Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 5: Page 78, beginning on line 17, strike

``(6)'' and all that follows through ``(7)'', and insert (6).

Page 78, line 23, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 178, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution with an amendment I have placed at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 620 provides a structured rule for H.R.

9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act. The bill was introduced on March 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), and was ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on April 10.

The rule provides for consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing with tax policy.

Madam Speaker, today we will be considering the underlying legislation, which will allow the House of Representatives yet another opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across America by giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our economy. It would be an understatement not to recognize that this country, including small business, is under duress.

We are under duress in this country. The economic circumstances, which abound across the entire country, are not only obvious to every one of our citizens but also to this body, and we are here doing our job today following through not just in regular order, but the process to make sure that we are talking about what Congress should be doing to aid small business. I believe that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system and entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because we're allowing them competitive advantages.

Earlier this week, congressional Democrats and President Obama offered their competing plan, and their plan is to raise taxes on small businesses. We disagree with that.

Today, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, under the great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, offer a different vision for America. Despite their best effort, congressional Democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our economy. It's really simple logic. Increasing taxes on job creators will not help create jobs. It will place new impediments and roadblocks for not just job creation, but the opportunity for business and small business to be successful.

Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small businesses across the Nation as we demand less government intervention and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business to get what it needs.

Madam Speaker, as this Congress and the American people know, job creators are small businesses. They are the engine of our economy and, as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in Dallas, Texas, the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was necessary in small business. That same engine of our economy is what we are trying to restart and ignite today. Congressional Republicans will continue to promote job creation through robust economic growth because we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get that done.

H.R. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their domestic business income. So, no matter how they're organized under the Tax Code, under the bill the size of the tax cut is kept at 50 percent of W 2 wages paid, encouraging increasing hiring. I have been in touch with small businesses across Dallas, Texas, and across that area, and we do understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to increase the amount of not just employment, but to help them grow their businesses. In return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously, then, Uncle Sam, gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for unemployment.

Small business, we know, employs about half of our private sector workforce and generates 65 percent of our new jobs. What we are here on the floor talking about today supports ideas that come straight from these small business job creators, directly from men and women, many minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to go to college, ideas that they have.

Entrepreneurship, the American Dream, is what we are talking about today, and we need to keep that dream alive. With an unemployment rate consistently over 8 percent for the past 3 years, it's time that we not only take aggressive action, but that we do the things that are being asked for that will create jobs.

In my home State of Texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million sole proprietorships will see immediate benefits from this bill. They call that relief. They call that competitiveness, and we call it up here giving back to those job creators what they need by listening to them and then offering solutions. Those real Texans are struggling even in the midst of perhaps one of the best economies in this country. Texans are still struggling, and small business needs this opportunity today.

Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the President came together to pass what was known as the JOBS Act, a bill designed and designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business. I was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only passed on a bipartisan effort, but has become law.

This underlying bill today applies those very same principles. But instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation before us enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have earned and to reinvest into their own business and to make sure that that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through their own success.

Democrats, quite likely, as we have heard up in the Rules Committee and seen in the press, will oppose this novel concept because they really want Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, not our hardworking constituents back home, to have the availability to get those dollars. I'm proud to tell the small businesses in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Irving, Addison, and Richardson, Texas, that with this bill those small businesses, not just in my congressional district that I am lucky to represent, but all across this country, will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow and succeed and, perhaps most of all, it is a group of people in Washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business, men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just for them and the American Dream, but also for more employees.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding me the time, and I hope that the substance that I provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's request.

First of all, let me say I know Bruce Bartlett. I had a chance to work with Mr. Bartlett when I served as vice president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Mr. Bartlett was a contributor not just to the NCPA, but of economic terms.

I will completely agree with Mr. Bartlett that there are many out there who have successful businesses. Our point is we want them all to grow. Successful businesses are able to hire new people. Unsuccessful businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the amount of pay, but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. So we want people to be successful. And I think Mr. Bartlett is correct. It's a wide swath.

I want small business, because of the size, not because of how successful they are, to be able to employ more people. And that's what Republicans are trying to do. Guilty as charged.

I thank the gentleman.

Here's what I can give. Mr. Bartlett is wrong, because I know there will be at least one new net job created, and I know that because the testimony and information that I received last week as I was at the North Dallas Chamber, several people told me this is exactly what they need. They needed the jobs bill to get credit. They need this opportunity.

And what's interesting is, on the reverse side, is where Illinois, in January, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes, and they lost 58,000 jobs in Illinois quickly because of high taxes. We're trying to make it easier to grow small business. Mr. Bartlett seems like there will be no new job growth--there will be--and he knows better than that.

The answer is no. And I would reply to the gentleman, I saw in this House of Representatives when former Speaker Pelosi increased the amount of money that we had in our Member reimbursement account, we went out and did more, and I hired an additional person at that rate.

If given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want to add employees, and this is what nobody seems to understand in this town.

We are for growing our economy. No one on our side would do something that wouldn't necessarily work. We are doing it because this is what people are asking for to grow the economy.

Thank you very much for yielding.

As the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the hearing which we had in the Rules Committee yesterday, that while these are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them what to do. There are no limitations in this bill that would say that you must or must not do these things. We don't do that.

We try and encourage, on the Republican side, and believe that this is what small business is asking for. I think you will be shocked with not only the success, if we had testimony from these small businesses, but this is what they're asking for.

Let's go to the worthiness of why would we possibly push an agenda that will never be held to the light of day with a vote in the United States Senate--for the same reason that the President will never get a tax increase from John Boehner. This Republican House will not increase taxes, and so I don't know why the President is doing what he's doing.

I believe that would be correct.

I appreciate that and thank you so much for asking the question.

The gentleman was here in 1997. The exact same arguments took place as we worked with President Clinton, and we were told on this floor a capital gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the Treasury, and $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year.

I would say to the gentleman, if we encourage people to go do things, they will turn things into great opportunities.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) who is a freshman who serves on the Transportation, Homeland Security, and Science Committees, and a man who understands what people back home are asking for.

Madam Speaker, we're hearing a lot of rhetoric today about all these millionaires that are out there. And I would be for their ideas if they worked, but the facts of the case are what they create is less opportunity.

The IRS, on their Web site, shows that there were 37 percent fewer people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. That's the latest information we have on the IRS Web site--37 percent fewer people reported numbers of $1 million or more. That falls right in line with what's happening as America goes into bankruptcy. Because this is about fairness. Well, it shouldn't be about fairness. It should be about opportunities, creating more opportunities. That's the same reason why this same rhetoric, why 63 percent of our children move back in to our homes when they finish college--lack of opportunities. That's not fair. Fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something better of their lives.

What we're talking about today will help some 54,509 women-owned businesses in the State of Texas alone that account for 483,000 individuals. That's what we're trying to help and save. This is the right thing. I'm very proud of it.

I know what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do is call it fairness. All it simply does is cause further economic malaise and deficiencies all across this country of small business.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman who sits on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

By the way, President Obama even admitted that did not work, that shovel-ready proposition that he tried to sell across the country simply did not work. I would be for the President's ideas if they worked. What they're about is the supposed fairness, which diminishes the economic opportunity for this country to grow and have jobs and make small businesses grow.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Thank you very much. In fact, I would tell the gentleman we have no additional speakers other than myself, and I'll plan to close.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, not only for his vigorous defense of the Democrat position to increase taxes, but I would like to, if I can, state what really are the facts of the case and what is in this bill.

The claim is that tax cuts will be available for small businesses even if they ship jobs overseas. Well, the fact is this legislation allows the 20 percent deduction for qualified domestic business income. Domestic. That's here. Domestic business. It would not be allowed to include money that was earned overseas. So I think that that is a good part of this bill. I think what Mr. Cantor did is understand that we are trying to grow American jobs.

There have also been a lot of statements made by our friends, but I think the American people need to hear this about the bill and the substitute, which will be allowed and which was allowed in the Rules Committee, and that is, similar to H.R. 9, which is this bill, the Levin amendment, which would be the substitute, does not include any provision addressing companies that continue to make foreign investment. It's devoid of that. Both proposals do tie the small business tax deduction to domestic wages. Both bills do that exact same thing. So to accuse us of not doing something or something that would create or stop business from having jobs overseas, that's devoid of that in both bills. They are both consistent. It's about domestic works.

Similar to H.R. 9, the Levin amendment does not require job creation to benefit from the tax deduction. No one says you have to go and create jobs. We understand enough about business to know this is what they're asking for so they can grow jobs.

The Levin amendment does deviate from H.R. 9 in one very significant way, and that is the amount of money that would be available to small business so that they can expand the economy, grow jobs, and create opportunities for Americans. Obviously, what we're here today to do is to grow the economy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record an article which is from The Wall Street Journal, June of 2011. I would like to read just a little bit of this:

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes.

By the way--and it's off what is here--this was done for fairness. It is the same proposal that Barack Obama, as our President who was just elected, was trying to push in the campaign. Illinois thought it sounded really, really great. So let's see what happened, what the fairness resulted in, and I go back to the article, that between its passage and June--6 months later--Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to statistics released by their own departments there in the State of Illinois. But here is what's really amazing. It's not just that they lost the jobs, but it's the hysteria that ensued therein. I continue to read:

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.''

So they were not even going to get $230 million worth of additional revenue. They put this tax on, and now they're having to beg people to stay. Madam Speaker, I would be for what President Obama and our friends, the Democrats, are for if it worked the way they said it would. The facts of the case are simple.

The Republicans understand business, but we understand the ability to listen and give small business what it's asking for. They'll do their job. I know small business and I know it well. They'll get their job done, and they'll do it quite well. They will add employment. They will hire their neighbors. They will hire more women and minorities who can come in. They will provide real dreams for people and give them not just that entrepreneurship angle but the angle to make sure that we're adding revenue in this country.

Republicans get it and Democrats, too. We are for fairness in a different way. Fairness comes from a job and job creation and the American Dream, not losing jobs and explaining to people, I'm sorry, we just had to do this just to make things fair.

Fairness and not having a job is not fairness. We're aiming for job creation and the development of that, and that's why we're asking people to make sure that we pass this bill today. I applaud Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor for introducing this legislation. It comes from his listening to people across this country.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has

adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small

businesses that employ millions of American workers as a

precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.

To see the real world effect of this proposal on jobs and

the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful,

cautionary example.

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in corporate taxes. Between

its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs according to

statistics released last week.

To combat the job losses caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''

So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's

now allowing the government to pick winners (large,

politically-connected companies) and losers (everyone else).

Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is

simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the

56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.

Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.

We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but

because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.

House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and

providing certainty (not new burdens) to our job creators--

and paying down our nation's debt for our children.

The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed

policies of the President's home state, and House Republicans

will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter

future for generations to come.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 620 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3903) to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective

tax rate for high-income taxpayers. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Norman Meador for his dedicated service to Boy Scout Troop 890 in Lake Highlands, Texas.

Chartered in 1961, Troop 890 was organized to help shape the lives of boys in Dallas by teaching them the principles of Scouting. Over the past forty years, Mr. Meador's love of Scouting has led him to serve Troop 890 in a variety of official and unofficial roles. During this time, he has taught and instilled in many young men the values and knowledge necessary to mature and become leaders in their communities and our country. Among the hundreds that benefited from Mr. Meador's servant leadership are my sons, Bill and Alex; both were active in Troop 890 and attained the prestigious rank of Eagle Scout under his tutelage.

In 2011, as Troop 890 celebrated its 50th Anniversary, Mr. Meador was recognized for his dedicated service and received the prestigious Scoutmaster Emeritus Award. On April 28, 2012, Boy Scout Troop 890 will hold a special ceremony at Camp Constantin where a new pavilion will be named in honor of Mr. Meador. The Meador Eagle Pavilion will serve as a testament of his faithful service to Troop 890 and his commitment to Scouting.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Mr. Meador on this great honor. I wish him all the best. May God bless him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Joan and Alan Walne for their dedicated service to the city of Dallas and Fair Park. On April 3, 2012, the Friends of Fair Park will present the Walnes with the 2012 Spirit of the Centennial Award.

As long time residents of the Lake Highlands neighborhood in Dallas, Texas, the Walnes have worked hard over the years to actively improve their community through numerous civic and nonprofit organizations. Joan, a graduate of Baylor University, has devoted much of her time and effort to improving the local school system. She has served as PTA President, on various Richardson Independent School District committees and local school councils. Additionally, she is active in the Junior League of Dallas, Equest, Children's Medical Center of Dallas and is currently serving as President of the Dallas Park and Recreation Board. Similarly, Alan, a graduate of Texas Tech University, has generously given of his time and spirit to various organizations and charitable causes, including the East Dallas Chamber, the Down Syndrome Guild of Texas, the Lake Highlands YMCA, and the Salesmanship Club of Dallas. His strong belief in service led him to run for Dallas City Council where he faithfully represented District 10 for seven years.

I am proud to count Joan and Alan among my good friends. Their dedication and service to the city of Dallas epitomizes community spirit and selflessness. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Joan and Alan as they receive this year's Spirit of the Centennial Award for their years of service and commitment to Fair Park.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert E. Casey, Jr., the Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Dallas Field Office. Mr. Casey is retiring from the FBI on April 30, 2012.

Upon graduation from Indiana State University, Mr. Casey joined the Houston Police Department in 1981. During his tenure, he served as a patrol officer and an investigator on the organized crime squad and earned the prestigious ``Police Officer of the Year'' Award in 1983. In September 1986, he joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a Special Agent in the Phoenix Field Office and began working on organized crime and drug investigations. Throughout his tenure with the FBI, Mr. Casey served in a variety of offices including Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, and Dallas. Due to his exemplary service, he was promoted to the ranks of Senior Executive Service and was the recipient of the prestigious 2006 Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive.

I have had the privilege of knowing and working with Mr. Casey. He is a principled man with a keen sense of civic duty. He has dedicated his life to public service and proven to be a great leader and a true patriot. Our Nation is a better and safer place because of individuals like him.

As he retires from the FBI, I know Mr. Casey will be delighted to spend more time with his wife, Leslie, and their two children, Gayle and Drew, who have faithfully supported him throughout his career. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Casey on twenty-six years of dedicated service to the FBI and this great Nation. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. May God bless him and his family.

Madam Chair, I rise to support the amendment to H.R. 5 that I have co-sponsored with my good friend Congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. The amendment extends critical liability coverage to emergency room and on-call physicians and physician groups.

Madam Chair, we are at a crisis point in this country. In these difficult economic times, our emergency rooms have become a source of primary care to many of our fellow citizens. At the time that we need them the most, nearly half of all emergency rooms in medical liability crisis states are under staffed. We face this shortage not because of a lack of trained specialists, but because liability coverage costs too much due to the unique set of medical challenges that are seen in emergency situations.

By law, emergency rooms must treat anyone who needs care regardless of if they have insurance or can afford it. Over the past several years, emergency rooms have seen an increase in patients due to the number of unemployed and/or uninsured people needing care. We have found that our emergency room cases are becoming more complicated and frequent, and our doctors do not have the luxury of a complete patient history.

Our emergency physicians are the first line of defense for the health care community. As such, we must provide basic liability protections to these emergency and on-call physicians. This liability protection is critical to maintaining the state of the art emergency facilities that we have at our disposal today.

The Dent-Sessions amendment would deem hospitals, emergency rooms, physicians and physicians groups that provide emergency care to individuals to be employees of the Public Health Service for purposes of any civil action that may arise due to health care items and services provided under the Public Health Service Act.

I commend Congressman Dent for his leadership on this issue and would ask my colleagues to support this amendment which is critical for patient care.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 113, had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 116, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 115, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend Ebby Halliday Acres as she celebrates her one hundred and first birthday tomorrow. Ebby is a remarkable woman who has made a lifelong impact on the Dallas Community through her leadership and philanthropic endeavors.

Ebby Halliday Realtors was founded in 1945 by Ebby and her beloved husband, Maurice Acers. Their company began with only fifty-two homes in North Dallas, and has since grown to become one of the largest privately owned residential real estate firms in the country. Ebby is a true entrepreneur that we can all admire. Her savvy business ventures have produced countless jobs, and her success is a true testament to what can be achieved with a positive attitude and hard working spirit. Ebby is a symbol of the American Dream, and through her company she has been able to help countless others achieve their own dreams of home ownership.

Ebby is also celebrated in the Dallas community for generously donating her time and efforts, as well as significant financial support, to numerous philanthropic endeavors. St. Paul Medical Center, United Way of Metropolitan Dallas, and the Communities Foundation of Texas are only three of the many nonprofit organizations and causes that have been personally touched by Ebby's love for her community and dedication to making the City of Dallas a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to Ebby as she celebrates her one hundred and first birthday. May we all strive to match Ebby's passion for improving our communities and her unwavering commitment to success.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and obviously the underlying bill. House Resolution 572 provides a structured rule for H.R. 3606, that Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or what we also call the JOBS Act. The bill was introduced on December 8, 2011, by my friend, a bright young man who is one of the

brand-new leaders of our conference, a freshman, the gentleman from Tennessee, Stephen Fincher, and was ordered reported by Chairman Bachus and the Committee on Financial Services on February 16, 2012, by a near-unanimous vote of 54 1.

Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity and will have opportunities to submit perfecting ideas. Thank goodness the Rules Committee allows this sort of thing to happen now that Republicans are in charge. The structured rule before us allows for 17 amendments, Mr. Speaker: 13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, and one which is a bipartisan amendment, meaning that Republican and Democrat Members of this House have a chance to work together on legislation for jobs for our country.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again allowed the House to work its will through this important legislation by allowing us to have a rule not only where Members of Congress can come and share their ideas with the Rules Committee but, once again, have them made in order so they can come down on the floor, express their ideas, work with colleagues to perfect the legislation and then to vote for the bill, because they were a part of it. Those are ideas that I think are good for this body. David Dreier, as chairman of the committee, deeply believes this is the way the floor should operate.

Today, we're going to consider a package of commonsense job-creating bills that stand out for a unique reason, and that unique reason is the President of the United States now supports what we're doing, also. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have yet to give their blessing on this bill and the package that's included. So we're just going to have to do the best we can and then hope for the best. Maybe the Senate will decide they want to take action on bills that will not only better enable our country to have jobs and job creation, but also a chance to work for the best interests of the American people.

House Republicans are on the floor again today, as we have been doing now for a year and a few months, to persistently make the case about job creation, why jobs are important to our country, why the Congress should be all about trying to work with the free enterprise system, work with Members of Congress who see the big need for jobs, not only at home, but all across this country in every single State so that we can have job creation as a major goal of what this Congress and hopefully the President would be for. Over 30 bills that we've already passed through this body over the last year and a couple months await consideration by Senate Democrats. That means that this body, just like the bills we are going to handle today, we have been on the floor for a year talking about jobs, job creation, the way we can aid and abet the free enterprise system, investors, and opportunities back home. Those bills are waiting over in the Senate, and today we're simply going to add to that.

The big difference is the President has now said, You guys have got a good idea. The day the President agrees with House Republicans and House Democrats is a great day for our country. So, the good news out of Washington today is Stephen Fincher had a good idea the President agrees with, and we're going to do something about that.

Our economy has a credit problem, too, Mr. Speaker, not just a jobs problem. Companies are unable to receive the credit they need to grow their businesses, and as banks and other traditional credit providers face stricter Federal restrictions by the Obama administration, it decreases the ability for lending to take place, and companies that need lending and cash and capital available to them are looking for innovative funding mechanisms that will provide the liquidity necessary so they can keep their businesses current, so they can expand their business, so they can meet the needs of the marketplace. This administration continues to promote policies that slow economic growth and make it more difficult for businesses and, in particular, small business, to obtain capital and have a source of funding. Republicans believe that we must create an environment that changes that, that encourages investment in small business. Small business, as we know, is really the engine of our economy and really the national job creator. The underlying bill does just that.

The JOBS Act consists of numerous pro-growth provisions, and I would like to talk about those because it's important for us to remind our colleagues that a pro-growth bill or a pro-growth environment that our free enterprise system would be involved in encourages not just the creation of capital, but also the ability of that formation of capital to make jobs in America to come about as a result of that.

This bill from Congressman Fincher creates a new category of what's called emerging growth companies that will reduce costs for small companies to go public. Great idea.

There is legislation from our majority whip, Kevin McCarthy from California, that will allow small businesses to advertise for the purpose of soliciting capital from potential investors. In other words, this was not allowed by law. Small companies that have great ideas need the opportunity to advertise in the marketplace and have people see that there are good ideas. Kevin McCarthy is right.

A bill from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina would allow what is called crowdfunding for initial public offerings under $1 million. In other words, it opens up the ability to gather more capital to come in. And Congressman McHenry is right, we need to utilize market-based solutions, and we need to make it legal.

There are two bills from Congressman Schweikert from Arizona: one that would allow more businesses to go public, gathering investment and growth, and a second bill which raises the threshold number of shareholders required from mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission registration for all companies.

And finally, there is a bill by Congressman Quayle from Arizona which increases the threshold number of shareholders permitted to invest in community banks; in other words, bringing more investors to an important part of our economy, and that is called community banks, banks that exist for the purpose of trying to make our communities, local communities, stronger and better.

The banks and small businesses of the district which I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is primarily Dallas, Richardson, Addison, and Irving, Texas, consistently describe to me about how they have an inability to raise capital investment, not due to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome regulations that are placed on them by the Federal Government. Oftentimes we discuss the need for the SEC limit on individual investors, and we know that it restricts their ability to raise funds through community participation in local business creation. I am proud to tell them now that, as a result of this bill today and the legislation included, help is on the way.

These important changes not only provide businesses with the necessary ability to expand, but also they provide individuals with new mechanisms to invest and grow with their own personal assets in companies that they know best.

The rules adjusted in the underlying bill have proven restrictive to economic growth, so we've got to adjust these problems in the marketplace and come up with new and creative ideas. We must push these constructive proposals without political delay. This is why Members of this body, including, I believe, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), support this bill. The reason why we can work together is to make sure we push constructive ideas that are good for people back home.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still in crisis. We do not have enough jobs. We are in a dwindling marketplace because of the excessive number of rules and regulations that have been passed by prior Congresses. With unemployment persistently over 8 percent, we cannot continue the failed policies of government spending, rules, and regulations, and the inability to pass laws that help job creation to overcome these problems. The underlying bill will do exactly that. It will help foster not only an environment, but provide the underpinning through law that will allow the private sector to more fully participate.

The future success of our economy rests in the hands of small, private business, not the Federal Government. What we are doing today is unleashing their potential so that they can focus on the things that they do best. This is part of having a Republican majority: pro business, pro economic development for jobs, the formation of capital, and the ability for American entrepreneurship to flourish. The result is going to be an economic environment that promotes growth and generates more revenue for the Federal Government.

I am delighted not only to be on the floor once again talking about economic growth, but once again trying to act as a soundpiece for the American people who are asking the United States Congress to please understand the plight that we are in, to please help work on what will help the free enterprise system job creation.

So today as we are on the floor, we offer a hearty reminder to the American people that there are people who get what this is about. That's partially why this Republican majority has been and will continue to be successful. We will push for reform, a pro-growth environment, and the opportunity to help people back home, instead of with a handout, to give them the ability to do things on their own.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I remind the gentleman that the Republican minority leader, Mr. McConnell, has been asking for some 30 jobs bills to at least go through committee or to be on the floor, and I do not think that a jobs bill would be a problem for a Republican to object to.

So I would once again advise the gentleman that I think my statement was correct. The Senate minority leader has asked for every single one of these 30 bills that have been passed by the House to be debated and voted on, and Republicans have pledged their support of all 30.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Polis, for not only coming to our defense and aid in this but also aiming for things that people all across this country need, and it's called action by Congress for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the young gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Well, I'm not seeking recognition, but I would say that the gentleman from Arizona has a good bill, and I encourage you to read it.

Mr. Speaker, just so you know, the gentleman is correct, and I appreciate his viewpoint of this.

This is a copy of Mr. Quayle's bill right here. It's about one-third of a page long. It's a good idea that says we're going to increase the number of people who can invest in a community bank. I hope that should not require us to have to go back and do too much thinking about how great this would be. We're trying to perfect, instead of by just having an amendment, to allow all Members to take part in these things with their good ideas.

So I do take that what the gentleman said is correct, but good ideas are part of this bill. That should be what we're about here on the floor, just as an amendment that may not have gone through.

I wish I could. I'm out of time. I've got a whole bunch of speakers. But I appreciate the gentleman. He'll have plenty of time.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York makes a good point about the President's jobs bill, except it picks winners and losers, and has hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that will continue to kill the free enterprise system, along with the other administrative things that this President is doing to the free enterprise system. So this body will not, will not pass hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases and then say we're trying to help people doing that.

The President, I'm sure, is entitled to his own beliefs. We're going to do the things which work, that empower the free enterprise system.

Speaking of working and empowering the free enterprise system, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who has brought great ideas to this bill and they are included in this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a man who I believe is one of the clearest thinkers in this Congress. He is a person who studies well, applies logic, and comes out with a deduction for making things better for people who are not in this town, but rather people who are the real part of America.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman for asking.

We did have one person who we believe is attempting to get here, to run here; but I would at this time tell you he is not here. So I would encourage the gentleman to go ahead and close as he would choose, and I would then do the same.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the gentleman's strong voice, not only as an entrepreneur before he came to Congress, but in Mr. Polis' dustup as he speaks in the Rules Committee in which he talks about America wanting to have a bright future, he is the father of a new young son, and he looks forward to the day that his son will have a bright future in this country. I appreciate his words today. He is also correct that we do not create jobs in this town, as it is the free enterprise system that does that. Yet with that comes an equal recognition that this town gets in the way of jobs and job creation.

Our taxes are preparing to be raised. The President, the Democratic Party are all about raising taxes on entrepreneurs, and people who get up and go to work every day, and small business, and taking away a Tax Code that benefits women, in particular married women, with the marriage penalty, as well as job creation through incentives that might deal with depreciation. All of these things are part of a pro-growth jobs package, and unfortunately, this House is not together on that. This House is having to, as the gentleman Mr. Pence said, make incremental progress as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, this body is big enough to be able to recognize that this country is in trouble. I don't care if you live in Orlando, Florida, or in Pensacola, Florida, or whether you live in Dallas, Texas, or whether you live in California. The needs of this great Nation are about job creation and about ensuring in a competitive marketplace that we keep jobs, that we have ample credit that's available, that we have new ideas like we're handling today in this bill, but that we also go to some old ideas, one of which is, when you tax companies or when you tax something, you get less of it.

What the President of the United States and the Democratic Party want to do is to tax America--the free enterprise system--to pick winners and losers and then try to call that ``new revenue'' to this country when, in fact, all it does is offset it with higher unemployment.

We need a pro-growth economy. We need a pro-growth agenda from the United States Congress. It's not just the House but the Senate, also. We need the President of the United States to understand that his temptation to talk about economic growth should be about job creation, not just about picking winners and losers. We need someone who will bring this country together, not attack our free enterprise system, not stand up in front of people and say that we can work together but then not actually become responsible enough to become engaged in legislation that will pass so that we can make this country stronger.

The Republican Party is here today, leading this bill on the floor. We've got

a rule which allows for 17 amendments--13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, 1 bipartisan. Once again, our Speaker, John Boehner, and the gentleman from California, David Dreier, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, are intensely interested in having this House work in a bipartisan fashion, but making progress for the American people. The American people expect us and want us to do better. Today is a chance to work together, pass a bill, put it across the aisle to the Senate, and ask them to please join us in making life better for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues support this rule. It's a great rule. It does the right thing. The underlying legislation is wonderful, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I join my colleagues in recognizing not only the life and work of Don Payne, but I also wanted to add my personal words of support for what Don meant to me personally as a cochairman of the Caribbean Caucus a number of years ago.

Speaker Hastert asked both Don and myself to become engaged in issues that would be considered in our hemisphere as a result of the war on terror. The Speaker recognized that the Caribbean was a gateway not only for terrorism, but also a number of other issues. Don and I accepted that role, had a number of trips down to the Caribbean, but also met with Caribbean leaders here in Washington, D.C.

Don was always upbeat, Don was always looking for answers and responses to the needs of our friends in the Caribbean, and really found a way to cut some good friendships with people to where they became better friends of the United States Congress and the United States because of his personal involvement in issues and matters.

I enjoyed working with Don. He accepted not only his role and mine, us working together--I as a younger Member, he as a senior Member. He welcomed my advances or ideas and thoughts.

It was difficult for me also as I was walking into the Capitol a few minutes ago to see the beautiful flag that flies outside the United States Capitol at half mast in honor of our colleague Don Payne.

So I do want to thank this body for allowing me a chance to express not only my thoughts about Don, but also to recognize him as an outstanding Member of this body.