Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week's middle class tax cut debate is unfortunately an unnecessary sequel to December's fight over extending payroll tax cuts. Republicans campaigned on a pledge to seek bipartisan solutions to our pressing challenges, but when faced

with a bipartisan agreement in December of last year, they chose to walk away. Unfortunately, they appear ready to do so again. When it comes to extending tax cuts to the middle class, Democrats and Republicans agree; both believe we ought to do so. So we have agreement. That agreement has been reflected in a Senate-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, as you know.

So with millions faced with the uncertainty of whether their taxes will go up next year, why haven't we acted? This should be an easy vote for an overwhelming majority of Members to say, Let's extend these tax cuts we agree on, and then debate what we don't agree on. It should be easy. But the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are continuing to do what they do so often, have done best this Congress--obstruct, delay, and walk away.

In December, by holding hostage an extension of the payroll tax cuts for 98 percent of our taxpayers, Republicans walked away from the middle class. They walked away from their responsibility to seek compromise on job creation and economic recovery. They walked away from negotiations over deficit reduction, setting up the dangerous sequester that now looms at the end of the year. The sequester exists because Republicans pursued a policy of placing the Nation's debt at risk.

Today, sadly, they are walking away from the middle class and working families once more, demanding their way or nothing on tax cuts. No tax cuts for the middle class, they insist, without an additional tax break for the upper 2 percent of income earners. In other words, we agree on 98 percent. We don't agree on 2 percent. Rather than doing that which we agree upon for 98 percent of the American taxpayers, we will hold them hostage until we get agreement on the 2 percent. Of course if we agree on the 2 percent, it will add a trillion dollars over 10 years, if followed for 10 years, to our deficit and debt.

Republicans' plan of tax cuts for the wealthy hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. Under President Reagan and both Presidents Bush, deficits climbed. Democrats want to return to the successful policies we had under President Clinton, when we had the most successful economy, 4 years of balanced budgets, and 4 years in which we did not increase the national debt.

I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we've had many opportunities to work together this year to address our challenges, but each time our Republican colleagues have walked away. In doing so, they broke a central promise in their pledge to America-- that is, the promise to let the majority work its will.

We could have extended the payroll tax cuts without a fight. We could have found a big and balanced solution to deficits. And we could be voting today on a tax cut extension for 100 percent of Americans who make up to $200,000. Or, if they're a couple, $250,000. But in each case, Mr. Speaker, Republicans moved not towards the center but to the right to placate the extreme wing within their party.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Representative Richard Hanna of New York, a Republican, said this about his party in Congress:

I have to say that I am frustrated by how much we--I mean

the Republican Party--are willing to give deferential

treatment to our extremes in this moment of history.

The gentleman from New York went on to say:

We render ourselves incapable of governing when all we do

is take severe sides. If all people do is go down there and

join a team, and the team is invested in winning and you have

something similar to the shirts and the skins, there's not a

lot of value there.

Congressman Hanna in this instance is right. Republicans have been unable to govern. Again and again, this Republican House has received compromise bills from the Senate but has been incapable of agreeing to legislation or passing a version that could become law.

That was true on transportation. It's true on the farm bill, and it's true on Violence Against Women. And it's true on this tax bill. Examples include, as I've said, Violence Against Women and the farm bill, postal reform, the highway bill, FAA reauthorization, and many others. Instead of focusing on winning politically, they ought to be concerned about governing effectively.

They could learn much from our outstanding Olympic athletes. In team sports like soccer and basketball, athletes who normally compete against each other at home have come together as one team, Team USA. They've won gold; they've been successful. We could be as well if we came together as Team USA.

Those athletes may harbor rivalries most of the time. They may not be used to working together. And they all know that when the cauldron is extinguished, they'll once again wear different colors. But right now in London, they're all wearing red, white, and blue, and they've set their differences aside to achieve victory together. We ought to follow their example. Republicans ought to follow their example.

We have a chance today to be one team and make possible what we agree ought to happen. Again, we agree on 98 percent of the proposal. Let's agree on that, and agree to debate that on which we don't agree. So I say to my Republican friends, stop walking away from the middle class and start working with us to get things done on their behalf.

Let me quote someone I don't usually quote, Newt Gingrich, when he was Speaker of this House when we were considering a compromise that he and President Clinton had agreed to, and so many of his Republicans colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, opposed Newt Gingrich's efforts. He said:

I would say for just a minute, if I might, to my friends

who were asking for a `no' vote, the `perfectionist caucus.'

He concluded his remarks in urging them to vote for a compromise agreement:

So the question is: Can we craft a bill which is a win for

the American people because it is a win for the President and

a win for the Congress? Because if we cannot find a way to

have all three winning, we do not have a bill worthy of being

passed.

The President has indicated he will not sign the Republican bill, and the Senate won't pass the Republican bill. But again, my friends, Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have agreement on 98 percent, and we are hung up because we don't have agreement on the other 2 percent.

Speaker Gingrich went on:

Now, my fine friends who are perfectionists, each in their

own world where they are petty dictators, could write a

perfect bill.

And he concluded:

In a free society, we have to have give and take. We have

to be able to work.

Mr. Speaker, Americans must lament the fact that they see their Representatives agreeing on 98 percent of a proposition and will not pass it. They will not pass it because the perfectionist caucus has promised in many respects to one individual American we will not raise taxes ever. We won't pay for what we buy, even if we think it's important.

Mr. Speaker, both parties have an opportunity today to stand up and reflect agreement and do something positive for the American people, do something positive for the American economy, do something positive to grow jobs in America. Do something that will give certainty and confidence to the overwhelming majority of Americans, who will say that Congress can work.

It can, as families understand they must do every day, reach compromise, come together, reason with one another and give and take, as Speaker Gingrich said.

Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we reflect the best in us today, not the worst, not the confrontational inclination, but the inclination to come together, to make America better and to make sure that the American people, who are working hard every day, don't see a tax increase on January 1 as a result of a ``perfectionist caucus'' unwilling to compromise, unwilling to pass an already-passed Senate bill that will give 98 percent of Americans confidence that they will not receive any tax increase on January 1.

What a good thing that would be for America, for the American people, and for the American economy. Let's work together. America expects us to do that, and that's what we ought to do.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

First, I want to rise and thank Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her continuing leadership and focus on this important issue, as she does on so many other issues as well.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from California and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman. His leadership on this issue in Congress is second to none, and I commend him for his work.

This is a bill I expect will pass with overwhelming support in both parties and for good reason. Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. America's policy, as President Obama has stated, is prevention, not containment.

We have many tools at our disposal to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons technology. While President Obama is keeping all options on the table, the best diplomatic tool we have to deter Iran is the sanctions regime his administration has expanded along with our allies in Europe and elsewhere. These sanctions have already had a significant effect, and Iran continues to face the prospect of severe economic repercussions if they fail to abandon their nuclear weapons plan.

President Obama deserves credit for his tough stances. The new sanctions this legislation would impose target entities conducting business with Iran's insurance, energy, and shipping sectors. As a result of prohibitions on repatriating oil revenues, these sanctions would deny Iran 80 percent of its hard currency earnings. Iran's banking sector, including its central bank, is already sanctioned, a result of the Iranian Government's financial support for terrorism in the region and around the world.

There is no better evidence why this bill is so important than the fact that 2 weeks ago, a terrorist attack in Bulgaria killed six innocent civilians, five of them vacationing Israelis. There have been numerous press reports linking Iran to that attack.

As long as Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, call for the destruction of Israel, and provide arms to terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, it will face the consequences in the form of sanctions, isolation, and the continuing reality of the option of military action.

I thank the gentleman.

The United States continues to stand strongly with our ally Israel. And I am proud to have led an effort earlier this year with the majority leader to strengthen U.S.-Israel military and intelligence relations.

I urge all of my colleagues to unite behind this bill, just as we did behind that one. A nuclear-armed Iran is not an option for the Middle East, for the international community, and for the United States.

Designed to fail. That's what this bill is. It is designed to fail. Very frankly, you made sure that it was going to fail when you passed the amendment that added the reform bill and this bill together.

Designed to fail. How sad.

I don't think you want to raise taxes on anybody. I understand that. I'll accept that premise. What we ought to do is to make sure, in the agreement that we have with the Senate and the House, that at least the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 have no increase in their taxes. At least we ought to do that. America knows we have agreement on that. They're wondering why, when you have agreement, you don't take that agreement and give the assurance and certainty to 98 percent of the American working people that they won't have an increase in their taxes so that they'll have the confidence that they'll have that money in their pockets to, perhaps, purchase that refrigerator that they need or that oven that they need or perhaps a new car or so that they can help their kids go to college.

Why don't we give them that confidence, I say to my friends. Mr. Speaker, I wish we would do so.

Today, we could embrace the agreement that the Senate has come to and tell the 98 percent, ``You're safe.'' In addition to that, by rejecting this bill, we will reject taking money out of 25 million people's pockets that they rely on to support themselves and their children.

That's what the Senate bill does. It protects the wealthiest in America while telling some of the poorest in America, the least well- off in America, you're going to pay more, you're going to get less. How perverse. How undermining of our economy. How undermining of the confidence of our people. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we're better than this.

Newt Gingrich talked some years ago in 1998 about the ``Perfectionist Caucus.'' Mr. Speaker, he said embrace agreement. He was agreeing with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich at that point in time on a budget which adopted PAYGO one more time, which is one of the reasons why we balanced the budget 4 years in a row. The House Ways and Means bill leaves 98 percent of our people at risk, while our bill gives 100 percent of the people a tax cut.

Let us reject the House bill. Let us adopt the substitute. Let us send it to the Senate and make it law. The President will sign it, and it can become law and give confidence and help to those 98 percent of Americans.

This Republican proposal, is not the straight-forward tax cut extension middle-class families and small business owners are asking for.

Instead it extends tax cuts to even the highest incomes, a plan already rejected by the Senate and which the President has said he would veto.

Moving forward with this legislation will only prolong the uncertainty the American people have asked us to end.

What we ought to do--before the August district work period--is pass the extension where we have agreement--for earnings under $250,000, which is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans.

Ninety eight percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses will see no change to their taxes.

Let's pass what we agree on now and afterward debate what we disagree on.

Instead, we've seen Republicans insist on an all or nothing approach, which has held middle-class tax relief hostage to tax cuts for the top 2 percent.

Now, they are doing so once again, with a rule on this bill that makes it harder for us to reach an agreement to prevent a tax hike on the middle class.

This is not the regular order or open process Speaker Boehner and Republicans campaigned on and pledged to uphold in this House.

At the same time, this bill would impose an average tax hike of $1,000 on 25 million working families by allowing the expanded Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to expire while eliminating the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

That lies in stark contrast to the $160,000 tax cut this bill would deliver to the average millionaire, according to the National Economic Council.

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this bill, and I call on Republicans to work with us to pass the tax cut extension for the middle class on which we all agree.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend ORBIS International, an organization that has been an outstanding member of the global community for 30 years. I am proud to recognize its invaluable service and contributions to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world.

ORBIS International is a U.S.-based global health organization dedicated to saving sight and eliminating avoidable blindness in developing countries. Created in 1982, ORBIS has conducted over 1,000 programs in 88 countries, trained over 288,000 healthcare professionals and touched the lives of 18 million children and adults. Today, we celebrate ORBIS International's 30 years of commitment to preserving and restoring sight by strengthening the capacity of local institutions in developing nations in their efforts to prevent and treat blindness.

The story of ORBIS International is a remarkable one. A grant from USAID and funds from private donors enabled ORBIS to begin its mission by successfully converting a plane into a fully functional teaching eye hospital, and in 1982 it flew to Panama on its first training mission. Today, the world's only Flying Eye Hospital visits 6-8 nations each year conducting programs, training medical personnel, and providing eye care services.

ORBIS is more than a Flying Eye Hospital with permanent programs and regional offices in the countries that have the highest prevalence of avoidable blindness. ORBIS has conducted more than 900 capacity building programs in its 30-year history. These capacity building programs were conducted through its six country and regional-based offices, the Flying Eye Hospital, and ORBIS' in-country, hospital-based training sessions.

In addition to treating a number of diseases of the eye that can cause blindness, ORBIS is also working in Africa to eliminate trachoma, one of the seven Neglected Tropical Diseases. Trachoma, an infectious disease found predominantly in developing countries, starts as an infection and progresses to corneal scarring. ORBIS International teaches surgical techniques and treatment for trachoma in Ethiopia and other developing countries.

Blindness has profound human and socioeconomic consequences. The costs of lost productivity and of rehabilitation and education of the blind constitute a significant economic burden for the individual, the family and society. Investments in avoidable blindness and visual impairment offer not only economic and social returns in global health, but they dramatically improve the quality of life of individuals and families. ORBIS International is a trusted partner in the global coalition of organizations fighting preventable blindness.

ORBIS programs and partnerships provide the skills, infrastructure and on-going support to build the capacity and skills necessary to sustain care at a local level. As a founding member of Vision 2020: The Right to Sight, a campaign led by the World Health Organization and other leading blindness prevention organizations to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020, ORBIS is dedicated to working in partnership to create a world free of needless blindness.

I am honored to join ORBIS International in celebrating its 30 year commitment toward achieving its goal of a world in which no one is needlessly blind, and where quality eye care is available to everyone. I want to thank ORBIS International for the lives it has touched and its leadership in providing valuable health and training services across the globe.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, who has been so involved and so eloquent in expressing the grief that his constituents share, as have been all the Members from Colorado on either side of the aisle who have come together to share this grief.

Mr. Speaker, when tragedy of this kind strikes, our hearts go out to those whose lives were cut short and to those who lost loved ones. In the aftermath of this shooting, we have seen both an outpouring of love and support for the victims and their families and a quickness to point out what might have been done differently. That is our nature as Americans--always seeking answers, searching for corrective action, for a measure of logic amid the irrational.

But the first question we ought to ask and is already being asked is: How can we draw closer as a community? Not just the community of Aurora, but the community of Americans.

As President Obama said on Friday:

If there's anything to take away from this tragedy, it's

the reminder that life is very fragile. And what matters at

the end of the day is not the small things; ultimately, it's

how we choose to treat one another and how we love one

another.

I would add it is also how we commit to live with one another as neighbors.

We may not share the same faith or politics or philosophy, but we do share a fundamental belief that our people should feel safe in our theaters and malls and schools, in their homes and on the streets-- wherever they go. And, today, we share the pain of the people of Aurora.

But we also share in the hope that the city whose name is the ``dawn'' will find in our sympathy and prayers the comfort it needs during this dark hour to begin the process of healing and to believe again in a brighter tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows, he was unable to have the colloquy last week, and so Mr. Roskam and I talked about the schedule. Last week, the chief deputy majority whip mentioned that we would be voting on the tax bill, as you have done, and he also mentioned that we would be given the opportunity to offer a substitute amendment on the floor of our choosing.

Is that still the plan of the majority so that we'll be able to offer that legislation? I yield to my friend.

My question is: Last week we had a colloquy, and Mr. Roskam indicated that we would be able to offer an amendment, not just an MTR--we discussed that--but an amendment to the bill. Now, we weren't precise whether it was in the form of a substitute or an amendment. But in either event, I'm asking, Mr. Majority Leader, whether that is still the case and whether or not such amendment will be obviously protected under the rule for such waivers as may be necessary for the piece of legislation that Mr. Roskam referred to?

Let me be more precise, then, because I'm not sure whether or not the definition of the President's plan--in his weekly press conference just a few hours ago, or maybe just a few minutes ago, Mr. Boehner was asked if we would be allowed to vote on the Senate tax bill, to which he responded:

If our Democrat colleagues want to offer the President's

plan in the Senate, then we are more than happy to give them

a vote.

He said that just a few minutes ago.

Our intention will probably be to offer the bill that has now passed the Senate, which will protect middle class taxpayers from any tax increase, as I think your party, Mr. Leader, and my party agree on.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to offer that alternative on the floor with such protections as would be necessary consistent with what Speaker Boehner has said.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would not parse words.

Mr. Leader, we have had some discussions on this, and the majority party, when it was the minority party running for office, said that we're going to have open, full debate. Mr. Boehner has said in the Pledge to America that that's what you wanted to do. Now you keep parsing your words.

I will tell you the President's plan. The President's plan currently is the bill that passed the Senate just a few hours ago, yesterday. That's the President's plan, I tell my friend. And if, in fact, Mr. Boehner's words are to be interpreted as something other than that, he says:

If our Democratic colleagues want to offer the President's

plan in the Senate--

Now, obviously, we can't offer our plan in the Senate. We're House Members. So my presumption is, Mr. Leader, that that means, if we want to offer the Senate plan, which is now the President's plan, I tell my friend--

--we're more than happy to give them a vote.

I hope that is accurate. I hope that we can have a full and open debate on that issue. But I hope that the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, does not choose the amendment that we are to offer. Let us choose it, I tell my friend. And I would hope that we could clarify that so that we would know, and the American people would know, that we have a plan now passed by the Senate, and we have a plan also that was defeated in the United States Senate.

I don't know whether your side intends to offer exactly the plan that was defeated in the United States Senate, but it is a plan that the President of the United States, as the leader knows, has said he won't sign.

So what I ask my friend, respectfully, so that we know what to prepare for and we know that it will be made in order, that consistent with what the clear meaning of this statement that Mr. Boehner made just a few hours ago is, that we would be given the opportunity to offer the Senate-passed plan and would have a vote on that plan either in the form of an amendment or a substitute?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. And I will interpret that, Mr. Speaker, as indicating that if we choose to offer as an amendment the bill that passed the Senate--which ensures that there will be no tax increase on 98 percent of Americans--that we will be allowed to offer that bill and it will be protected under the rule, and such waivers as are necessary will be extended. That's how I interpret that. If I am wrong, perhaps the majority leader can correct me. But I don't want to parse words or lead to confusion.

The gentleman knows what the Senate bill is. I know what the Senate bill is. And it is, at this point in time, our intention to offer that Senate bill as an amendment to the bill that's offered on this floor. So I would hope that our understanding is that, consistent again--and I want to say consistent with the Speaker's comments--that that will be allowed.

I want to say to the gentleman as well, I think he is appropriate in referencing the past, and I'm pleased that he is not following such precedents.

I thank the gentleman. I think that clarifies it. He and I both look forward to that robust debate. We will clearly differ, Mr. Speaker, on the impact of that vote. But there will be no dispute that it will ensure that 98 percent of Americans, every working family-- every working family, 100 percent--will not pay any additional taxes on the first $250,000 of their income, which we think gives confidence to people, gives confidence to the economy, and we think is an appropriate step to take. So I appreciate and look forward to that debate, which I think is an important one for the American people.

I would also like to ask the gentleman, with respect to the farm bill, he mentions in his comments that there may be some vote on the farm bill. The Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill, as the gentleman knows. It saves very substantial monies, will contribute to a reduction of the deficit. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the House- passed farm bill will be brought to the floor or whether some alternative will be brought to the floor?

And I yield to my friend.

I do not support the House farm bill, but as the gentleman knows, the ranking Democrat does support that farm bill. So as the gentleman likes to observe on many occasions, it does have bipartisan support.

He asked for my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I've given him my personal opinion. But that bill itself will save substantial dollars and bring down the deficit--not as much as the Senate bill, but it will have a positive effect on the deficit itself. In either event, however, we have some real distress in farm country, very substantial

drought, in great need of making sure that there's some way to assist those farmers who, through no fault of their own, but through the fault or the result of weather conditions--lack of rain--are in distress. So we believe that something ought to be brought to the floor that will, A, not exacerbate the deficit, and, B, help the farmer.

I yield to my friend if he has anything additional.

I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can agree on how to do that, again, without making the deficit worse and adding to that and hopefully helping farmers at the same time.

Let me ask the gentleman, there are two very important bills that were passed, one in the Senate--again, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and here, with not an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote-- in the Violence Against Women Act, a very, very important subject. There was a very significant 62-37 vote in the Senate. Excuse me, that's not the exact figure. That's on the postal bill, which I'll ask you about in a second. It was 68-31--even more bipartisan than the postal reform bill--back on April 26, some months ago, with 15 Senate Republicans joining in favor. I don't see that on the schedule. I don't know whether the gentleman believes there's a possibility that we'll be able to pass that before the election.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Of course, the gentleman knows that that would be a very simple cure to simply drop the Senate bill, which has overwhelming bipartisan support, into an H.R. bill, a House bill, and that would cure that deficiency. I agree with the gentleman, I think that's well known. But that's a technical issue. If we have agreement in both the House and the Senate, put that in a House bill and pass it. So I think that we can act on it.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those comments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well knows, the House bill excluded a large number of people from protection, a large number of people who are the victims of domestic violence from protection, as contrasted with the Senate bill, which was designed to ensure protection of all people who were subject to domestic abuse and designed to encourage people to make complaints against those who abuse them without fear of adverse consequences to them so that we could get abusers dealt with in a proper way.

And again, I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that over two- thirds of the United States Senate, with an overwhelming number of Republicans as well voting for the Senate bill because they believed it was inclusive. And of course every woman Member of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, who probably have greater insight into domestic abuse than perhaps some of us males and male colleagues have.

So I would hope that we could focus on trying to reach agreement which we did not have in the House, as the gentleman knows. We had not an overwhelming bipartisan support in this House at all on the bill that was passed. So I would hope that we could compromise, cure the technical difficulty that the bill, the Senate bill passes, because, the gentleman's right, it has a fee in there, it has to initiate in the House.

But the gentleman also knows if that's included in the House bill, that that defect would be cured and we could pass it.

I would yield to my friend if he wants to make any additional comment on that bill.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

As I interpret that, Mr. Speaker, pass the House bill or no bill. Pass the House bill that had 23 Republicans voting against it. Pass the House bill, and reject a Senate bill that has 68 United States Senators, a large number.

Certainly.

Let me then, reclaiming my time--I'm pleased to withdraw that assertion. But in the comments, I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not share the majority leader's opinion that the House bill covers all people. As a matter of fact, I think that's inaccurate and incorrect. We disagree on our facts there, our analysis of the bill.

What we don't disagree on, however, because the facts are clear that we have a bill that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate. I'm fully prepared to work with a conference, as the majority leader is, and work with him in a conference to get a bill out of the conference.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Leader, that in light of the fact that in this House the bill passed 222-205, with 23 Republicans voting ``no'' on the bill, that we not only have bipartisan opposition, but we have bipartisan support of the Senate bill.

Let me go on to another bill that I think is very important because the postal department is facing real stress. It's somewhat ironic that we are, in a Congress that has too often lamented the fact that the Senate couldn't act on things, when they do act, and when they do act in a bipartisan fashion, it seems we can't act.

The postal bill has now been passed by a vote of 62 votes in favor, another bipartisan vote of the postal bill, and I'm wondering whether or not the gentleman has any idea whether we might either go to conference or bring a bill out on the House floor that I know has been passed out of committee, so that this bill can get to conference in a timely fashion so that the Post Office, which is facing, obviously, default on some of its obligations, would be made whole.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Lastly, on a note on which we have great agreement between the majority leader and I, which is not always the case, as people observe, I'm sure: Iran sanctions.

Both the majority leader and I, Mr. Speaker, want to see that bill pass before the August break. And I would inquire of the majority leader his view of the status of that issue at this point in time.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with the majority leader toward that end over the next 7, 8 days.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when the sponsors of this bill talk about ``auditing'' the Federal Reserve, they don't mean a traditional audit. An outside, independent accounting firm already audits the Federal Reserve's annual financial statements, and GAO is already empowered to review the Fed's financial

statements and a broad range of its functions.

In fact, the Wall Street reform legislation Democrats passed last Congress expanded the types of audits GAO can conduct, as has been mentioned by Mr. Issa. So there is transparency and accountability when it comes to the Federal Reserve's finances and operations. However, this bill would, instead, jeopardize the Fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to a GAO audit.

The Fed, like every other major central bank in the world, is independent, and Congress has rightly insulated the Fed from short-term political pressures.

I agree with Chairman Bernanke that congressional review of the Fed's monetary policy decisions would be a ``nightmare scenario,'' especially judging by the track record of this Congress when it comes to governing effectively and intervening in the courts and other areas. We don't have to look any further than the Congress unnecessarily taking the country to the brink of default last summer in a display of politics.

All of us, Mr. Speaker, want transparency. All of us here want to make sure that the Federal Reserve is working to carry out the economic goals of the American people, which are maximum employment and price stability. But that's not what this bill is about. This bill increases the likelihood that the Fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and preserve the independence of the Fed so it can keep our currency stable and cultivate the best conditions for our economy to grow and create jobs.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we, in Congress, have shown too frequently our inability in a political environment to make tough choices. That failure has led us, in part, to where we are today. I urge my colleagues to defeat this unwarranted, unjustified, and dangerous legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing today's Special Order, but as my colleague Mr. Engel and as my colleague on the Republican side and as Dr. Christensen have pointed out, our hearts and thoughts go out to and with those people who by happenstance of going to a movie have lost their lives, have been injured badly, have lost family members, have had the confidence of going out and about in this country put at risk. How we lament that loss of life, that loss of confidence, that loss of a sense of safety in their community.

We need to address that issue--to instill confidence, to restore safety, to ensure that America continues to be a land in which people feel safe.

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to talk about an issue that is central to America, and that is the right to vote. This is an issue that affects millions of Americans from every walk of life, but it will certainly have a disproportional effect on African Americans, Hispanic Americans, seniors, and youth.

In 2008, we saw a record turnout from minority communities and younger voters as more Americans were energized to take part in our democracy. That democracy is our greatest strength, and the principle of ``one person, one vote'' has always been a vehicle for Americans to hold their government accountable and ensure it is responsive to the challenges we face as a Nation. We ought to be building on that progress we made in 2008 by encouraging more Americans to register to vote and cast their ballots. Indeed, in my view, the Nation--States, counties, communities, municipalities--need to be reaching out to people to make sure they know how to vote and to facilitate their votes, not to put stumbling blocks in the way.

It continues to be deeply disturbing to witness a campaign of raising barriers to voting and voter registration by Republican-controlled legislatures in States across this country. My dear friend and colleague, a hero in American history, John Lewis, is a veteran of the fight for voting rights in the fifties and sixties. He carries the scars, both physical and in his memory, of the great effort to secure not just the right to vote but the freedom to exercise that right. That's why he is helping to lead this effort in 2012 to prevent voter suppression and to make certain our elections are open to all who are eligible to participate.

He can attest that today's effort is a continuation of the work he began as a young man. Since the beginning of last year, 22 laws and two executive actions in 17 States have restricted our citizens' right to vote. Civil rights heroes like John Lewis refused to accept barriers to voting in the middle of the 20th century, and all of us--each and every one of us--is here today because we refuse to accept these new restrictions in the 21st century.

That's why many of us introduced the Voter Empowerment Act in May. Our bill strengthens America's democracy by improving our voting system in three key areas: access, integrity, and accountability. It will reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, create a national voter hotline for reporting problems, allow same-day and online registration, remove obstacles to voting for military personnel, and prohibit deceptive practices that discourage Americans from casting their votes.

Each one of us in this House is opposed to voter fraud. Each one of us is opposed to any voter voting who is not

eligible to vote. But very frankly, the good news in America is that is a very, very, very small problem. In fact, when proponents of restrictions are asked to cite examples, they are hard put to do so.

Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are making the issue of voter access a major priority this year, because we believe that all Americans deserve to participate in this year's election and to have their votes counted accurately. We will continue to monitor our voting system and call attention to those who seek to undermine it.

Again, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for its work on this critical issue, as well as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, who has been such a hero on voting rights throughout his congressional career; the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Brady; and the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. Clyburn.

I'm proud that the fight for voter access has attracted a broad coalition of civil rights organizations, as well as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and that senior citizen organizations and, yes, representatives of young people are very concerned about the fact that eligible voters are being discouraged and, in some cases, suppressed from exercising their precious American right to vote. Let us never forget that generations have held it to be a moral duty to preserve the most powerful guarantor of our liberty: the right of every American to vote. We continue to stand up for it today, and hopefully each day as we proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a couple of times about what Democrats are doing. Let me refer now to an article that appeared in The Washington Post today, written by Charlie Crist, the former Republican Governor of Florida. He says:

As a result of insidious political maneuvers and a lack of

respect for voters, we in Florida have been entangled in

litigation. The courts and the Justice Department have been

required to step in this summer to protect the integrity of

the voting process against a sweeping voter purge that the

Florida Department of State undertook under the guise of

removing non-U.S. citizens from voter rolls.

He goes on to observe:

Among those caught up in this shameless purging and

notified that he was not a U.S. citizen eligible to vote: a

91-year-old World War II veteran, Bill Internicola, who

fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and has proudly exercised

his right to vote for many years.

Governor Crist, the former Republican Governor of Florida, concludes:

The right to choose our leaders is at the heart of what it

means to be an American. Our history books are full of

examples to the contrary. When we send independent observers

to monitor for voter fraud in banana republics, we derive

authority from our self-regard as the ideal. When we hear of

corrupt voting practices in foreign countries, where the

ideal of democracy is nothing more than lip service, we feel

good about ourselves.

He then went on to say, Mr. Speaker:

It's time to look right under our noses. It's happening

here at home. And it's our responsibility to honestly assess

the root of the problem, which requires doing so with as

little partisan bias as we believe belongs in the

administration of our elections.

He concluded with this statement:

We can't be surprised every time it turns out that politics

are involved in politics, but neither can we be silent when

our democracy is threatened in its name.

There are lines that should not be crossed; meddling with

voting rights is one of them. It is un-American, and it is

beneath us.

I thank my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership on this issue to make sure that the most precious right that every American has as a birthright is the right to vote. Let us not allow any steps to be taken by the Federal Government, by the State government, by county governments, or, yes, by municipal and local governments from impeding the rights of citizens to speak out in the most powerful way they can: voting.

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 2012]

The Voter ID Mess Subverts an American Birthright

(By Charlie Crist)

For better or worse, the central principle behind the

unlimited contributions to super PACs that will dominate this

election cycle is simple: Money is speech, and we cannot

limit speech. Yet many who hold this freedom as an article of

faith are all too willing to limit an equally precious form

of speech: voting.

If we don't speak out against these abuses, we may soon

learn the hard way the danger of that double standard. And a

dozen years after the 2000 recount that went all the way to

the U.S. Supreme Court, my state of Florida threatens to be

ground zero one more time.

As Florida's attorney general from 2003 to 2007, I strongly

enforced the laws against illegal voting. When swift action

was necessary, I took it without hesitation. I did so out of

respect for our democracy--voting is a precious right

reserved only for U.S. citizens--but I'm concerned that

zealots overreacting to contrived threats of voter fraud by

significantly narrowing the voting pool are doing so with

brazen disrespect and disregard for our greatest traditions.

As a result of insidious political maneuvers and a lack of

respect for voters, we in Florida have been entangled in

litigation. The courts and the Justice Department have been

required to step in this summer to protect the integrity of

the voting process against a sweeping voter purge that the

Florida Department of State undertook under the guise of

removing non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Among those

caught up in this shameless purging and notified that he was

not a U.S. citizen eligible to vote: a 91-year-old World War

II veteran, Bill Internicola, who fought in the Battle of the

Bulge and has proudly exercised his right to vote for many

years.

This is just the most recent example of a mean-spirited and

all-too-partisan attempt to restrict access to the rolls and

to the polls. A federal court also recently struck down

provisions of a law Florida's legislature passed in 2011,

which put heavy burdens on organizations seeking to help

voters: burdens that the court described as ``harsh and

impractical,'' serving no purpose other than to make it

harder for Americans to participate in the electoral process.

These machinations make a mockery of the democracy we put

on display every Election Day. The right to vote is the key

to that democracy, giving value to the freedom of speech and

making the freedom of religion and the right to assemble

possible. When one takes away another's right to vote, he is

taking dead aim at democracy and undermining the very virtue

that makes us the envy of the world.

Including as many Americans as possible in our electoral

process is the spirit of our country. It is why we have

expanded rights to women and minorities but never legislated

them away, and why we have lowered the voting age but never

raised it. Cynical efforts at voter suppression are driven by

an un-American desire to exclude as many people and silence

as many voices as possible.

Our country has never solved anything with less democracy,

and we're far better off when more citizens can access the

polls--no matter which party mobilizes the most voters to

them. As governor of Florida, I extended voting hours and

increased the number of days people could vote. I also

restored registration rights for felons, years after starting

that effort in the state Senate with a member of the opposite

party.

I was a Republican at the time of those decisions, which

didn't make me many friends on my side. But when you do the

right thing for the people, a political party's concerns roll

off your back quite easily.

The right to choose our leaders is at the heart of what it

means to be an American. Our history books are full of

examples to the contrary. When we send independent observers

to monitor for voter fraud in banana republics, we derive

authority from our self-regard as the ideal. When we hear of

corrupt voting practices in foreign countries, where the

ideal of democracy is nothing more than lip service, we feel

good about ourselves.

It's time to look right under our noses. It's happening

here at home. And it's our responsibility to honestly assess

the root of the problem--which requires doing so with as

little partisan bias as we believe belongs in the

administration of our elections.

We can't be surprised every time it turns out that politics

are involved in our politics. But neither can we be silent

when our democracy is threatened in its name.

There are lines that should not be crossed; meddling with

voting rights is one of them. It is un-American and it is

beneath us.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the chief deputy whip.

I thank the gentleman for that information. I appreciate it. I know the majority leader could not be here this afternoon, but he said last week that we should expect legislation on the floor the week of July 30 dealing with the tax questions; in particular, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The gentleman may remember my discussions at that point in time. I don't think decisions had been made.

We are hopeful on this side of the aisle that there will be hearings next week, obviously, because it's going to be the week of the 30th it'll be on the floor, and also there will be a markup of that bill before it comes to the floor. Can you tell us whether or not in fact there will be a hearing on that legislation and also whether, pursuant to those hearings, there will be a markup on that bill?

I thank the gentleman for that information. As the gentleman understands, although they may be well known, the situation that exists today is radically different than existed in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush, who recommended both of those tax cuts, projected a $5.6 trillion surplus, as the gentleman may recall. Unfortunately, that prediction was radically wrong. And when I say radically wrong, in fact, we increased the debt by over $4 trillion rather than have a surplus--a $10 trillion turnaround in the projections.

As a result, I would suggest to the gentleman and his party that the situation confronting us, as I said, is very, very different than it was in 2001 and 2003 when the Bush administration projected those surpluses, which it inherited, of course, from the Clinton administration.

In addition to that, the Republican majority has said that we'll govern based on their pledge to America. Openness in the House is a key part of that pledge that you made.

I want to read you a quote:

``We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will, nothing to fear from the battle of ideas.''

The Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, went on to say:

``That starts with the committees. The result will be more scrutiny and better legislation.''

He said that in October 2010. Of course, it was in the throes of a campaign. But I would hope and I tell my friend very sincerely that that premise prevails today. In light of the change of circumstances, but much more than that, in light of the significant differences between the two parties in the Ways and Means Committee, the transparency and openness to which Speaker Boehner referred, referencing that that would apply in committees as well, would almost dictate that you would have a markup in the committee and give members of the committee the opportunity to vote on that legislation, offer amendments, offer alternatives, and offer their opinions for the consideration of other members on the committee as to the ramifications of the actions proposed in the committee by the majority party.

I would ask my friend if he has a view on whether or not, notwithstanding the fact that the position of the majority is that the subject matter is well known--it is also well known there are differences of opinion on this. And what the Speaker said in his quote was, let that difference be spread across the Record, let Members have the opportunity to express their differences through their vote; and that premise applied to the committees. I would hope that the gentleman could assure us that, in fact, there would be a markup in the committee.

I have talked to Mr. Camp, who is a good friend of mine and for whom

I thank the gentleman for those comments. That is new information for us. I will tell you, please, I would still like to have a markup in the committee, which I think is consistent. No matter how much this has been discussed, there has been no markup of this bill. So while it may have been discussed for a long period of time and while there have been hearings on tax reform, there has been no markup of this bill in the committee, as the gentleman well knows.

But I'm pleased to hear that the minority will be allowed an amendment to be made in order of our choosing to offer on this floor. I think that's a positive sign. I appreciate the gentleman's notice of that, and I will certainly notice our Members of that ability. We're pleased at that.

I will say, however, to the gentleman that I did note the Ernst & Young story. I noticed it was paid for by people who may, absent its conclusions, receive a tax increase to help us bring down the deficit. But notwithstanding that, I was sure we were going to hear about that on the floor. I'm not surprised, and you're not going to be surprised that there will be other studies referenced on the floor as well. So I thank the gentleman for his information, and I'm pleased with that.

As I said, I will note that, in fact, there will be an amendment, and hopefully that amendment will be allowed some significant period of time for debate. That is much superior to the only other alternative that we would have had, which was an MTR 5 minutes on each side. So I thank the gentleman, and I thank the leadership for that information.

Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman expect the farm bill to come to the floor before the August break?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

For the gentleman's information, which may help you in determining whether or not you have the votes for the farm bill, I think it fair to say that we would have a majority of our party for the Senate-passed bill which passed, as the gentleman knows, with 62 votes, 12 Members of the Republican Party voting for that bill, 50 members of the Democratic Party. Obviously, it is a significant bipartisan bill. If the gentleman perhaps is talking to Mr. McCarthy, you can convey to him information that if that bill were to come to the floor, we would try to work with you to pass that piece of legislation.

Obviously, there are a lot of farmers in our country who are struggling right now. We have an extraordinary drought in America. They are suffering, they're at risk, and the gentleman talked about certainty. I agree with him on certainty. By the way, because I didn't ask him when he brought it up, does that certainty mean that you would be suggesting that the tax cuts that were in effect in '01, '03 be made permanent?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

Going back to the crisis that the agriculture community is confronted with by the drought, if the farm bill--and we would urge that the bipartisan farm bill be brought to the floor for consideration to give certainty to farmers, to give some sense to farmers as to what they might rely on in the coming year or coming years; but absent that, the gentleman did not mention, do we have any expectation that we will deal with drought emergency legislation vis-a-vis the farm community prior to our August break?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

Lastly, Mr. Cantor is not on the floor, but both Mr. Cantor and I have made representations that we are going to work together, as we do from time to time, cooperatively and effectively, I might say. We are very concerned that the Iran sanctions legislation, which is in conference, be passed by this Congress prior to our leaving on August 2 or 3--I'm not sure which days we are going to be leaving, but one of those days.

Does the gentleman have any information on the status of the Iran sanctions legislation which we passed overwhelmingly in this House and the Senate has passed? It's in conference, and I know Mr. Cantor and I both support getting this done before we leave.

I yield to my friend.

I'm very pleased to hear that. I thank the gentleman for that information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, as I do repeatedly when I rise to speak on issues related to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, and the relationship between our two countries, I congratulate the chairwoman of the committee, the gentlelady from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership on this issue and focus on the importance of not only the relationship, but on the importance of making sure that Israel is strong and able to defend herself.

I also congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I don't know anybody who, for a longer period of time, has focused on the issue of keeping the relationship between Israel and the United States strong, vibrant, and open, and who has, on this floor, in committee, in our caucus, and around this country, educated people any more than he has to the necessity to keep this relationship strong and to keep Israel strong.

So I rise to thank both of them for bringing this issue to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to cosponsor this legislation with my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor. That piece of legislation, which Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman brought to the floor some months ago, passed here with a vote of 411-2, showing the overwhelming bipartisan support this issue has. This is clearly an issue, unlike so many that we deal with, that enjoys not only bipartisan support between the two parties, but support of philosophical perspectives from all over this caucus and this country. We don't always see eye to eye on matters of policy, but we always find common ground when it comes to strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship.

This is the case for two very important reasons. The first is because the United States and Israel are linked by history and by the common glue of shared values: democracy, free enterprise, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. Secondly, because a strong Israel is in America's national security interest.

We make that point almost every time we speak because it's important for all of our constituents, our fellow Americans to understand that the investment that we make in Israel, the investment in terms of time, in terms of support, in terms of finances, and in terms of military assistance, are all in the interest of the United States of America and its citizens. Yes, it is to Israel's benefit as well, but primarily the United States acts because it sees as critical to its own interests the safety, security, and sovereignty of Israel.

Military and security ties with Israel help the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies track threats to Americans at home and abroad, and they enable us to partner on the development of technologies that help keep our people safe.

The number one regional threat of course, as all of us know, is the prospect of a nuclear Iran. That is of great concern to every nation in the world. The nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is a principal tenet of the nations of the world, adopted by the United Nations and adopted in treaties.

Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, as it would dramatically destabilize the region, and Iran's leaders have already threatened American targets in that part of the world. Again, it is important to note that are some 250,000 Americans within the range of Iranian missiles.

Of course, there are untold economic interests of the United States and of the international community. Enhanced security cooperation with Israel is one of the many tools we have to help prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization and to protect American assets in the region.

This bill strengthens that cooperation in several ways:

It authorizes aid for the joint U.S.-Israel Iron Dome missile defense, a critical investment.

It also increases U.S. strategic stockpiles in Israel and provides Israel with additional weaponry as a first line of defense for the United States, as well as for Israel.

Furthermore, this bill extends loan guarantees for Israel and encourages an expanded Israeli role in NATO.

Mr. Speaker, it is so encouraging to see that even while we may divide on other matters, this House will pass the legislation before us with strong, overwhelming bipartisan support. That

sends a message that hopefully cannot be missed, a clarity of purpose expressed by this Congress, the policymaking body of this Nation, that speaks for all the people of our Nation. Hopefully, those who would pose a threat and risk to us and to our allies would take note of that unanimity of purpose. Let us continue to ensure that close U.S.-Israel ties are an issue that unites us as Americans.

As I said, the House overwhelmingly passed this measure earlier this year, 411-2. Now the Senate has sent it back to us for final consideration. I congratulate my friend, Senator Boxer, and the Republican leadership of the Senate, as well.

I hope we can pass it again today. I know we will, and I hope it's with even greater support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill--for America, for Israel, and for international security.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that scheduling information.

As the gentleman knows, we have, as I calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in July and the beginning of August, of which 3 of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. As a result, we don't have much time left, and I would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the regulatory--I understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. Other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor?

I understand the gentleman's answer, and I think we have consensus on this floor about cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the Federal Government or by the State government or by local government. We have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. I think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. However, when I ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on a couple of levels.

I think I may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that Bruce Bartlett, whom I think the gentleman probably knows, a former President Reagan and President H. W. Bush administration official, says that no hard evidence is offered for the claim that regulatory issues have increased. But he says that Republicans have embraced ``the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.''

As I said, he says no hard evidence is offered for this claim. He then says:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented

by Republicans that allows them to use current economic

problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business

community year in and year out. In other words, it's a simple

case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal

with high unemployment.

Now, that's his opinion, I understand that. But my concern is, if you ask an economist whether or not many of the pieces of legislation we've passed that we've called jobs bills--the gentleman's pointed that out-- economists say in the short term--which is really what

we need to deal, we need to deal in the short term and the long term-- is not going to create jobs. This week, we haven't done anything to create jobs.

By the way, might I ask the gentleman, because I didn't see it next week, do we expect a 32nd or a 33rd vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act either next week, the week after, or the week after that? As the gentleman knows, CBS opines that we've spent some 80 hours on that issue, with whatever cost is attendant to that. You can answer both questions, I suppose, but certainly I would be interested and the Members would be interested to know whether or not we're going to have another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

I yield to my friend.

Well, the gentleman knows full well I think you have wasted a lot of time on this House floor, wasted a lot of effort on this House floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage and that you were simply appealing to the base that you were just appealing to. In fact, this gentleman believes that what you would do if your bill is passed, you would take away benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. I think that's incontestable. It's incontestable that seniors, who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for their prescription drugs which enhance their quality and length of life, would lose it if we repealed the Affordable Care Act.

It is incontrovertible, I will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job unfortunately in this economy--and we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the President on this floor to even consider, pass or fail--millions of young people would lose their insurance.

Millions of children who have a preexisting condition, who now, under the Affordable Care Act, cannot be precluded by the insurance companies--which is really who you want to put in--not you personally, but who the defeat of the Affordable Care Act would put insurance companies back in charge, not government bureaucrats, but insurance companies.

So many of your Republican Governors don't want to set up the exchanges. All the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment: Do they like policy A, B or C? It's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they're getting a good bargain for the price they're paying for their health insurance, which is very expensive. And I will tell the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act will also create--CBO says, economists say--millions of jobs in the health care area. So, contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people access to affordable quality health care.

As Mr. Romney said, we are requiring responsibility. So everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that, if they can, they will insure themselves. So, what? So that the rest of us won't have to pay when they go to the hospital or get sick. They will be responsible for themselves. And if they need help, as Mr. Romney said in Massachusetts when RomneyCare was adopted--a model just like we've adopted for the Nation--it's important to make sure that they get some help. That's what that bill does.

In addition to that, we've made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies--not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies--say you're too sick, we're not going to cover you anymore.

So I will tell my friend, he and I have a radically different view on what the consequences are of the 31 votes that we've had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the Senate, knew the President wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. You're making a political point, I understand that. There are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act; I understand that as well. But I frankly think that, had we dealt with jobs legislation during that period of 80 hours and considered the President's jobs bill, we would have millions of more people employed today in America right now.

Now, let me just, so that there's no misunderstanding, so I don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion, he's right. He and I agree: we need to cut government red tape; we need to speed approvals; we need to make sure that we do not impede, by regulation, the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. I couldn't agree with him more. I think we ought to deal with that on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully we will continue--or perhaps start to do that, I might say, or continue to do that in some instances. But the gentleman is correct.

Now, let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, because you also mentioned bringing taxes down. Let me ask you something: Do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the August break? I yield to my friend.

Yes. Do you expect the vote on taxes, which you have referred to, to occur the last week--which I believe is the 29th of July, the week of 29 July--to be on that week?

I'll look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman is correct, I think we do need to reform our tax system. We need to make it simpler. I would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down, as the Bowles-Simpson/ Domenici-Rivlin--Gang of Six, whoever you want to refer to--has suggested. I think that's moving in the proper direction.

I also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this Nation. And I think, as Bowles-Simpson pointed out, you've got to do that in a balanced way.

Let me ask you something on these packages that you said are coming that last week. There have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as I understand it, in the Ways and Means Committee.

Does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? And does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the Ways and Means Committee?

I yield to my friend.

When you say, I presume, as the gentleman said, we're talking about two different bills, are we not?

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Let me say to the gentleman that when the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, I think that's probably accurate. What there has not been, in my view and in Mr. Levin's, who's the ranking member of the committee, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill, which, apparently, is going to be brought to the floor, which simply extends all the Bush-era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt and, indeed, ramifications to the economy.

I would say, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, I don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. There have been hearings on, should we reform the Tax Code. The gentleman and I agree. We should simplify it. We should reform the Tax Code. We should make it more compatible with economic growth, and very frankly, for average individual Americans who want to pay their taxes, would like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well.

So I don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says he's going to bring to the floor, and that's what I asked.

Now, let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it. Is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? To clarify, so that Members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on that bill.

I yield to my friend.

I take it the answer is no, there will not be a markup on a bill that will have extraordinary consequences to all Americans, and possibly extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. Am I correct in interpreting your answer as no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill? You will bring it straight to the floor without committee consideration? Is that an accurate interpretation of what you said?

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I did hear the response, and apparently I accurately characterized it. I think that's a shame, Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Boehner said that we were going to be an open House, that we were going to consider matters, and that everybody would have their opportunity to have their input.

Usually, tax bills are brought to the floor, not subject to amendment. You have just said, as I understand what you said, this bill, our way or the highway. If you don't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. You don't have an option. You can't put any of your ideas into this bill.

If that's the way you intend to consider this bill, Mr. Leader, I think that's unfortunate.

I yield to my friend.

My way or the highway. That's what you just said, Mr. Leader. I understand that concept.

Very frankly, in my view, we have agreement. We have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor, and it is that all middle class, working Americans will not get a tax hike, all of them. And everybody, up to $250,000 of income, will have no tax increase.

But we have a big deficit and a big debt, and we need to pay our bills. We have a debt limit vote coming up at the

end of this year. Very frankly, we took the country to the brink of default and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence.

You talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, Mr. Leader. I agreed with you. I think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence.

But I will tell my friend that if you wanted to work together, as you've said on a number of occasions now, as for instance we did with the Export/Import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. They were passed on a partisan vote, for the most part. Not all of them. And some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. And guess what happened? They became law. The President signed them. Export/Import bank, the jobs bill that you promoted and which I voted for.

You said you want to work together. Now, it's interesting when you say ``work together,'' because what you say you're going to give us is a motion to recommit. And what you will instruct, and what your whip will instruct, is for all of your Members, vote ``no,'' and your side will inaccurately say it is a purely procedural vote. And as you have for the last 18 months, your Members will vote ``no'' on motions to recommit, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance.

And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, we can have a vote that ought to pass with 435 votes, 435 votes. Everybody in this Congress says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working Americans, on working Americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. As you know, that's more income.

But we won't get that vote except on an MTR, on which you have instructed your Members to vote ``no,'' incorrectly arguing that it's a procedural vote only and not a substantive vote. I would say to my friend, not only will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so that we can vote on that.

Yes, we have disagreement; but you're prepared to hold hostage working Americans by saying, if the richest people in America might have a little bit of a tax increase, then everybody else is going to get a tax increase. You said it a different way, I understand; but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which I think there is overwhelming support of, in making sure that working Americans and, yes, 97 percent of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. We have agreement on that, Mr. Leader.

Why don't we bring that to the floor and show the American public that, yes, we can come together, as you have suggested; that yes, we can agree; and that yes, we can make sure that they don't get a tax increase? Then, yes, we can have a debate on the balance. You will take one position, and I may take another position, and the American public will see that, and then they can make a judgment as to with whom they agree.

Now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public will agree with me, and you will think the overwhelming majority of the American public will agree with you. That's what democracy is about. Let us have this debate. Let us have this vote. Let us make sure that working Americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country.

If the gentleman is asking me am I for the President's proposal, the answer is absolutely yes. I don't want the gentleman confused in any way. If the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option, but we're not going to pretend, either to ourselves or to the American people, that your side will treat it as a real vote.

Do you want to put it on the floor as an amendment? Do you want to have a real debate on it, not 5 minutes on one side and 5 minutes on the other side, which the motion to recommit is limited to?

You're shutting us down--you're gagging us--and, yes, you're putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, I know, and the American people know the President of the United States has said he would veto your bill. He has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98 percent of Americans do not get a tax increase. What you are proposing to do, Mr. Leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2 percent, that says that the 2 percent should not pay more. The gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. I understand what the gentleman is saying.

By the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. It was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009. You and I both know what happened, not solely because it was in place, of course--let us stipulate to that. The fact is we had the deepest recession in your lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetimes of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we continue with. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I don't think that's a great way to proceed. At least we ought to have the opportunity to debate it. At least we ought to have more than 5 minutes on our side to tell the American people where we're coming from. At least we ought to have a vote where you don't instruct your Members it's a procedural vote and don't vote for it.

I will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act--and you do it knowledgeably--will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. Why? Whether you agree with it or not, the President will veto it. The Senate, I don't think will pass it. The fact of the matter is we can do for 98 percent of Americans that which we agree on. You don't want them to have a tax increase. I don't want them to have a tax increase. We agree on that. Americans can not understand, when we agree on that, why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98 percent of Americans in this struggling economy, which is as you clearly point out.

Now, you point out--you didn't use the term--that we only added 80,000 jobs last month. I was disappointed by that; that was unfortunate. But in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in 1 month with your program in place. That's an 890,000, almost 900,000, turnaround. From 818,000 minus to 80,000 plus, we created 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months. Not enough. Not enough by far.

I want to work with the gentleman to create many more--work with him on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, Make It in America legislation. If we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful.

So I say to my friend that I feel very strongly, as you can tell, that if we are going to have this vote, which is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute--at least-- not just an MTR, which your side incorrectly argues is just a procedural vote, not just a 5-minute debate on our side and a 5-minute debate on

your side. Don't you think Americans expect more of us in terms of a very substantive debate on the floor of this House, not in a political forum but in a legislative policy forum? I would urge the gentleman to consider that objective.

If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend.

Repeal it and replace it. For the 31st time, we have a repeal with no replacement, no alternative, no protection offered by my Republican colleagues--not one.

You could, of course, introduce legislation that would say, We're going to repeal and replace with this. You haven't done it. So the American people have no idea.

We're on the floor today with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan who himself, and his father before him a half a century ago, said: Americans need the security of having the guarantee of access to affordable quality health care.

That's what we did.

Madam Speaker, after the landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, Americans are ready to move on. Yet here we're again voting for the 31st time on a bill to repeal the health care law with no replacement, no alternative, no protections. That's not what we ought to be focused on.

Americans want us to create jobs and to grow our economy. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last week, 56 percent of Americans believe that opponents of the law should drop attempts to block its implementation. It's time for Republicans to end their relentless obsession with taking away health care benefits for millions of Americans.

If this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with preexisting conditions. If it were to pass, 30 million Americans would lose their health insurance coverage. It would take away $651 each from 5.3

million seniors in the Medicare doughnut hole, making their prescription drugs more expensive. There would be 360,000 small businesses no longer able to claim a tax credit to help cover their employees. And 6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents' plans and left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured.

The Republican repeal bill would take away these benefits and end these cost-saving measures. And after 31 votes, as I said, no alternative, nothing. There is no bill to read, no plan to follow, no security to offer. Repealing health care without an alternative would add over $1 trillion to deficits over the next two decades. I don't say that. The Congressional Budget Office says that.

It is occurring in the place of a vote that we could be taking on legislation to create jobs. There is nothing about jobs this week, nothing last week, nothing scheduled for next week, or the week after. It's a waste of time.

Why is it a waste of time? Because the Republican majority knows that it will not pass the United States Senate, and it would not be signed by the President of the United States. It's a message bill. It's politics as usual. It is spurring the base while spurning the average working American.

I outlined several proposals yesterday that are bipartisan in nature and ought to come to this floor immediately. It's called ``Make It in America.'' Let's vote on those bills. Let's vote on those bills to create opportunities, not this one to take them away.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let us work together constructively for a better economic future for our people, more economic security, more health care security, and a better America.

Well, I'm sorry I'm a little late. I always try to come by to say hello to former Members. One never knows when one is going to be a former Member. So in the expectation that that will be, at some point in time, where I will be, I want to make sure that the present Members understand how important the former Members were to creating the institution that we have and that we're all very proud of.

I apologize for my voice. I have got an awful allergy that I'm fighting, but beyond that, I'm fine.

I want to say to all of you, welcome. I know that a little earlier today, I was at a fundraiser--I know you understand those kinds of things--where we honored our colleague Gabby Giffords. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was here; is that correct, Connie?

And I'm pleased to see Connie Morella here, my colleague from Maryland, and my very long-time friend who I met when she was about 2 years of age, some 40 years ago, Beverly Byron from western Maryland who has remained so active. And we're very proud of them in Maryland. But we're proud of all of you as well. I'm glad to be your friend and your colleague, and I welcome you back and look forward to seeing you.

George--where's George? George and I walked in together. I asked him what he was doing. And he had some billable hours walking up the steps. Good for you, George.

But I want to say, Madam Speaker, how proud I was to have served with you. Barbara and I came in within months of one another in special elections. I think Barbara came in about 5 months after I did in 1981; and she served in a very distinguished way, as all of you did as well.

I don't know whether Nancy came by or if John was here, but I know that they--oh, they weren't here, yet. Hope springs eternal. But I wanted to welcome you here and join you here.

We have a caucus now that I will go down to. We are going to talk about repealing health care today on the floor of the House. I hope you are not holding your breath. But in any event, that will be the subject of our debate this week, I think.

I want to say to all of you that I hope that you are trying to play a role in energizing the public to the understanding of how critical it is for us to meet the fiscal challenge that confronts this country. In my view, the most important thing this Congress can do in the next 6 months is to take very substantive, effective action on behalf of getting our country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. In my view, that's the single most stimulative thing we could do for the economy. It would give confidence to the world that America, in fact, will be the economic and national security anchor that it has been for all of our lifetimes, frankly. And that is threatened by this inability to come to grips with meeting the fiscal challenges that confront us.

I tell people all over this country, Greece doesn't have the resources to solve its problems. It's going to need help from outside. America has the resources to solve our fiscal challenge. What we need is the political will and the courage to do so. And I would hope that you would take, as part of your responsibility, as someone who has worked in this institution--and frankly, many of you worked in it at a time when it was more possible to work together across the aisle in a constructive way to solve the problems that confront our country.

I have three daughters, three grandchildren, and two great- grandchildren. Some of you have more of all of those, I understand. But I'm very concerned about the world that we're going to leave them. My father's generation was called the Greatest Generation. Not only did they defeat the terrorists of their time, but they came home and built the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

In my view, over the last decades, we have, unfortunately, not built on that legacy in a way that would have made them proud or that will make our children proud of us when we leave. So I'm hopeful that you will play a continuing role in trying to bring the country together and the Congress together.

My view is--and I said this a little earlier this morning--that we probably won't get anything of real substance done before November 6. And none of us know what will happen on November 6. But between November 7 and December 31 or January 2, when sequestration takes place, we will see the biggest fiscal challenge this country has confronted in the 31 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States. The Bush tax cuts expire. The payroll tax cut expires. The unemployment insurance expires. The estate tax, dividend tax, the capital gains tax expire with the Bush tax cuts. The sustainable growth rate reimbursement for docs expires December 31. The AMT expires on the 31st, and sequestration takes place on January 2. If we took no action, that would be a devastating blow to the economy, to the country, and to international confidence in America's ability to lead.

So these are serious times, and I believe that all of you are continuing to be very significant leaders in our country with an experience that very few of us are given and, that is, service in this body. I would urge all of you to take it as your personal responsibility to try to help energize our people and our Members in acting responsibly, with courage and with will so that America can continue to be the kind of country that all of us believe it to be and want it to be.

So thank you for what you have done--not to get us into this bad spot because most of you were not here when we really started going down this road pretty steeply. But you are uniquely capable, in my opinion, to help us confront this challenge, which

we can confront because we have the resources, if we have the will.

God bless you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House of Representatives. It is an irresponsible day for the House of Representatives. It is a day in which the majority party asked us to take an action that has never been taken in the history of America-- never once--holding a Cabinet officer in contempt of the Congress.

Now, there have been previous contempt citations--some promoted by Democratic committees and some promoted by Republican committees. The average time between committee action and consideration on the floor of this House is 87 days; time to reflect on an extraordinarily important action with consequences beyond the knowledge of anybody sitting here today.

Now, I want to tell the chairman, with all due respect, I think this investigation has been extraordinarily superficial. I think the chairman has failed to call witnesses that could in fact give relevant, cogent testimony on the issues to bear. That ought to be done. That is why I will strongly support the motion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has served here longer than any of the rest of us and who is one of the strongest gun control rights supporters in this Congress.

What his motion says is: let us reflect. Let us bring thoughtful judgment. Let us not, every time that there is the opportunity, choose confrontation over cooperation and consensus. That has been the history of this Congress, confrontation over consensus every time, and America is suffering because of it.

I ask my friends on the Republican side of the aisle--who know me to be a bipartisan Member of this body who believes in this institution and who cares about its actions and the precedent that they will set-- don't do this. Vote for this motion to refer. Give the chairman the opportunity he should have taken before to have a full hearing, calling former Attorney General Mukasey, calling the former head of the ATF, calling agents who were personally involved in this proceeding.

I venture to say that there are very few Members who will vote on this issue who have read the committee proceedings, very few Members who have read the minority report or the majority report. Yet they're about to take a historic vote to do what has never been done by any Congress--111 Congresses. Do not take this action.

This is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our Constitution, our country, our respect for a Nation of laws, not of men. That's what this vote is about. We ought not to be voting as Republicans and Democrats; we ought to be voting as Americans, Americans committed to justice and fair process.

I regret that I do not believe this committee has followed that. I believe that the political motivations behind this resolution are clear and pose a clear and present danger to this Nation.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague and my friend, for his leadership on this effort.

When we vote on this referral, let us vote as Americans, as I said, not as a partisan issue. You may have the Attorney General in the future. It's not the question of the party of the Attorney General. It is the question of whether or not this Congress is going to provide for equal treatment of all Attorney Generals and all Cabinet officers.

Let us vote for this motion to refer and give the committee the opportunity it should take, and let us vote down this motion that should fail, and let us vote down these motions for contempt, and let us thoughtfully consider the equities of this issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On November 1, 2009, our Speaker stood on this floor, outraged about the process. We, too, are outraged about this process, and let me quote the Speaker:

We will not stand for this. And I would ask my House

Republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be

here protecting the American people, protecting our

Constitution, not vote on this bill. Let's just get up and

leave.

My colleagues may well follow that advice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Obviously, the gentleman has spoken to a number of very important pieces of legislation, and I want to talk about those. Then I want to talk about what I believe to be a diversion from the important business of this country. But I will get to, first, the highway conference.

On Friday, it will be 100 days since the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill, a bill which had 75 Members of the United States Senate for it. That conference has not yet reported out. I understand there is some activity on that.

The House overwhelmingly voted for the Walz MTI, and it said the conferees ought to report out a conference report by tomorrow. I don't know whether that's about to happen--today is tomorrow--but we will see whether or not it proceeds. Perhaps the gentleman can give us some information on that issue.

I've offered a motion, as the gentleman knows, to instruct to give the House an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill if we can't wait for a bill that comes out of conference. Clearly, if it doesn't come out of conference, it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. It will not protect the 1.9 million jobs the Senate bill protects, and it will not create approximately 1 million additional jobs.

As the gentleman knows, it is our view that we've been considering a lot of legislation which does not create jobs, does not impact positively the growth in our economy; but I think there is little dispute that the highway bill will in fact do that.

In addition, there has been a lot of talk about certainty. I agree with the premise that we ought to give certainty to the economy and to employers and employees, and to States and subdivisions and private sector contractors. Obviously, if we don't extend the highway bill, that will not be the case. In fact, it will be a very uncertain world in which they will be operating.

So can my friend tell me what the status of the conference is, if he knows? I will tell you, very frankly, that the Democratic conferees do not know the status of the conference.

And I will yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. I hope the gentleman's correct.

My concern, and the concern on this side, continues to be the position--as Mr. Shuster, who is the one of the ranking members and whose dad, of course, chaired the Transportation Committee at one point in time. There was a story that Shuster acknowledged that the House GOP's leadership's inability to pass its 5-year, $260 billion transportation bill ``weakens our hand in conference.'' And this is what concerned me, Mr. Leader.

But he added, ``It's not an option to give away the House position.''

Now, he was referring to, of course, a bill which has not passed this House, has not even been brought to the floor of this House. And that article went on to say, House Republicans say they are willing to walk away from the highway bill talks if they cannot get what they want.

Now, this was an interview--I see Mr. Shuster on the floor, and Mr. Shuster's a friend of mine. I'll be glad to hear what he has to say on that matter, and I'll yield to him.

I thank the gentleman for that information. I certainly hope that we are moving in a positive direction because we've been a long time getting to resolution of this matter.

Next I would like to ask--you indicated that student loans may be on the calendar as well. Can the gentleman tell me what his expectation is on that, if he knows?

Well, I'm hopeful that we can resolve this in a way that is agreeable to at least the majority of both Houses and to the President of the United States because if we don't, as the gentleman knows, we're going to increase interest rates by doubling them from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.

Today's college students are leaving with an average of $26,000 in debt. This would add another $1,000 of debt to those students, and right now, with students owing more than $1 trillion, placing more debt on their head. And I would urge us, therefore, to come to an agreement, come to an agreement that both sides could vote for.

Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the House bill that passed was a pay-for that Democrats didn't vote for here, and I think it was well known that the Senate would not agree to that, so I'm hopeful that we do reach an agreement that will provide for its passage.

Now, let me ask the gentleman--we, of course, made the representation that we ought to be focused on jobs. We believe that's critically important, and we believe that ought to be the focus of this Congress. It's the focus of the American people.

We went through, in years past, distractions. You say, with just some 30 full days left between now and the election, that you're going to bring up a resolution that came out of committee, as I understand, yesterday, without much time for consideration or deliberation, a very, very serious matter.

Attorney General Holder, of course, has been involved in making sure that votes are not suppressed all over this country. He has, in my view, conducted himself in a way that brought credit to the Justice Department, to himself, and to this administration.

I don't know--well, let me ask the gentleman. How long do you expect to spend on this motion?

I don't think any of us have seen the final bill that's going to come to the floor or the resolution that's going to come to the floor suggesting that Mr. Holder be held in contempt. I don't think anybody outside of the committees has had an opportunity to consider this very weighty, important matter, very disruptive matter, if I would say, and distracting matter.

What procedure does the gentleman suggest is going to be pursued next week on this matter?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. Which means that a matter of great weight is going to be brought to the floor within just a few days of being passed out of committee, with a relatively short period of time for either debate or for consideration.

There is, of course, precedent, and the gentleman's correct. It is a privileged resolution, and I understand the rules under privileged resolutions. But I do understand that this is a matter that's going to require a very careful, judicious, if I can say, consideration. And to bring it up at a time when we ought to be focused on jobs, when you're trying to do two appropriations bills, when you're talking about the highway bill and we're talking about the student loan bill, and to treat it as somewhat of a suspension bill provision, with little time to really have it discussed with the seriousness that the subject matter requires, I would suggest to the gentleman that this is going to be not only a distraction, but an unfortunate taking our focus off of creating jobs here in America.

I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman intend to go the Rules Committee to get a rule, or bring the privileged resolution directly to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

With respect to another piece of legislation, I would like to ask the gentleman about the Violence Against Women Act, which, again, the Senate passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and which we passed in a relatively partisan fashion over here, where the parties were split.

Will the gentleman tell me whether or not he knows the status of that legislation and whether or not we expect to consider that anytime soon.

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, we believe that the bill that passed the House on the Violence Against Women Act left out a lot of women. It reduced the scope that the Senate passed with, again, a bipartisan vote with, frankly, all the women on the Republican side of the aisle in the United States Senate voting for the Senate bill. We think the House bill restricted the coverage of that bill. It seems to me that we ought to be against violence against all women and other persons who may be subject to domestic violence. We would hope that that matter could be resolved, frankly, along the lines of making sure that all people are protected from domestic violence.

Lastly, may I ask the gentleman what he expects the schedule for the balance of July to be. Again, I would reiterate, as the gentleman knows, we have very, very few days left, less than 30 full days between now and the election following this week. There are another 8 days that are 6:30 days, or some number, either 7 or 8 6:30 days, so we don't have very much time to deal with

some of the pressing problems, including dealing with middle class tax cuts to make sure that working people in this country who are having a hard time making ends meet don't get an increase in their taxes on January 1.

Will the gentleman tell me what he expects the schedule to be in the month of July.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that, clearly, when you look at the Congress to which he referred in terms of its productivity in the 2007 and 2008 years, we think the productivity was very much higher. I won't go through the litany of those figures; but I think, if the majority leader reviews them, he will see in terms of the productivity of the Congress that we moved America much further forward.

Having said that, I want to say that we hope that we will continue to focus on jobs. I know I share the gentleman's view--and I think all of us share the view--that we want to have reasonable regulations that help grow the economy, not impede its growth. We're for that. We may have a difference of opinion on what that does when we think of deregulating the protection of our environment, when we think of deregulating the safety of our financial markets. When we took the referee off the field, it had an extraordinarily negative impact on this country and on every taxpayer in this country and on every business in this country. It was not useful. It was not helpful.

I think we have a difference of opinion on whether or not we want to make sure there is a level playing field, a fair playing field, for all the participants in our economy--both businesses and consumers. Clearly, there was an effort that was being made to undermine the ability of the CFTC to fully oversee what was a market that went out of control. As a result, there were dire consequences to our country and its fiscal status.

So I am hopeful that we don't pursue a regulatory agenda, which is an agenda with the net result of taking the referee off the field. I don't think the American public wants that, and I don't really think that that's reasonable. Further, I think they think we really need to be focused on things that will immediately grow this economy. The highway bill would have done that. Unfortunately, that highway bill has stayed in limbo for too long a time. I am hopeful that we can move it.

Unless the gentleman has something further to say, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.