Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 448 provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 674, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, and H.R. 2576, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining the eligibility for certain health care-related programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bills. What we have here is something very simple: a bill to save jobs in America and a way to pay for it through a simple technical fix in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is supported by the President and many Democrats in this Chamber.

H.R. 674, or what I call the Saving American Jobs Act, would repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement on government payments to businesses, both large and small. This is truly a bipartisan bill with more than 60 Democrats among the 269 cosponsors. Even the President supports changing the withholding tax. The tax is a job killer, plain and simple.

Beginning January 1, 2013, government agencies at all levels-- Federal, State and local--will have to withhold 3 percent of their payments to businesses for goods and services. For many small businesses, this has the potential to completely wipe out their profit margins. At a time when we have a desperate need to create jobs and to create the environment for job creation, the withholding tax does the exact opposite. For many State and local governments, the implementation costs will be huge at a time when their budgets are already stretched thin.

For example, in my home State of South Carolina, the State Comptroller estimates the implementation costs associated with this tax will take up 11.5 percent of its budget. This tax punishes all businesses for the sins of a few, automatically and wrongly assuming all job creators who do business with the Federal Government are somehow

evading full taxation. The last I checked, we should be encouraging people to follow the law, not penalizing them for doing so.

The tax also treats all businesses the same regardless of their taxable incomes. In the construction industry, for example, where unemployment is currently at 13.5 percent, companies rarely have a pretax profit margin of more than 3 percent. Therefore, a 3 percent withholding tax would completely wipe out their profit margins. As a former small business owner myself, I can assure you this is not the kind of math that leads to job creation.

This tax will also harm local governments that are already hurting for dollars by placing on them an unfunded mandate to collect a Federal tax. Again, as former chairman of the Charleston County Council, this is more math that just doesn't add up.

With unemployment still at 9 percent, our job creators need capital to invest and long-term certainty in the Tax Code. Taking hard-earned dollars away from our job creators will only lead to higher prices, lower wages, and lost jobs.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's odd that as the American people continue to watch Congress asking for a bipartisan approach to what we do here, it's very odd for us to find ourselves in that position today saying to the American people, we are finally on the right page of a bipartisan approach. And as it relates to the whole undermining of the health care act, the President himself has released a statement, an administration policy statement, that simply says that he supports H.R. 2576.

The fact of the matter is if we are going to find ways to save Medicaid and keep it available for the next generation, we must do things in a bipartisan approach that actually solve the problems without increasing the system necessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so important for us to recognize is the importance of living within our means and allowing our ability to control our spending to dictate what we are able to use, as opposed to having more tax increases as a way to fund the resource priorities of this Nation.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James Lankford.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Randy Hultgren.

I would just encourage my friends on the left who want to raise taxes, raise taxes if you can, but the bottom line is that raising revenues does not make you more responsible, does not make you use the revenues that you currently have more responsibly. So the notion of raising taxes to use that as a fix to this situation is inconsistent with the reality and is part of the alternate universe that we ought not be a part of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Donald Manzullo.

We have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dennis Ross.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at a place where we should have been at for many, many months, and that is working in a bipartisan way to save American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we have this opportunity to have the President's support with those of us on the right, to have the Democrat leadership joining us, 269 cosponsors on this legislation that simply says to the job creators: We believe in you.

Mr. Speaker, today we have a very simple vote. We can remove an impediment to job creation from the backs of small businesses with no overall increase in government spending. That should be our vote today.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, sir.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 431 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, and makes in order six amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would provide for a consistent, safe management of coal combustion residuals, or coal ash, in a way that protects jobs, while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these materials.

This legislation, simply put, is one of the best job creation bills we can bring before the House of Representatives. By allowing States the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs, instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching EPA rule, we will save as many as 316,000 American jobs.

The EPA proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and the construction costs around the Nation, while costing electric utilities and business owners up to $110 billion. While we all agree we must be responsible in protecting our environment, I am struggling to understand why on Earth the EPA continues to propose rules in a vacuum, as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country.

Coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. But what it has been proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls.

In my district, South Carolina's First, the American Gypsum Wallboard Plant in Georgetown County uses coal ash from Santee Cooper, our local electric utility, to produce environmentally friendly wallboard. American Gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their facility. The EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste threatens industry's ability to recycle this material in beneficial use. This, along with the increased regulatory, electric, and construction costs, is jeopardizing jobs all across America.

This legislation puts in place appropriate controls--and let me emphasize ``appropriate''--for the safe management and disposal of coal ash, while still encouraging investment in recycling and beneficial use.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This is the way Federal regulations should be implemented, and it is the way we will protect American jobs while protecting the environment at the same time.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm confused. It doesn't take a lot to confuse me, but I'm confused today. The gentleman from Massachusetts consistently talks about the fact that there's been 281 days without a jobs bill. I want to know the definition of a jobs bill, because if you create jobs, my assumption is that we're talking about jobs bills. There is no question that the current legislation that we're talking about saves up to 316,000 jobs. I'm going to call that a jobs bill.

There's no question that the free trade agreements create about one- quarter of a million jobs. Those are jobs bills. The Boiler MACT saves jobs, and Cement MACT saves jobs. So what we've done in this Congress, in this House, is talk consistently about how to rein in the regulatory environment to not only create jobs but to retain jobs.

So my perspective is simple: When you have legislation that comes before the House that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bills. It is not an ultimatum. The President's jobs bill is simply an ultimatum, do it all or nothing at all. There is no question about it that even the Senate cannot find cosponsors of the President's legislation and pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. David McKinley.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clear as it relates to the President's objectives of creating a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but that does create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of.

What we're talking about, however, sir, is a bipartisan approach to legislation in the House. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, with a vote of 35-12, 6 of the 23 Democrats supported this bill; of the Boiler MACT, 41 Democrats supported that bill; of the Cement MACT, 25 Democrats supported that bill. What we've done here is to create an atmosphere that is conducive to a bipartisan approach to solving the environmental concerns and challenges of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito.

I would just say to my good friend from Massachusetts that the President's jobs perspective seems to be, since February of 2009, a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. So let's just absorb that for a moment.

We ought to get serious about not using the American people as a pawn for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan fashion, as we have on the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, and now on this current bill. If we work for Americans' future, we will find more jobs created and saved in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Larry Bucshon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

We are prepared to close; so we reserve our time until then.

Mr. Speaker, history is a measure of progress. And when it comes to the two topics that I keep hearing from Mr. McGovern, my good friend to the left, it's openness and job creation. So let's examine history.

In the 111th Congress, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought to the floor in the last Congress as the vice chairman of the Rules Committee? The answer is none; no, not one. Under Speaker Boehner, our record of openness in this Congress is one we can be proud of. All of the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely open rules--all of the general appropriations bills, open rules. We've brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open rules, only requiring preprinting of amendments.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The good news is the gentleman from Massachusetts has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks in one direction, he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the question that simply, no, not one, not one in the 111th Congress, one open rule did he bring to the floor of the House. But I would say that the Democrats in the last Congress simply gave up on openness. They just gave up on openness and allowing the American people to see real debate on the floor of the House.

On the issue of job creation, since February of 2009, the current administration lost 2.2 million jobs. Two million Americans now out of work since February 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue when they simply have nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done.

I would say this, though: that this week alone in the House of Representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators of America to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. We compare our record every day to the current administration.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has passed multiple bills which would stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs all across America. I ask that we do so today.

Enough is simply enough. We cannot allow the EPA--or any other government agency for that matter--to unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has been in the last 25 years. This is a responsible, forward-thinking bill which everyone in the Chamber should support.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the heart of Charleston, South Carolina, lies Cannon Street; it's a modest street spanning just a few city blocks. However, within its history lies the story of what Dr. Creighton Hale, the former CEO of little league baseball, called ``the most significant amateur team in baseball history.''

In 1955, the area surrounding this street was one of economic blight and social unease. In an effort to keep kids out of trouble and teach skills that only team sports can provide, the local YMCA organized four little league teams for the neighborhood kids. The Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars would advance to the Charleston City Little League playoff games, but would never be given the opportunity to earn a spot in the Little League World Series. It was not because they were unworthy players or because they could not afford to go. The color of their skin stifled the dreams of these twelve-year-old boys.

The Charleston playoff games were boycotted in 1955 to preserve racial segregation. Because teams again refused to play against them, the Cannon Street All-Stars advanced past the state and regional playoffs. The National Little League invited the All-Stars to the Little League World Series as special guests; they could not compete for the title because technically they hadn't played their way to the championships. They returned to Charleston, dismayed and disappointed.

As children, they embodied the very characteristics that organized sports aim to impart--teamwork, courage and respect. As adults they have worked in productive and valuable careers such as architecture, law enforcement and education. As they have grown older, they are now volunteers in their communities--giving back, yet again. While they never had the opportunity to compete, their story has demonstrated where we have come from as a nation.

Last month members of my staff had the opportunity to meet several of the original Cannon Street Little Leaguers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to be recognized at Nationals Stadium before the Nationals- Phillies game. Their story remains powerful more than 65 years later, and I know my staff will never forget having the opportunity to meet them.

Today, the neighborhood that encompasses Cannon Street has developed into an integral part of the Charleston education and science community. It is home to a number of colleges and universities and a world-class research hospital. The boys of the Cannon Street Little League Team are men who through their careers and service to the community have become assets to their neighborhoods. In spite of the adversity they encountered and the challenges they confronted, these young people illustrated to the world the absurdity of segregation and the hatred inherent in racism.

In the fifty-five years since they were excluded from competing to earn a spot at the Little League World Series in their own right, America has matured. I'd like to believe that a handful of twelve-year- olds contributed to our maturity.

It is with great admiration that I share their story and my respect for these men with you, my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Because the one Republican amendment submitted to the Rules Committee was not germane and because the Democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, House Resolution 372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. Since the NLRB filed suit against Boeing, I have been reminded of an old saying: ``A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.''

What you see now is exactly that, Big Government killing jobs under the guise of protecting workers. Let me be clear. Despite what opponents will say, this is not a union issue. This is a classic example of government overreach which will, in the end, destroy American jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and an economy which is best described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford this action. Plain and simple, my legislation will remove the NLRB's ability to kill jobs.

The government, especially an unelected board, does not need to be involved in the business decisions of the private sector. In fact, it cannot be. We already live in a country where our corporate tax structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another strike against us.

Today, the NLRB's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my hometown of north Charleston. Let me say that again: 1,100 jobs already created and filled. Who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company from looking to expand, not just in South Carolina, a State where our unemployment rate is at 10.9 percent, but anywhere in the country. This instability is the last thing our job creators need right now.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This commonsense solution will help spur job creation and, more importantly, it will remove impediments to job creation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

There are a couple of comments I would like to make on my good friend's comments.

For one thing, not a single union employee, not a single employee in Washington State--Puget Sound, Washington State--has lost their job because of the new line of work being done in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Another comment that my good friend made had to do with Medicare and what the Republicans are doing to Medicare. Let us not forget the fact that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact on Medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national health care plan passed by the Democrats where they stripped $500 billion, $500 billion, out of Medicare to pay for the debacle known as national health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Joe Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Phil Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly love to hear a single case, a single specific comment, a single specific fact to undergird your comments, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, John Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would just say to my good friend, Mr. McGovern, that there's no doubt about it that the President's jobs plan does one thing. And it's consistent with what the NLRB would do as well. It doesn't simply ship American jobs overseas. It ships American companies overseas so they do not have to play in the quagmire pit called the regulations that this President and the Federal Government have imposed on businesses.

To quote from the conservative Chicago Tribune: The NLRB's worst decision, however, is its unprovoked ``hit'' job on Boeing. There's no question that whether you're a conservative, a liberal; whether you are a passionate believer in the future of this Nation and this world, here's one thing we all have in common: the decision for the NLRB to attack America's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and indefensible.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

My good friends on the left continue to talk about shipping jobs out of America. I want to make sure that everyone still recognizes the fact that the great State of South Carolina is still a part of the United States of America. In fact, when you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the Washington State employees now

have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant in North Charleston. In fact, if you're talking about creating American jobs in American States--U.S. States--South Carolina--you would simply look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in North Charleston. You would think about the fact that the compounding impact of those jobs in North Charleston could create up to 12,000 new American jobs in our States.

So the fallacy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mike Pompeo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Steve Palazzo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robert Hurt.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have no remaining speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts continues to talk about the President's jobs plan that is nothing more than a brand spanking new stimulus plan spending $467 billion by increasing taxes on everyone, including the middle class. I cannot find it in my heart to say to Mr. McGovern that the President's plan has any opportunity of passing in this House, because the bottom line is simply this: we ought to spend our time focused on the things that we have in common. It is time for the games to stop.

We should look at the President's plan and pick out those parts of the plan that we agree with. We should start by talking about having an opportunity to work on corporate tax reduction, flattening the tax rate for corporations. We have the second highest tax rate in all of the world, and this environment creates an unlevel playing field for America's job creators.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Our President wants an up-or-down vote on this one package.

We believe that the fastest and most effective way to show the American people that partisan politics is over and that we're now focused on the American people, we will take those parts, those aspects of the President's bill that we agree with, like regulatory reform like we're doing today, and simply say to the American people that we're listening. We will take, without any question, an opportunity to debate the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make America's corporations more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the games which so often sidetrack things in Washington and pass this important legislation here today.

This is not a question of pro-union--I agree with you--or anti-union. It is a question of right versus wrong.

The NLRB has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and hold employers accountable for unlawful labor practices. There is simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where a private business can establish its workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, for months now here in Washington we have debated spending, the debt ceiling, and job creation. But for generations, American businessmen and -women have shaped not only our national economy, but the world's economy and made our country a symbol of strength and ingenuity. To honor that spirit, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in listening to those small business owners and job creators who truly drive our economy.

That is why we have launched our ``July is Jobs'' initiative, where we ask the residents of South Carolina's First Congressional District to share with me, through social media and email, their ideas on job creation and moving our economy forward. They are the ones on the ground every day trying to grow their businesses, hire new employees, and navigate what is best for their families.

At the end of the month, I will share a selection of these ideas on the House floor, and I am 100 percent certain that we will learn a thing or two from those job creators. Because, at the end of the day, this isn't about the left or the right or Washington politics; it's about them.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 294 provides for a closed rule for consideration of two measures, House Concurrent Resolution 51 and House Resolution 292.

This rule allows for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 51, consistent with the War Powers Act, and provides for an alternative measure introduced by the Speaker of the House. I support the Speaker's resolution and the ability to have up-or-down votes on both resolutions.

This approach is consistent with the Speaker's and our conference's goal of a more open and transparent process, allowing the House to work its will on both resolutions. Members can vote for one of the resolutions, both of the resolutions, or neither of them.

The underlying legislation addresses the administration's actions in Libya. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered U.S. military intervention in Libya as a part of a multinational coalition. Well over 60 days later--let me say that one more time--over 60 days later the President has still not asked for, nor has he received, authorization from Congress to commit troops to such action.

Mr. Speaker, article I of our Constitution states that Congress, and only Congress, has the power to declare war. This point was made best in 2007 by then-Senator Barack Obama, who said: ``The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''

Just in case we missed that, the current President got it right in 2007 when he was a Senator. I want to quote him one more time. He said that ``the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''

While the United States must play offense in the war on terror, and we should not have to wait for threats to materialize before acting. It is not clear, it is simply not clear that Libya posed a threat to our Nation that justified the use of troops, the United States' troops.

It is undeniable that Qadhafi is one of the most notorious terrorists of our time, and the world will be a better place when he is gone. But at the same time, there is no shortage of dictators who should be removed from power. Syria's Assad is butchering his own people as we speak. Iran, under Ahmadinejad, sponsors terrorism around the world, he persecutes religious minorities, and is working to develop a nuclear bomb.

Moreover, the President has not outlined the purpose or the scope of our action in Libya. Is the objective the removal of Qadhafi from power? If so, who will replace Qadhafi? And what assurances do the American people have that the alternative will be any better than Qadhafi?

House Resolution 292 accomplishes four objectives. First, it establishes that the President of the United States, President Obama, has not asked for congressional authorization for a military involvement in Libya, and that Congress has not granted such authority. Second, the resolution reasserts that Congress has the option to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including such activities in Libya. Third, the resolution requires the President to provide within 14 days information to Congress which should have been provided from the start. Fourth, the resolution reaffirms the vote that Congress took just last week that says that there should be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya unless they are there to rescue American troops.

It is unfortunate, it is very unfortunate that our President has made this resolution necessary. Yet at the same time, we are mindful that the congressional action must consider our responsibilities to our allies, including those that are currently in harm's way. America keeps its promises. We keep our commitments. And we stand by our soldiers and our allies. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just one clarification: The concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 51, does not become law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left continue to call House resolutions frivolous and meaningless. My good friend Mr. McGovern himself just last term had House Resolution 278, Global Securities Priorities Resolution.

The fact of the matter is the House needs to position itself so the American people understand what this House is trying to convey to the President of the United States. The fact of the matter is this President continues to do things that, as a Senator, he said were inconsistent with the Constitution. So we are making sure that this House and the people who voted in this House are represented in the public forum.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

(Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we are doing here today, the gentleman to the left got it wrong. The bottom line is that Members of the House of Representatives have a choice. They can do one of two or three things. They can vote for House Resolution 292, or they can vote for Concurrent Resolution 51. They can do both, or they can do neither.

The fact of the matter is, to trivialize or to belittle the process we are undertaking on behalf of the American people ought to give us cause to pause and ask ourselves: Who is playing the games?

We want the President of the United States to abide by the Constitution. You've heard Democrats and Republicans agree this morning on one clear fact: he didn't; and that's why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this rule lets the House work its will, without any question. You have a choice. Take the opportunity. Vote your conscience.

This is a place where we are confident and not nervous, but we want to close in a bipartisan way because there's no doubt that we want Americans to come together. And I can think of no more appropriate way to close than to quote then-Senator Barack Obama once again:

``The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 342, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 223 provides for a structured rule for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 34. This rule makes in order every complete substitute submitted to the Rules Committee. Continuing a bipartisan tradition, we are making in order four Democratic substitutes and one Republican substitute, providing 4 hours of general debate, with ample debate on each substitute. This will allow the House to work its will and adopt a budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is our budget for 2012. Our 2012 budget is our blueprint for a strong and secure future for the next generation.

Each of us is here today because those who came before us made amazing sacrifices for the next generation--us--keeping alive the American Dream. In the last century alone, our parents and grandparents have won two world wars, overcome the Great Depression, defeated communism, and created the most prosperous and vibrant society in the history of mankind.

Today it is our turn. It is our turn to take a bold and necessary step to ensure that we pass on to our children this great blessing called America, and even a stronger America than the one we received from our parents.

Paul Ryan calls his plan The Path to Prosperity. I call it leadership. It is what our country has been thirsting for. It confronts our problems head on, and it proposes reasonable and responsible solutions to get us back on track.

Our plan creates jobs, real jobs, 1 million new jobs in America in the first year alone. It stimulates our economy, increasing our GDP by $1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. It protects and strengthens Social Security and Medicare. Let me say that one more time because so many people are trying to demagogue the issue: Our plan strengthens and protects Social Security and Medicare for the next generation of Americans. And it also reduces job-killing government spending by $6.2 trillion in the next 10 years.

Yesterday, our President, he got on board. Two months ago, he gave us his 2012 budget, and now we have 2012 2.0, the second time around. But the plan hasn't changed much, sir. The plan is basically the same. So let's compare our plan in the next 10 years to President Obama's plan over the next 12 years.

President Obama would add $4 trillion to our debt, leaving us at the end of the next decade with $26 trillion of debt, according to the CBO. Even our Democratic colleagues in the House agree, and they have presented a plan that breaks from their own President, cutting an additional $1.2 trillion off the deficit. The Republican budget cuts $6.2 trillion, bringing spending to under 20 percent of our economy.

The Republican plan proposes specific and responsible solutions to strengthen Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. The President talks very vaguely about a plan to cut waste and streamline Medicare and Medicaid, proposing to create yet another unelected commission to solve all of our problems. We don't need more unelected bureaucrats in Washington, sir, enlarging the scope of government. That's not real leadership.

The President tries to tax our way out of debt, placing the burden on those earning more than $100,000. But the problem, sir, is a simple one. If we were to tax these individuals 100 percent of their income, we still cannot cover our deficits this year alone. As a matter of fact, to tax our way out of debt, we would need to increase taxes across the board on every man, on every woman, and on every business by 60 percent. You simply cannot tax your way out of this debt. Imagine the effects this would have on our economy.

The President's budget cuts $400 billion out of our military. In the time that he has led us into Libya, in the time that we have two conflicts going on, it cuts $400 billion away from the men and women who are fighting for freedom, dying for liberty.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to address a few points that Congresswoman Slaughter brought up.

I have scoured the budget looking for this notion of a voucher system for Medicare. I've scoured the budget and simply cannot find anything that is, in fact, a voucher system. I have seen things about premium support.

But let's just talk about Medicare for a quick second. $800 billion the President has suggested must come out of Medicare in order to pay for national health care. So we are going to take benefits from our senior citizens in an attempt to provide health care benefits for 19- and 20-year-olds. In fact, that $800 billion is one way to actually increase the cost to every senior citizen in our country. Increasing taxes by $2 trillion in the next 12 months is a wonderful way to make our economy stumble, and that's what the President has suggested.

Finally, you cannot increase taxes on the very job creators themselves and then ask them to continue to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let's just clear up a simple point here. The only specified savings in this budget are from raising taxes and cutting the military. If we really wanted to have an opportunity to make Medicare last longer, we could simply repeal ObamaCare, repeal national health care, and put the $800 billion back into Medicare.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Congressman, the fact is simple. We could tax those over $100,000 a year 100 percent and we still simply could not close the deficit for this year.

The fact of the matter is people talk about this government getting smaller, and the President's original budget spent $47 trillion in the next 10 years--an $8.7 trillion increase in spending. We're talking about a $2 trillion increase in spending in the next 12 months in taxes. We're not talking about reducing the size and scope of this government.

We must get ourselves on a completely different trajectory. We must bend the trajectory back towards the American people, back towards the private sector, and eliminate the disincentive for growth in our economy called taxation.

So to the extent that we can flatten the tax, spread the risk, we find ourselves in a more prosperous society with a stronger economy led by those folks in the private sector. Entrepreneurs have an opportunity to take those dollars and reinvest them in such a way to create more jobs. It is a simple formula.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Chairman Dreier.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, finally, the Democrats do get it. What they get is, if they do not find a way to scare our senior citizens, they have no chance. When you cover the expenses of running this government and when you think about the fact that what the Democrats have proposed and what President Obama has proposed in his original budget is an increase of $8.7 trillion of new spending and $47 trillion of new spending in the next 10 years, the Democrats have finally found a way to cover their tracks, and it is on the backs of our senior citizens.

There is no doubt that the 2012 budget plan that we have proposed has no impact, not only on our senior citizens who are receiving benefits today, but on those over the age of 55.

Not only are the Democrats willing to scare our seniors based on nothing, but they want to go to 2 years after Medicare is bankrupt and then start having a conversation about numbers when Medicare would not exist under their plan.

What we do under our plan is a simple thing. We strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. We understand that it is time to roll up our sleeves and to get serious about preserving the American Dream for the next generation. Our budget does that by cutting $6.2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10 years and by creating more than 1 million jobs in the next 12 months-- but we go further. We simply say that you do not create more disincentives or higher taxes in order to improve our economy.

Let us do exactly what the previous generation, the Greatest Generation, has done for us--pass on the American Dream in its entirety. We have a responsibility to the next generation in taking the tough road today in order to make the American Dream stronger tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, to recognize and honor Memorable ``Mem'' Factor of Charleston, SC and to congratulate him for winning first place in the first grade division at the State MathFest competition and for being named a National Champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 French Competition.

Whereas, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pleased to learn that Memorable ``Mem'' Factor took first place honors at the State MathFest competition and was named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 national French competition; and

Whereas, six-year-old Mem Factor's two favorite activities are math and basketball, and he thinks ``being good at math is really cool''; and

Whereas, he had very big shoes to fill at MathFest because last year's first grade winner was his sister Cailley Factor, and for the first time in the six years of the competition's history, siblings became State winners in the same year when his sister took top honors this year for the second grade; and

Whereas, his sister also won a national first place in the 1A category of Le Grand Concours in 2008, and ``Mem'' followed her once again in the 1A category for children in the first through third grades by winning it this year; and

Whereas, also fluent in Mandarin and Spanish, he earned the highest score in the United States in his category and says he loves everything French, especially the food; and

Whereas, the national French exam, consisting of oral and written portions, is given by the American Association of Teachers of French to over one hundred thousand French students in all fifty States and abroad; and

Whereas, this year's South Carolina MathFest was held in Columbia, and four thousand math students from around the State competed in the State's competition of the national math contest; and

Whereas, a group of elementary educators created MathFest in 2001 to provide an extended math initiative that would motivate students, parents, and teachers to raise the standards and expectations in math; and

Whereas, the founder of MathFest, Dr. Ron Boykins, hopes to generate enthusiasm for math in the elementary years in order to provide students with necessary skills to compete in middle and high school; and

Whereas, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pleased that talent and hard work have brought this success to Mem Factor, and they are grateful for the pride and recognition he has brought to his home school and to his community. Now, therefore, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, by this resolution, recognize and honor Memorable ``Mem'' Factor of Charleston, SC and congratulate him for winning first place in the first grade division at the State MathFest competition and for being named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 French competition.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be provided to Memorable ``Mem'' Factor.

Mr. Speaker,

Whereas, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pleased to learn that Cailley Factor captured the first-place award at the state math competition MathFest and was named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 national French competition; and

Whereas, eight-year-old Cailley Factor compares competing in math to sports competitions because both require the same focus in order to win; and

Whereas, a consistently superior math student, she took the top honors last year in the first-grade division, and this year her brother Memorable Factor followed in his sister's footsteps when he took first place in the same competition; and

Whereas, for the first time in the six years of MathFest history, siblings became state winners in the same year when she and her brother took top honors for their respective grade levels; and

Whereas, this year she earned the highest score in the United States for Le Grand Concours competing in the more difficult 3A category because she won the 1A in 2008, and once again her brother followed in her footsteps and took the top honors in 1A; and

Whereas, fluent also in Mandarin and Spanish, she loves to speak French and would like to visit there again; and

Whereas, the national French exam, consisting of oral and written portions, is given by the American Association of Teachers of French to over one hundred thousand French students in all fifty states and abroad; and

Whereas, this year's South Carolina MathFest was held in Columbia, and four thousand math students from around the state competed in the state's competition of the national math contest; and

Whereas, a group of elementary educators created MathFest in 2001 to provide an extended math initiative that would motivate students, parents, and teachers to raise the standards and expectations in math; and

Whereas, the founder of MathFest, Dr. Ron Boykins, hopes to generate enthusiasm for math in the elementary years in order to provide students with necessary skills to compete in middle and high school; and

Whereas, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pleased that ability and diligence have brought this success to Cailley Factor, and they are grateful for the pride and recognition she has brought to her family, her home school, and her community. Now, therefore, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, by this resolution, recognize and honor Cailley Factor of Charleston, SC and congratulate her for winning first place in the second-grade division at the state MathFest competition and for being named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 French competition.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be provided to Cailley Factor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 129 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 129 provides for consideration of H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.

If you are looking for a prime example of government regulation which, first, is an unnecessary intrusion on small businesses, second, enlarges government bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and entrepreneurs, and, finally, creates a mountain of mind-numbing paperwork which has the net effect of killing jobs, then look no further.

Section 9006 of the health reform bill does all of that by requiring businesses to report every expense that they incur over $600; not just wages to their employees, but even for payments to other businesses and for merchandise.

Imagine, if you will, a small business that picks up a couple of dozen doughnuts from Krispy Kreme on a weekly basis. At the end of the year, they must send a 1099 to Krispy Kreme. Think about a small business owner, as I have been for the last 14 years, who buys stamps from the post office, and now you have to send a 1099 to the U.S. Post Office. What about if you buy a printer for your office or blinds for your office? Here comes more, another mountain of new paperwork. So now you're spending tax time preparing 1099s for Krispy Kreme, Office Depot, Walmart, Costco, Starbucks, and the list goes on and on.

It's one thing for a large corporation with an in-house tax department. It's another thing completely for a small business which spends an average of $74 an hour--that's $74 an hour--on tax compliance, the most expensive paperwork burden that the Federal Government imposes on all small businesses.

Then, to make matters worse, last year the President signed the Small Business Jobs Act, which expanded this onerous 1099 requirement to anyone who rents out property. How did this happen? Well, after the bill has been passed, we are learning more about it. We had a Congress that passed a bill through backroom deals shielded from the public view without reading them.

The American people have seen what's in this bill, and they don't like it. They don't like it one bit. That's why they sent all of us to Congress, to repeal, to defund, and to dismantle the health care reform. My Republican colleagues voted to repeal this bill 245-189, with a 49-vote greater margin than the original vote to pass it. That is also why two Federal judges have already ruled that national health care reform is unconstitutional.

And I am proud to be handling this rule on the House floor. H.R. 4 will remove an unnecessary burden from small businesses, so that instead of creating 1099s for their expenditures, they can create W-4s when they hire new employees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, my cousin, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the cost and about taxes, about tax increases. We must be working from very different mathematical systems. They keep saying that we are raising taxes, and there is nothing further from the truth than the statements I have heard from the left.

You have consistently posed a question that all of America needs an answer to: Is this in fact a tax increase? Well, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this is in fact a net tax cut of over $20 billion over the next 10 years, and it will reduce the deficit by $166 million over the same period of time. Let's also keep in mind that these cost savings come from the government recouping money that the recipients should not have gotten in the first place.

That is not a tax increase. Let me say it one more time: that is not a tax increase. If we were looking for the way to actually get rid of this problem, there is a simple way to do that: let's repeal the entire health care law. Because the problem that we see today comes in the package of the health care law itself. So consistent with reality is the fact that the Democrats have put us in this position. So we are working in a bipartisan fashion through the 1099 repeal to eliminate this problem.

Finally, we should all bear in mind that while this resolution is a closed rule, the opposition was offered an opportunity to submit a substitute bill. They declined. We have also expanded debate to 2\1/2\ hours.

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, every single day Americans are asking, Where are the jobs? The answer is simple. Current regulations are destroying jobs. Last year alone, government regulations cost businesses more than $1.7 trillion.

As an example, this chart illustrates the significant burden that the Clean Air Act imposes on pulp and paper businesses in my district. These are all the regulations that could impact the industry in the next 10 years, with a price tag of 17 billion job-killing dollars, $17 billion.

Another example, the FDA has threatened General Mills with regulating Cheerios. Cheerios. Why? Because they don't like the health claim benefits on the box.

If we want to create more jobs in America, let's get the government out of the way, and we can start with the 157,000 pages of regulations.