Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado…
Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my friend, 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.
House Resolution 382 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported by the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of August 2, 2011. This rule will ensure that Congress has the necessary tools to pass a bill that ensures we cut spending without defaulting on our national debt.
Madam Speaker, today you will hear my friends the Democrats argue about a closed process, but you will not hear them discuss the unprecedented spending spree that my friends the Democrats on the other side of the aisle went through for the last two Congresses. We will discuss how Republicans continue to come up with thoughtful solutions-- and I add, balanced, thoughtful solutions--to our Nation's economic troubles, what we think will, and what has up to now, only failed in the Senate. We will talk about the magnitude of this vote and the importance of reaching an agreement before Tuesday. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop pontificating and start acting like Members of Congress. The Nation calls for a solution, and Republicans are the only ones to offer solutions in legislation, in debate on the floor, and with actual votes.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will go on and on today about how Republicans are closing the process and shutting out Members of Congress, when we're really here providing for the flexibility for the Speaker of the House to simply work with the Senate to ensure a solution to the looming debt crisis deadline is met so that we will not default on our obligations. If my Democrat colleagues were serious about finding solutions to this problem, they would vote in favor of this rule today.
The facts of the case are clear: The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has issued more open rules in the last month than Congress has seen over the last two Congresses-- or for a total of 4 years combined. Additionally, in the 111th Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the Rules Committee at the time, Louise Slaughter, 26 same-day rules were reported out of the Rules Committee. And in the previous Congress, the 110th Congress, under the same leadership, 17 same-day rules were reported out by the Rules Committee. In comparison, the process regarding these rules in this Congress is a far cry from the previous Democrat leadership's unorthodox and unprecedented closed processes.
I rise today in support of this rule. This rule is essential to allow the House of Representatives the flexibility it needs to ensure the safety and soundness of our country's economic future. Over the past 4 years we've seen record debt and deficits, which have brought us to the crossroad that we face with the looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling. Americans continue to speak out loudly and clear. And just as they did last November, they are saying it is time to stop the out-of-control spending, wasteful Washington spending, and excessive government. Republicans have cut spending at every opportunity in this Congress, and we are hoping to do that again today.
Discretionary and mandatory spending at Federal levels are on unsustainable paths. In the last 2 years of Democrat control, Congress has approved and the President has signed into law an 84 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, and the President's budget proposes to freeze discretionary spending at these inflated levels. America can no longer support or afford this kind of leadership.
The President's proposed FY 2012 budget also doubles, then triples the Federal deficit over the next 10 years. And while increasing taxes on the Nation's job creators by $1.6 trillion sounds like a good deal to the President, in fact, free enterprise system employers and American workers know otherwise. Additionally, the President's budget makes no substantial effort to address the unsustainable rate of entitlement spending, one of the major aims of the President's own fiscal commission, which he has ignored. Obviously, the President has no intention of cutting spending or reining in Big Government programs. Big Government, more taxes, more regulations are directly in the President's strike zone. And that is the process he intends to challenge Congress to come right along with him on and keep marching toward the cliff.
Madam Speaker, we're at the end of the road. Once again today, Republicans are saying, We are going to have to make tough choices. That's why we came to Congress. And the majority party will continue to do that today. Over the past 7 months, Republican leadership has been steadfast in their support for cutting spending and getting control of our record deficit and debt. The House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution that brought back spending levels to 2008 levels, cutting $100 billion in 1 year. In April, this House passed a budget that would cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget. Just last week, this body passed Cut, Cap, and Balance, which would limit discretionary spending, cap spending to a lower percentage of GDP, and lead to a Balanced Budget Act, so Congress could no longer write checks that they can't cash without passing the debt on by asking foreign governments and others to make up the difference for us.
Republicans are willing to pay the balance if the President is willing to cut up the credit card. And that is why we are here also today. Republicans have again and again in the House offered commonsense solutions to rein in spending and cut down our debt. My friends on the other side of the aisle continue to reject every single proposal. So, one might ask, What is their solution? What have they have offered this Nation to spur economic growth and to put Americans back to work, we would ask. So, let me tell you. By raising taxes. By raising taxes on individuals, on small businesses, and corporations alike. This is no wonder why we see stagnant job growth, GDP that lags behind, and high employment rates--and that means we cannot meet the needs of this country.
Even when the increase in taxes hurts our economic recovery, slows job growth and places more uncertainty in the marketplace, our friends the Democrats continue to argue for more spending and more taxation.
President Obama has asked Congress for an increase in the debt ceiling, and my Republican colleagues and I refuse to grant that request without a commitment to long-term spending cuts. We reject President Obama's insistence for a blank check to pay the credit card bills that he has run up over the past 2\1/2\ years. President Obama's unwillingness to address the true drivers of our debt assured me and my party that we cannot achieve a true solution to the debt crisis we are facing today unless we're able to make tough decisions.
The Budget Control Act we discussed yesterday and what we will discuss today is a step in the right direction. It accomplishes what Republicans and the American people have been asking for since the beginning of this process. It will reduce spending more than we increase the debt limit, it imposes no new taxes on anyone, and it guarantees to Americans that the House and the Senate will vote in the next 6 months on the only permanent solution to our debt crisis.
Yes, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here on the floor again working on behalf not only of employers and employees but the middle class of this country, those of us who are concerned about where we are headed. There is nothing in this resolution that should cause anyone to worry about losing Social Security or Medicare. That is not even intended in this process. What is is to solve the spending and the debt crisis that we have in this country.
I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Rosalyn, congratulations. I am going to miss you. It is a good day for you; it's a bad day for us. It is with regular occurrence that I look over at you. You have a bright, smiling face. You have the enthusiasm not only of a bright, young professional staffer on the Rules Committee, but I think you will be a true asset to Senator Stabenow, as you take the experiences from a body that does a lot of work to a body that needs to do more work, and I wish you the very best.
If I could, I would also like to tell the gentleman that Jenny Gorski, who is behind me, a professional staff member of the Rules Committee, will also be leaving, I have found out, after this process. She will be going to Congressman Doc Hastings' office to be his adult supervision. So we're taking two Rules Committee professional staff members who will aid and help other Members in their betterment.
I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to a brand new member of the Rules Committee, one of our 87 new Republican freshmen, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, Congressman Woodall.
I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the gentlewoman comes down and talks about this game that's going on about jobs.
I am going to read from an article that I will insert into the Record regarding information on tax hikes and what that does to American jobs:
``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 the State corporate tax rate. Between its passage then and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs.
``To combat the job loss 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.' ''
Well, this is exactly what President Obama is suggesting for America, the same thing that they do in his home State in Illinois, raise taxes substantially on all of those rich people and corporations. Madam Speaker, a 56,000 job loss. They're now having to spend an incredible amount of money to convince people, really to pay them off, just to stay.
This is the game that the Democratic Party plays. This is exactly what the gentlewoman was talking about about the serious elements of jobs and the consequences of killing jobs in this country.
Madam Speaker, I will tell you the Republican Party will not fall victim to raising taxes like the Democratic Party and like President Obama want us to do.
We will not raise the debt limit without making tough choices. And, Madam Speaker, we're going to add jobs and do the things that are right that the American people expect us to do. And that's why we're here today.
The Real-World Impact of Tax Hikes on American Jobs
(By Rep. Pete Sessions & Rep. John Shimkus)
[From the Daily Caller, July 28, 2011]
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
and 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 the state corporate tax
rate. Between its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223
jobs, according to statistics released last week.
To combat the job loss 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 and losers.
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 nation's job
creators--and trying to get our debt and deficit-spending
under control.
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.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another one of our 87 new freshmen, Mr. Womack, the former mayor of Rogers, Arkansas, one of the most beautiful cities in America.
I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire about the time remaining on both sides, please.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, day after day the American people receive more bad news, economic bad news, about the shape our country is in. That is what Republicans respond to.
Today, news came out that the first quarter GDP that was provided by the Federal Government, first quarter, was actually wrong, dead wrong. They said the GDP growth was 1.9 percent. Today we find out it was .4.
Madam Speaker, the disastrous results of the Obama-Pelosi years are evident. Republicans want jobs. We need a middle class, and we are willing to fight for it. That's why we are here today with commonsense legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, the reason why we're here today is because we're spending too much money.
Another reason why we're here today is because the Democratic Party and the Members--many of them who have spoken today--took $500 billion out of Medicare, and that's why that system is in real trouble. Republicans will save Medicare, not bankrupt it like our friends the Democrats have done.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conjecture the gentleman has made and extrapolated this out of what this bill would do. In fact, that's not what the bill does at all.
The bill says that we will approach in a reasonable way and with respect to the American taxpayer--and to the marketplaces--a plan, a plan that will put America on sound financial footing, which would be the envy of the world, which is part of what the Republican Party would choose to do.
Madam Speaker, once again, this rule provides the necessary flexibility the Republican leadership needs to ensure that we do not default on our obligations in the next 4 days. Republicans will continue to provide sound, balanced, and real leadership and pass solutions while the President continues on the pathway--along with the Democratic Party, as we've heard here today--of tax increases and job- killing ideas.
With over 14 million Americans unemployed, a $1.4 trillion projected deficit this year, and over $14 trillion in debt, our current financial policies are simply not working. I don't know why we would continue doing what we've been doing when it doesn't work, but perhaps that's what our friends, the Democrats, want to do. We, as Republicans, disagree.
So I'm asking the Democratic colleagues, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join their Republican colleagues and me for real fiscal change. Cutting spending and reducing government programs, each of these help us encourage economic growth, not just as we heard in Rogers, Arkansas, but all over this country. It does work, putting Americans back to work.
Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article titled, ``Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trends,'' because they do things that balance out the marketplace.
I applaud our Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, for his hard work and commitment to the American people, and those people here in the House of Representatives who will do their duty and provide for real and conservative solutions, market-based answers to get our economy back on track.
Madam Speaker, this Republican House will not raise taxes. We will not raise spending. We will not yield to the old ways of taxing and spending and not listening and then thinking we know better than others.
We're for the free enterprise system.
We're for families back home. We're for job growth and real meaningful opportunities for the future of our children. That is what we stand for.
So we are here today. Yes, we'll stay in town until we get our job done. We're the people who believe in the free enterprise system. We're the people who believe in the people back home. And we're the people who are going to say ``no'' to Washington, D.C., taxing, spending, big wasteful government. We are the people, the Republican Party. The elephants are in town, and we have a great memory. We know what works. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trend
(By Tony Gutierrez)
Finding work may not be quite that simple, but it sure
seems that way. While the nation's job growth has limped
along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the
Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion.
From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs,
or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits
states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of
the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.
The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential
race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the
Republican nomination. If he does, he's likely to ground his
campaign in his state's outsized job growth.
Texas' big gains are partly a reflection of its population
growth. But the recent job gains are outpacing the rate of
population growth in Texas, the nation's second-largest
state, with 25 million residents--about 8% of the U.S.
population.
INTERACTIVE: Sortable chart: State-by-state look at employment changes
The state's payrolls have risen 2.9% since the end of the
recession, third behind North Dakota and Alaska and far
outpacing the USA's 0.4% growth, according to the BLS. Also,
Texas' 8.2% unemployment rate is well below the nation's
9.2%.
``For one large state to grow (jobs) so much faster than
the rest of the nation is very unusual,'' says Moody's
economist Ed Friedman.
Economists point to an array of factors, including high
energy prices that set off an oil-drilling frenzy, rising
exports and a conservative banking industry that helped the
state sidestep the housing crash.
Yet while energy has been a spark--employment in natural
gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%,
since the recession ended--growth has been broad-based.
During the past two years, professional and business services
added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000;
and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS.
State officials cite a pro-business climate that Perry
helped foster that's drawing scores of businesses from high-
cost states--a trend that took on urgency for firms that got
lean in the economic downturn.
The 10-year Texas governor is ``really focused on creating
an environment where people can risk their capital and get a
return on investment, and that, in turn, creates jobs for
Texans,'' says Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for the state's
economic development office.
Nashed notes Texas has no state or corporate income tax and
keeps regulations at a minimum to allow businesses to grow
quickly. She says Perry also has worked to develop a skilled
workforce by requiring additional public school classes and
pushing through tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits. The
state, meantime, has doled out more than $600 million in
grants and investments since 2003 to recruit out-of-state
companies and help Texas firms expand.
Does Perry really deserve credit?
Yet some question Perry's role in the so-called Texas
Miracle.
James Galbraith, a professor of government at the
University of Texas-Austin, largely attributes the state's
job growth to the energy and export booms. Texas, he notes,
has never had an income tax. From 1990 to 2000, before Perry
took office, Texas payrolls swelled 36%, compared with 21%
for the nation.
``Rick Perry did not come and find a high-tax, high-service
state and dismantle it,'' Galbraith says. ``For something to
contribute, there (has to be) a change. There's been a change
in oil prices.''
Others say the state's low tax burdens exact a high cost:
fewer state services. Perry, for example, refused to raise
taxes to close a $27 billion budget gap last spring. Instead,
the Legislature slashed more than $4 billion in funding for
public schools the next two years, a move that's likely to
lead to tens of thousands of teacher layoffs.
``We're not preparing our children to compete in tomorrow's
economy,'' says Scott McCown, head of Texas' Center for
Public Policy Priorities.
Texas ranks 44th in the USA in per-student expenditures and
43rd in high school graduation rates, McCown says. Seventeen
percent of Texans lived below the poverty level in 2009,
compared with 14% for the nation. The state leads in the
percentage of the population with no health insurance and was
ninth in income inequality in the mid-2000s, the latest data
available, according to McCown and the Economic Policy
Institute.
McCown says Texas should not serve as a job-growth paradigm
for the rest of the nation.
``If you're saying you want to look like Texas, you're
saying you want to be poor and have less health care,'' he
says.
The state's relatively low wages, particularly for low-
skilled jobs, stems in part from its status as a right-to-
work state with little unionization. That dampens consumer
spending and limits economic growth, McCown says. In June,
average hourly earnings for private-sector employees in Texas
were about 5% lower than the U.S. average.
But Mark Dotzour, chief economist at Texas A&M's Real
Estate Center, says the state's lower pay helps it compete in
a global economy. ``Either you choose to have low-wage jobs
or you choose to have no jobs at all,'' he says.
The state's reasonable cost of living, he adds, makes it
possible for many residents to live comfortably on lower
salaries. The Dallas area ranks 10th in housing affordability
among 82 metro areas with more than 1 million residents,
while Houston is 15th, according to the Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey. That's partly
because Texas has an abundance of cheap land--another draw
for firms looking to relocate.
Other reasons for the state's robust job growth:
The energy boom. Oil prices have nearly tripled since early
2009. High prices spark more exploration and production.
Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have let companies
extract natural gas embedded in shale deposits. Barnett Shale
in Fort Worth is one of the USA's largest gas fields, and
drilling began at the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas in
2008. The number of oil and gas rigs in the state has jumped
to 850 from 330 in July 2009, says Ana Orozco, economist for
IHS Global Insight. Each rig employs a few dozen workers and
leads to hiring by engineering firms, pipeline builders and
other services.
Exports. Overseas shipments by Texas' strong computer,
electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last
year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the
Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its
proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers
of U.S. goods, Friedman says. The surge creates jobs for
Texas manufacturers and ports.
No housing crash. Texas never had a housing boom but also
avoided the bust that decimated consumer credit and home
construction in much of the rest of the nation. While prices
of single-family homes more than doubled from January 2000 to
their mid-2000s peak in cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and
Las Vegas, they rose less than 27% in the Dallas/Fort Worth
market, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price index.
Meanwhile, Texas banks burned by the savings-and-loan
crisis in the 1980s were less eager than those in other
states to approve risky mortgages. And Texas law limits
mortgage debt, including home-equity loans, to 80% of a
home's value.
``People didn't use their houses like ATMs,'' says Dallas
Fed Vice President Mine Yucel.
Texas still was hit by the recession. Annual permits for
single-family homes declined 59% from their 2005 peak to
2010, but that's less than the nation's 73% plunge, according
to Texas A&M. Similarly, employment fell 4% in the downturn;
the USA's overall drop was 6.3%. Texas has recovered 380,000
jobs since its December 2009 low and is now just 54,000 shy
of its 10.6 million peak.
Population growth. Texas' population grew by 4.3 million,
or 21%, during the past decade, more than twice the national
pace. About half the total was because of births, but Texas
also gained 849,000 residents via state-to-state migration,
second only to Florida.
Texas thus benefits from a virtuous cycle: More people are
moving there for work, generating consumer demand that
creates still more jobs. That's expanded the workforce,
keeping the unemployment rate at 8.2%--ranked just 26th in
the nation--despite the strong payroll advances.
One recent arrival is Ife Oyedokun, 26, who this month
moved to the Austin area from Philadelphia, where he worked
as a high school counselor, to be closer to his family.
Within two weeks he had a job as a rehabilitation specialist
for a growing outpatient facility for the mentally ill.
``I was very surprised,'' he says. ``With just how the
economy is now, I figured three, four, five months'' to find
a job.
`Hunting' for possible relocations
Companies also are feeling the pull.
Corporate giants including Fluor, Toyota and Medtronic
recently moved headquarters or operations to Texas, and eBay,
AT&T, Samsung and Cirrus Logic have expanded there. Samsung
added about 700 jobs in Austin since last year, enlarging a
plant that makes chips for smartphones.
Area business leaders, meanwhile, have aggressively courted
out-of-state companies.
The Dallas Regional Chamber this month sent a letter to 50
Illinois corporations, urging them to consider a move to
Texas. The mailing includes a side-by-side comparison of the
two states that notes Illinois recently raised corporate and
personal income taxes and highlights Texas' lower housing,
labor and other expenses.
``States with heavy-duty business taxes, personal taxes or
regulatory mind-sets define themselves as our targets,'' says
Chamber CEO Jim Oberwetter. ``That's just where we go
hunting.''
Texas has particularly tried to lure high-tech California
companies to lower-cost technology corridors in Austin,
Dallas and San Antonio. Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based
medical device giant, has moved customer support for its
diabetes unit from the Los Angeles area to San Antonio in the
past 22 months, creating 750 jobs in Texas.
Jeff Ruiz, head of Medtronic's Texas operations, says the
company was drawn by labor costs that are ``significantly
lower'' than those in Los Angeles and a large, high-quality
workforce. Ruiz also points to more affordable real estate
and the lack of a state corporate tax, though he says the
latter was a minor factor. The company, which also received
$14 million in incentives from the state--a figure Ruiz says
was comparable with other offers--chose San Antonio from
among more than 900 U.S. cities it evaluated.
For some, the benefits are more basic.
Marketing firm Red Ventures this year opened a San Antonio
office that's expected to grow to 250 employees from 60 by
year's end, says spokeswoman Kylie Craig. Besides the
region's ample talent pool, other draws were the city's non-
stop flights to Red Ventures' other offices in Miami and
Charlotte and its 7.3% unemployment rate.
In cities with high jobless rates, ``We're having to sift
through (many) unqualified applicants.''
Then there's Texas' laid-back lifestyle and lower costs,
assets that prompted Vermillion, a start-up developer of
blood tests with 29 employees, to move from Fremont, Calif.,
to Austin about a year ago. ``We found it very difficult to
recruit people into California because of the cost of living,
traffic, congestion,'' says CEO Gail Page.
The corporate relocations and expansions are having a
ripple effect on restaurants, hospitals and other service
businesses. Winstead, a Dallas law firm with about 270
lawyers statewide, has added 50 since last year to handle the
extra workload from firms, such as Comerica Bank, that have
moved to Texas the past few years, says Mike Baggett,
Winstead's chairman emeritus.
And after cutting staff in 2009 and 2010, DeMontrond
Automotive in Houston has hired about 20 employees the past
few months in response to a 20% jump in revenue, says owner
George DeMontrond. Houston lost 120,000 jobs in the recession
but has gained about 50,000 the last seven months.
``I think people who have held off and not purchased large-
ticket items because of uncertainty are a little bit more
ready to do it,'' DeMontrond says.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.