of discussions about this; so I assume we are just on for show here--that he wants me to say yes. I believe it would be a grave consequence if we did not reach the point at which we could arrive at a solution and put a bill forward that would permit an increase in the credit limit of this country, with an associated cut in spending, and move to get our fiscal house in order.

And as the gentleman correctly pointed out, the reason why now we will not be in our districts on the week of the 18th is to ensure that we do get it right and that we recognize that the markets, the investors around the world are smarter than expecting us to just go and check the box to meet the date. At the end of the day, what the markets and investors, and, more importantly, the American people, are looking for is that we act responsibly, that we begin to manage down the debt and deficit. That means trillions of dollars of cuts are necessary. Because I think most Americans are looking at Washington in disbelief, that somehow we think there's not enough money coming into the Federal Government.

I mean, just look at the jobs report today. I cannot fathom how anyone thinks right now is a good time to raise taxes. Who thinks that raising taxes on individuals and small businesses can help create jobs? We are in a crisis. People in this country need to get back to work.

And let me just, Mr. Speaker, for the point of explanation because the gentleman insists on going back decades to recount the past--and as the gentleman knows, I'm the first one to say that we came to this majority with some contrition--that, no, we weren't always acting in the best interests of the fiscal health of this country, that's why we have taken the job at hand and acted responsibly and passed a budget that actually puts a plan in place to manage down the debt and deficit, unlike the other body, unlike this President. And that's why we come to the table right now, as we approach this debt ceiling vote, with a well thought out, deliberative plan to get people back to work while we get the fiscal house in order.

But let's just review some of the statistics, Mr. Speaker. There have been 2.5 million jobs lost since this President took office. There are 13.9 million Americans unemployed right now. A gallon of gas is significantly higher--well into the $3.50, $3.60 a gallon in some places in this country, if not higher, up from $1.85 when this President took office. $14.3 trillion in current national debt, up from $10.6 trillion when this President took office. If you work that out, $46,042 debt per person, up from $34,371 when this President took office. So you can go through line by line of how things have gotten worse for the American people.

Now, we can sit here and blame and point fingers all day long, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the bickering. They want to see some solutions. They want to see us come together. That's exactly why we have altered the schedule so we can begin to actually deliver on the promise.

So I agree with the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip; we've got a serious challenge ahead of us. We on this side of the aisle have been consistent in our efforts to meet that challenge in a responsible way. But I would underscore again that now is not the time to raise taxes. Now is not the time to say that Washington needs more money because that money comes off the hard work and backs of the American people.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just try to keep my remarks short, and that is to say, listen, it's about jobs right now. The gentleman correctly points out we have a real spending problem here. And the question is, how do we address the first priority to get Americans back to work and address that spending problem we've got?

Now, if the gentleman says we have to pay for what we buy, I certainly agree with that. We ought to just be buying less as a government because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people. And if we want more people to get back to work, we should allow them to keep more of their money so that they can create jobs.

And that's really where the fundamental disagreement has been over the last couple of weeks. It certainly was what put the Biden talks into abeyance because there was a lot of good work that was done by both sides of the aisle in those talks. And I still believe that the product of those talks will prove to be the basis upon which we can arrive at an appropriate resolution of the challenge before us around the debt ceiling.

But why these talks ended was that your side insisted that we raise taxes. And I would say to the gentleman, raising taxes is, as he would put it, paying for what we buy. And I'm saying let's stop buying so much and let the people decide what it is they want to do with their money.

If I could finish.

I would say to the gentleman, I know he likes to engage in a lot of the decades of history before. And I don't like to go finger-pointing and engage in that. But every time the gentleman raises the issue about jobs lost here, jobs lost there, what it does is require me to posit again, there have been 1.4 million jobs lost since the stimulus bill.

But that makes my point. We didn't need to do the stimulus bill. We didn't need to do the stimulus bill because now we are stuck with over $800 billion in additional debt with now unemployment today at 9.2 percent.

So, again, question whether we're on the right policies here and we're spending the dollars we need to be spending. Maybe we shouldn't spend it. Maybe we should let it be invested in the private sector.

I would end by saying, again, the deficit is a real problem. We've got a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, the largest in history and the third consecutive year of trillion dollars of deficits.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, we can't tolerate that. The President shouldn't tolerate that. The American people have no patience any more. That's why we need to get to work, try and lower the hyperbole and get the job done.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period from August 8, 2011, through September 6, 2011, as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.