[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2891-2892]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Quayle) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Speaker, a little more than a week ago this House 
passed a continuing resolution with $100 billion in spending cuts. Not 
only was this an important step towards reining in our Nation's 
paralyzing deficits, it also sent a clear signal to job creators that 
House Republicans are determined to foster an economic environment 
where certainty and confidence can return to the marketplace.
  When a young family looks for a new neighborhood, they examine a 
variety of factors. They might ask about how safe it is. They might 
want to know about the school system or whether their neighbors are 
friendly. The broader question being: What is the environment like?
  Job creators take a similar approach when they decide whether it's 
safe to invest capital, expand their businesses, and hire new workers 
in America. Just as a family is not going to choose a neighborhood with 
overflowing sewers and a high crime rate, a business owner is not going 
to expand and invest in an economic environment marred by debt-fueled 
uncertainty that will increase the costs to run their business. After 
all, deficits are just deferred tax payments that eventually come due.
  We must ensure that America is the most attractive and safest place 
to start a business, take risks, and invest capital. It is essential 
that we send a clear signal to American businesses that both parties 
are committed to removing the barriers to job growth and economic 
development.

                              {time}  1050

  Republicans believe--and I would argue the American public believes--
that cutting spending is a crucial step in that process.
  Yesterday, Mark Zandi released a study which argued that the 
Republican spending cut plan would cost jobs. I am sure Mr. Zandi is a 
nice enough person, but in recent years, he hasn't seen a spending 
increase he didn't like. He was the Democrats' go-to guy when they were 
looking for an economist to endorse the stimulus, and he even endorsed 
a second stimulus package after the initial $1 trillion package was 
signed into law. So before my Democrat colleagues start touting Mr. 
Zandi's report, I suggest they look at his record on the so-called 
stimulus.
  By merely debating spending cuts for the past few weeks, this body 
engaged in a process that many feared was obsolete. Some have said 
Republicans are trying to cut too much, others, that we are not cutting 
enough; and, indeed, we still have a long way to go to get our deficits 
and debt under control.
  But what no one can dispute, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are 
serious about cutting spending. In addition to the $100 billion in cuts 
Republicans have offered over the next year, we have also made clear 
that our upcoming budget will include serious, commonsense entitlement 
reforms.
  All of these efforts have one goal in mind: producing an environment 
conducive to economic growth and job creation. House Republicans are 
doing what we were sent here to do, and that's precisely what our job 
creators

[[Page 2892]]

need: clarity and decisive leadership from their government, not mixed 
messages and delayed action.

                          ____________________