Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from California.

I would just like to follow up on the remarks that we, too, would tell the gentleman from West Virginia, we agree entirely with the thrust of his remarks and express our sorrow for the folks of West Virginia who have experienced such a tragic loss.

I would say again, the ranking member on the Rules Committee has indicated already that we could have already embarked upon the effort that the gentleman from West Virginia and the lady from New York speak about because we did offer unanimous consent on this. So we are in total agreement there. However, I will rise in opposition to the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, for the millions of Americans demanding accountability for the culture of reckless runaway spending in Washington, meet YouCut. At a time when approval of congressional spending has reached its lowest ebb, this first-of-its-kind initiative empowers taxpayers with the ability to contribute directly to a new culture of savings in our Nation's capital.

Each week the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items that they would like to strip from the Federal budget. Once the votes are tallied, the House will vote on whether or not to cut the winning provision from the Federal balance sheet.

Within 5 days of the experiment, over 280,000 Americans cast their vote either online or by text message. That's a rate, Mr. Speaker, of more than 2,000 votes per hour, with less than 1 percent of the votes originating from inside the Beltway, I might add. The overwhelming response speaks to the extreme frustration taxpayers feel toward a Congress that refuses to listen to them.

Make no mistake: America is at a critical crossroads. The American people are tired of the spending binges. They look across the Atlantic and see Europe collapsing under the weight of its debt. With our own deficit swelling, it's only natural to fear that we are heading down the same road to ruin.

YouCut is not a political venture. It is about shifting the pendulum in Washington back towards the direction of saving money. Rooting out unnecessary spending should be a bipartisan endeavor. This week the House has considered two bills to name a post office and a Federal building, 11 resolutions honoring different individuals, sports teams, or causes, including even recognizing Craft Beer Week. We have considered bills to spend more money and create new programs.

Mr. Speaker, what we have not considered is a single bill to reduce spending. Unfortunately, this is a pretty typical week. Today we have a chance to change that. During the first week of YouCut, a plurality of voters chose to axe a recently created $2.5 billion annual welfare program that undercuts cost-saving welfare reforms made in 1996 by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. It was bipartisan reform. This new program undermines those reforms.

While it was just created last year, the reports of waste and fraud are already trickling in: perverse incentives for States to increase welfare caseloads, reports of cash being given out to welfare recipients that is then used to buy flat-screen TVs, iPods, and video gaming systems. Enough is enough.

To put it simply, even when the funds are not being so extravagantly wasted, we cannot afford this program. The American people understand this. That is why they asked us to vote on this proposal to terminate this program and to use that money to reduce the deficit. This previous question vote is the vote to do just that.

Today, over a quarter-million Americans will get to see whether their Representatives in Congress share their specific fiscal priorities. I urge my colleagues to listen to the voice of the people and take up this vote today and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask, with the Memorial Day recess beginning the week after next, does the gentleman expect the House to be in session next Friday.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman indicated, the Defense authorization bill is coming to the floor next week. Usually, I think Members expect several days' worth of debate on a variety of amendments. Typically, there are a large number of amendments made in order.

I would ask the gentleman, does he expect the House to follow that general precedent on the Defense authorization and the lengthy number of amendments and discussion on the House floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items the gentleman did not mention for next week's schedule, including a budget resolution as well as a troop funding supplemental. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, whether he expects either of these two items to come to the floor next week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the House voted today on the first YouCut proposal. It was a spending cut selected by the American people. Unfortunately, only nine Members from the gentleman's side of the aisle joined with all Republicans in voting to save the taxpayers $2.5 billion. I wish more Members of the Democratic Caucus had voted with Republicans.

The good news is Members will have the opportunity to vote on another cut again next week. Right now as we speak, Mr. Speaker, Americans are casting their votes at Republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut for what they would like the House to cut next week.

So, in keeping with the gentleman's announcement about next week's floor schedule, I would like to announce that the House will vote on one of these five spending cut proposals next week: first, to eliminate the Byrd Honor Scholarship Program, a $420 million item for savings; second, stop the proposed Federal employee pay raise next year, a potential $30 billion worth of savings; third, to suspend the Federal land purchases, a $2.6 billion potential savings, Mr. Speaker; fourth, an ability to terminate U.S. funding for UNESCO, a potential item for $810 million worth of savings to the taxpayers; or fifth, a move to eliminate mohair subsidies, something that would save the taxpayers $10 million.

Mr. Speaker, I would say again, the gentleman knows about this program. It is nothing but an attempt for us to try and change the culture here in Washington towards one of saving taxpayer dollars. Reducing the budget deficit should be a bipartisan effort, and we would hope that the gentleman and his colleagues could join with us as we bring up the next YouCut proposal next week.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman loves to talk about spending under the Bush years and under the years that our party controlled Congress. But I find it somewhat ironic at this point to go on talking about the inability to control spending when it is his party and the majority currently that is unable to produce a budget. He and I have had discussions again about the inability of this House to do its work, and in fact, I know the gentleman recalls, because it has been reported before that he himself says that when we are unable to pass a budget, and I quote, ``it is failing to meet the most basic responsibility of governing, that is enacting a budget.''

In the same way, the gentleman's chairman of the Budget Committee from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, quote, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern. In a parliamentary system it's more than an adage.''

Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. I would say instead of casting stones and pointing blame and saying you too did this, I believe that it is most important for us to recognize now the failure of this body to do what the American people expect us to do to control spending, and that is to produce a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I go on to say the gentleman was quick to, if I could say, malign the attempt to reduce the $2.4 billion program under the expanded welfare program under the stimulus bill that we just had a vote on. But I would point out that there were nine Members on his side of the aisle--Mr. Bright, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Giffords, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Minnick, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Taylor--these individual Members felt that perhaps we were and did have a valid point to make, that we ought to be cutting spending right now.

I would say to the gentleman, perhaps he is suggesting that these individuals voted to kill 185,000 jobs. I wouldn't say that those Members tried to do that in that vote. Again, I would just ask the gentleman whether that was his intention. I would probably think he wouldn't think his Members would vote to kill jobs.

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, there are no ``gotcha'' ads here. There was a statement made by the gentleman that said that the program that we were attempting to cut was a program that could create or has created 185,000 jobs. I just say to the gentleman, nine of his Members voted with us on that vote, and I would ask the gentleman does he think those nine Members voted to kill 185,000 jobs the way he in his statement sort of implied that Republicans intended to do?

I would say to the gentleman that obviously we have a real difference and the program we propose to cut is number one. The kind of debate that we're having should be the kind of debate we are having on this floor every day--not voting for post offices and naming Federal buildings.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the gentleman to do is to work with us in bringing to the floor and scheduling bills that actually reduce spending here in Washington because the gentleman indicated that he knows why all of this is being done, and I think that perhaps maybe he's thinking it's being done under the old construct.

Where we are now, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is that the American people expect some accountability here in Washington. They want us to stop spending money we don't have. The reason we launched the YouCut program is, number one, we want to say to the American people, we're listening, that we're not setting aside their wishes and their desires, that we care about what they think. That's what YouCut is all about. It's about empowering folks to go online and to tell us what they think, given the options presented to cut the Federal budget deficit. That's why we're doing this program, Mr. Speaker, and that's what YouCut is all about.

I would say to the gentleman, not one bill on the floor this week cut a single dollar from the Federal deficit. That's why we brought this proposal up.

Now, as to why we chose the PQ, I think the gentleman knows that the rules put in place and make it so that the minority has no other way to posit their alternatives or posit wishes that we may have other than to use a PQ, and that's why we elected to do this. If the gentleman wants to schedule a bill that we are discussing on substantive grounds, that's what we're about. Bring these bills to the floor for open and fair debate.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, he mentions the disappointment that he has over some on our side of the aisle and the other side of this building in not supporting the President's commission addressing the fiscal outlook for this country. The gentleman knows well the reason many Members on our side of the aisle refused to participate in that vote was because, in fact, the focus was not going to be on that commission cutting spending.

We think that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem here. So why couldn't we just set aside the need for additional revenues, put that off the table, and focus on spending?

Again, that's what the YouCut program is about. That's why we're bringing these things to the floor, and I would hope that the gentleman could join us in demonstrating that we're listening to the people and actually moving towards a sense of fiscal discipline here in Washington.

I yield.

I say to the Speaker, the gentleman suggests that our ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan's roadmap proposal, is the budget. That is not the budget. That's a 75-year document. The gentleman, I think, knows, if he's looked at that, it is a plan to try and address the very real fiscal challenges that this country faces.

And our job here in this Congress is to go about trying to address the problems through the processes that his party has put in place.

Right now, priority one should be a budget. Okay. So if the gentleman is suggesting that perhaps we bring Mr. Ryan's roadmap bill to the floor, a 75-year document, how is that even something that we could expect is a serious gesture to do something about the fiscal needs this country has when his party can't even produce a budget for this fiscal year?

So again I say, Mr. Speaker, let's get serious now. There are a lot of things we can agree on. The budget cut that we brought to the floor today is something that I believe, up-or-down, if his Members were given the opportunity to vote on again and think about without being tainted by some accusation that it may not be for real, these are cuts that are serious. We've got to start somewhere, and the American people have said start here.

So this is what we're about, Mr. Speaker, and I'd ask the gentleman to work with us and bring these types of cuts to the floor.

If the gentleman is really saying that $2.5 billion is not something that we could start with--as if that's no money. I know he doesn't mean that. And only in Washington somehow has that become a sense that $2.5 billion is not real money. Of course it is.

But we've got to find ways to work together. And if the gentleman says he'll bring up this bill but he can't support it, then the purpose is not for us to work together. We've got to work together to find a way to solve these problems.

And I'll yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, I would respond by saying it is just not all that black and white, and he knows it. There is no way that the blame for what happened can go singly to one party, one administration, or what have you. We all have to come here with the best of intentions to work together and to point to the good in this country and what made us who we are, and that is the freedom and the economic freedom afforded by our system.

Those are the principles by which we come to this building, Mr. Speaker. And some of us have a strong objection to the increasing sense that somehow we've got all of the answers here in Washington, that we don't have to listen to the people.

I'm glad to hear that the gentleman is going to bring some YouCut proposals to the floor. That's a great start. We need to keep listening to the people, doing what it is they expect, which is to get the Federal spending under control.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to working with Mr. Hoyer.

I yield.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for misunderstanding the gentleman.

I would respond to that statement then by saying the American people have told us to stop spending, to stop spending money we don't have. And that's the purpose for our sponsoring this provision today, the purpose for our launching YouCut, and we will expect to continue to have the votes on listening to the American people to begin to cut the Federal deficit.

But, again, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland in a fiscally responsible manner which, again, we would hope starts with passing a budget blueprint this year, making some of the tough decisions to cut spending just like the American families and small business people are doing as we speak.

And with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, given the fact that he has announced only one rule bill for next week, I would ask the gentleman if he expects the House to be in session next Friday, and I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the gentleman's announcement about next week's floor schedule, I'd also like to announce an additional item that we Republicans would like to see and will bring up for a vote on the House floor next week.

Yesterday, House Republicans announced an unprecedented online effort called YouCut, and this can be found at republicanwhip.house.gov/ YouCut. This program allows the public to vote on wasteful programs they'd like to see the House cut. Over 70,000 Americans have thus far voted in the program called YouCut.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we will announce the public's choice this coming Monday and then provide for debate on the cut of their choosing during our first rule bill of the week, which, as the gentleman has indicated, is the tax extenders.

And, Mr. Speaker, therefore I would say to the Members that in addition to the majority leader's announced schedule, there will also be a vote on the consideration of one of five possible savings proposals.

The first is to eliminate the Presidential Election Fund, and that would amount to a $260 million saving. The next could be the elimination of the taxpayers' subsidized union activities, a $600 million savings to the taxpayer. Next could be the elimination of a HUD program that funds doctoral dissertations. That is a $1 million tax savings for the taxpayers. Also, we could see the people of this country vote for the elimination of new nonreform welfare programs that could save the public $3.5 billion. Also, Mr. Speaker, among the items that the American public is opining on right now online is a proposal to eliminate wealthy communities from the CDBG program. That would offer a $2.6 billion savings to the taxpayers.

So I'd say, Mr. Speaker, we on the Republican side of the aisle, as I have told the gentleman before, stand ready to work with the majority in hopes of trying to encourage legislation that would reflect these cuts, encourage the majority to bring those to the floor. But having not received any bit of cooperation or at least recognition that we need to do something like that, we intend to bring those votes forward on these items and whichever items the American people vote on first to the floor next week.

Mr. Speaker, moving on to the gentleman's announced schedule. I notice that the majority leader did not indicate whether we would consider a budget next week. It's now been 4 weeks since the April 15 deadline for completing a budget, and I'd ask the gentleman, does he still think that the House will consider a budget prior to Memorial Day, as he stated before?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for his sentiments.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, if we can't start here and instead have to wait until after the upcoming election, what does that say to the American people?

I also have noted that the gentleman has issued statements about the relative size of the proposed options online under the YouCut program. And nowhere else, nowhere else but Washington could these cuts be deemed to not be significant. Just because they are less than 1 percent of the Federal budget doesn't mean we ought not at least start there rather than kick the can down the road like Washington has under both parties' leadership. And the gentleman knows I am the first to admit that our party was fired in 2006 much on account of the runaway spending. But we have an opportunity to work together to actually begin some progress rather than continue to say let's shift the responsibility outside to a commission that the President has created.

The facts are, Mr. Speaker, we've considered 63 resolutions naming post offices this year, 62 resolutions congratulating sports teams, and we've even supported the designation of Pi Day. Yet you don't think, and I really can't imagine why, we wouldn't have time to debate proposals regarding the types of savings that I enumerated.

And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if he doesn't want to engage in the votes that we are going to present next week, why can't we have a bill brought to the floor with these measures? He and I can sit here and debate in a colloquy, but I think the American people would like to see the House actually engage in these debates.

So I, again, appreciate the gentleman's indication that he wants to work with us, but time and again we see ourselves here on this House floor taking up resolutions naming post offices instead of trying to do the people's business, emphasizing their priority, which is let's do something to cut the debt that is being imposed on our kids and their kids once and for all.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, I think the gentleman knows I have never, never rooted against this economy or this country. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make public statements when we have positive job growth to say, when we see jobs growing, it is a good thing. Period. I have been consistent in that message.

So I just wanted to speak to that and correct the gentleman's assertion that somehow I am not giving credit for job growth. But I would say we do have much work to be done.

He indicates that somehow this last year was a year that Americans paid lower taxes than ever before in recent memory. I would say they paid lower taxes because we have a progressive tax system; and the fact that the recession reduced income by over $200 billion last year versus 2008. That is the reality. If you want to get serious, that is the reality. Not some fantasy that we have somehow lowered tax rates, when we know good and well at the end of this year tax rates are expected to skyrocket again on top of what we have just done with the new entitlement bill and the health care bill.

So I would say to the gentleman, I am not questioning his intentions. I am not saying that there haven't been substantive proposals brought to the floor. I am saying there have been a disproportionate number of times we have been on the floor doing things that we could have been spending time on others to do more productive things for the people of this country.

I agree; the gentleman says we are at a crossroads. Yes, we are. The problem is, the substance and the policy proposals that the gentleman and his party have been bringing to the floor over the last year and a half have serious consequences, and they are aggravating the future prospects for growth in this country.

He just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that entitlements, if we don't get a handle on entitlements, we could see our standard of living go down. Well, you are absolutely right. The gentleman is correct on that. But what did we just pass a few months ago? The largest entitlement ever.

So, again, we can say things and we can have good intentions; but when they are matched with the deeds, something just doesn't add up.

And I would say, Mr. Speaker, the issue is about spending. It is about the debt we are amassing. So when the gentleman points out that they have brought to the floor the stimulus bill of 800-some billion dollars, that has proven not to be a good, quote-unquote, investment and in fact has now saddled our kids and their kids with even more debt, and sent a signal to the global investment community that America may have trouble paying its bills.

That is why we are intent on trying to bring forward the You Cut proposals to begin changing the culture here in this town, in this body, to begin to save taxpayer dollars, not with an emphasis on spending.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. And I know that the gentleman knows, having quoted the article that he did, in that same article the writer gives a lot of credit to the impact of the so-called Bush tax cuts as being economically generative, causing some of the positive results.

That is correct, I would say to the gentleman. I am referring to that.

And so while we are on that subject, we know very well there has been no indication whatsoever that the ability for entrepreneurs to continue to experience an atmosphere that is conducive to their investment and assumption of risk will continue, because we are facing the largest tax hike in American history at the end of this year and the majority has been unwilling to say that is not coming. That is hanging over this economy as a veil of uncertainty.

And I would say to the gentleman, if he is so excited about the positive results that he indicates, largely due to the fiscal policies in place that will be not in place after the end of this year, I would say that maybe we should consider extending the rate cuts and cap gains and dividends and marginal rate reductions that are in place now.

I would also say to the gentleman, listen, we have been now for weeks and months through this: Your fault, our fault. Your fault, our fault. The public and the American people are upset. They don't want blame games anymore; they want to stop the spending. And just next week, the gentleman is talking again about bringing more spending. He indicates that all economists supported the stimulus bill. He knows that is not true. But, like a good lawyer, he is going to present his case. But what I would say to the gentleman, let's stop the spending now.

That is why we have started and launched the You Cut program. And, if he alleges incremental modest steps, fine. Join us in that. But let's stop the spending, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I would say to the gentleman, I have always, way before we have even encountered that stimulus bill, supported job- generating projects. The studies in the metropolitan area from which I come and represent indicate that Virginia could grow 165,000 jobs with that kind of investment.

That has always been my position.

But when we are looking at some of the items that we are discussing here on the You Cut options, these are items that are niceties. They may be well-intentioned; but if we are worried about job creation and we are worried about deficits growing, we ought to begin to take action now.

I would ask the gentleman, he mentioned the tax extenders bill for next week, and I wonder if he could tell us the content of that bill. Will there be a markup on the bill? Reports have indicated, and perhaps the gentleman has said, that the bill will be nearly $200 billion. And what kind of rule, whether it be open or not, would he expect?

Again, just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the bill will not go through committee?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have been working together for some months now on the Iran sanctions bill. And also crucial to the national security of this country is the war supplemental. He has indicated before that the Iran sanctions conference report and the war supplemental will be coming to the House floor prior to the Memorial Day recess. I'd ask whether that still is the case.

And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, would the same be for the supplemental as well--before the Memorial Day recess?

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman in a fiscally responsible manner, which starts with passing a budget blueprint for this year, just like American families have to do.

I thank the gentleman once again for his time, and I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, did not mention the budget or the Afghan-Iraq supplemental for next week's schedule. And I know that in our last week's colloquy the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, stated that he would consider these two items as soon as possible. So I would ask the gentleman if he has an update about floor consideration for either the budget resolution or the supplemental bill for Afghanistan and Iraq.

I thank the gentleman.

Just to clarify, Madam Speaker, does the gentleman expect either of these items to come to the floor prior to the Memorial Day recess?

I thank the gentleman.

I would ask the gentleman also, Madam Speaker, when does he expect the tax extender bill to come to the floor? I know Chairman Levin has alluded to it coming to the floor any time within the next 2 weeks. I would further ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, does he expect that to be a 1- or a 2-year extension?

I thank the gentleman for that, and would inquire further, Madam Speaker, from the gentleman, I don't know if I am asking, Madam Speaker, whether it is his sense or preference about the length of the extension and whether we can expect or he would expect there to be a 1- or 2-year extension.

I thank the gentleman.

I would reiterate, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman that Republicans stand ready to work with him in terms of trying to live up to the expectations that families across this country are having to live up to, which is to work in a fiscally responsible manner on a budget blueprint for the year, and am hopeful that Congress can deliver on that prior to the Memorial Day break.

With nothing further, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, for 93 years individuals born in Puerto Rico have been U.S. citizens, but Puerto Rico itself has been a Commonwealth. And as neither State nor an independent political entity, it has, as Ronald Reagan once said, an unnatural status. It is part of our country, but not entirely. Separate from our country, but not really.

Ronald Reagan was motivated to support possible statehood for Puerto Rico in part because our communist enemies were at the time exploiting Puerto Rico's status to sow unrest in Latin America by calling for an end to ``Yankee imperialism.'' While the Soviet Union may no longer be with us, Hugo Chavez is attempting to sow the same unrest, calling for an end to U.S. imperialism in Puerto Rico.

Reagan said back in 1980 that we must be ready to demonstrate that ``the American idea can work in Puerto Rico.'' Over the past 2 years, my friend, Governor Luis Fortuno, has worked to do just that. The Governor and others are actively working to increase economic opportunity by reducing the burden the government places on the people, introducing competition and choice to education, lowering taxes, restoring law and order, and defending traditional values.

Listening to these achievements, I am reminded that the great experiment begun by our Founding Fathers is not in its last days, but instead is being constantly renewed as we work to expand what it means to live in a land of opportunity.

Our best export has always been our ideas. And first and foremost amongst those ideas is the promise that limited government based on the consent of the governed that respects the inalienable rights granted by God is the best hope for mankind on Earth. These ideas have also served as a magnet drawing all those who wish for a better life to our shores.

The citizens of Puerto Rico share in this American inheritance. They share in our values and in their belief in the American Dream. The citizens of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to speak to their aspirations for the future in a sanctioned plebiscite.

If I were drafting this bill, Mr. Chairman, I would draft it differently. And while this legislation is far from perfect, I am motivated at the end of the day to support it by the belief that America's promise is not finite in terms of space or time.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I noticed that my friend the majority leader did not mention the budget or the supplemental for

Afghanistan and Iraq for next week's schedule. Obviously, both are extremely critical. I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, when does he expect those items to come to the floor?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I would just like to reiterate our concern that as he just expressed the need for us to focus on matters of fiscal importance--and a budget would reflect that--as well as, Madam Speaker, to ensure that the House goes in regular order, hopefully, with a supplemental bill. I know there were some reports that that supplemental would come directly to the floor. I can yield to the gentleman if he has anything to respond to that.

I thank the gentleman, and I think in order to wrap up probably the shortest colloquy yet, I yield back the balance of my time.

At the start of the health care debate last year, President Obama made two critical promises. He assured the American people that his bill would, number one, lower costs, and that if they liked the coverage they had they could keep it. On the first count, an independent CMS report released last week states that health care costs will skyrocket under this bill by an astounding $311 billion over the next 10 years. That's more than the previous estimate for each individual bill passed in the House and Senate.

And if you like what you have, you truly may not be able to keep it. Even care for our seniors is jeopardized. The CMS report warns that Medicare cuts may trigger a flight of hospitals and other health care providers from participation in Medicare. It also states that 50 percent of the seniors participating in Medicare Advantage are set to lose their coverage.

The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and that's why we need to repeal the $1 trillion government overhaul of health care and replace it with a bill that makes lowering costs the first priority.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to salute, first of all, the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue as well as that of the gentleman from California in bringing this to the floor. I would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor as well.

Mr. Speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. By talking to and engaging with the regime in Tehran, the administration said we could convince the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. And if that didn't work, America ostensibly would gain the ``moral authority'' to galvanize China, Russia, and the rest of the world to go along with a regime of crippling sanctions against Tehran.

Fifteen months and countless missed deadlines later, the administration's strategy has failed. Our lack of resolve has only enabled Iran to accelerate its illegal activities.

Let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. The danger of a nuclear Iran is not hypothetical; it is real. It is a direct and serious threat to America. It is a game changer that would set off a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East, permanently destabilizing the world's most dangerous region.

Top U.S. military officials recently warned Congress that within 1 year Iran will have the fissile material it needs to make a nuclear weapon. Once Iran gets the bomb, the concept of deterrence that underpins U.S. national security is no longer valid.

The resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. That's why Congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. It is time for a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth, and that begins here today with the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

We must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to Iran, and we must cut off all international companies who do business with Iran's Revolutionary Guard from the U.S. financial system. Iran's trading partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with the regime in Tehran with impunity.

Mr. Speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our Nation's capital, but today we have the chance to come together to take a major step forward in the interests of world peace. The time for decisive action to head off the regime in Iran's nuclear program is now.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the House will be in session for five more weeks prior to the Memorial Day district work period. I would like to inquire of the gentleman what legislation he expects the House to consider prior to that district work period in addition to the items he just mentioned for next week.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman that I am heartened to hear about his continued insistence that this body continue to focus on the number one priority of the American people, which is getting this economy going again and getting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, I would say that most Americans agree that what we ought to be doing is containing and limiting government spending. Many of the programs that the gentleman just pointed out indicate that we, perhaps, are going to keep heading down the same road that we have been in order to try and create an environment for jobs.

I would say to the gentleman, although there was some job growth last month, he, himself, I think, would admit that that is just not enough. In fact, if we were to look back at the times of very high employment in prior years, there is probably a need for over 400,000 jobs to be created each month for us, over a period of several years, in order to accommodate for the growth in population as well as to return us to that kind of low unemployment.

We have got a lot of work to do, in other words, Madam Speaker, and I know the gentleman knows that. And I think it is fair to say that, in fact, we need to create 434,000 jobs per month for 2 years to make up for the job losses that we have experienced. That is going to take some significant commitment on the part of this Congress to stop the government spending and, frankly, to lower taxes on small business.

As the gentleman knows, his constituents just like mine, everyone I talk to knows someone out of work, and it is high time for us to focus on small business, and that is to provide the tax relief for small business and to stop the government programs of spending. And I would hope that the gentleman can commit to trying to change the route that we have taken to finally begin to grow this economy again.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman when----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say this: Always the gentleman likes to talk about the prior administration, and I would just like to point out that during the prior administration, the last 2 years of that, his party was in control of Congress and, certainly, if we look at the numbers, did contribute to some of the problem that we have got today. And I would say there's plenty of blame to go around. But what we are trying to do is to learn from perhaps mistakes having taken place and go forward in a constructive manner.

It is my sense, Madam Speaker, that this Nation is at a crossroads. We have serious challenges facing this country. Last Thursday was Congress's deadline for passing a budget, and it is my strong belief that we must act, and the gentleman indicates that we are going to act, but because of the critical nature of the challenges that we face, Madam Speaker, I believe that we have got three reasons to act swiftly and properly in passing a budget because it is at the heart of the lack of confidence of what the American people feel towards this body, and if we can rebuild that confidence somehow, we can see a return to growth in this economy so people can get back to work.

First, Madam Speaker, since the 1974 Budget Act passed, the House has never failed to pass a budget resolution. American families and small businesses are not given the luxury of avoiding a budget somehow because maybe it's too difficult, and neither should we. And the gentleman in his own words has said before that it is difficult to pass budgets in election years because the budgets reflect what the fiscal status is. And again, Madam Speaker, I point out never since the passage of the Budget Act in 1974 has this House failed to pass a budget resolution.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, as to the urgency for this body to act in this critical time, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf recently remarked that the

Nation's fiscal path is unsustainable and without a more aggressive approach to spending than the President took in his budget proposal, the debt will rise from currently 53 percent of GDP to 90 percent of GDP at the end of the decade. We all know, Madam Speaker, that is unacceptable.

Finally, I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, the President in his remarks consistently refers to pending tax increases as the expiration of the Bush tax cut. And, Madam Speaker, I would say the American people believe that erasing a tax cut is a tax increase. This Congress has a responsibility to the people that we represent to inform them, the families, the small businesses, of its intention on whether we are going to increase taxes on the small business people and working families of this country.

So I would ask the gentleman if he could give us some sense of when we could expect this body to act on a budget.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that and for his commitment to ensure that we right the ship, so to speak, and stop the spending.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say back if he is so intent on comparing the budgets and the outlook under the Bush administration to this one, I would say this: If we compare the 2011 budgets of President Bush and President Obama, President Bush's outlook and budget for this year was $2.9 trillion. The 2011 budget of this President is $3.6 trillion. We could simply cut the deficit by 50 percent if we just lived within President Bush's 2011 budget.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if you cut out all of the emergency spending caused by the recession and just look at discretionary spending, since Congress votes on that every year, President Obama will increase discretionary spending by $319 billion over President Bush's budget for 2011.

So, Madam Speaker, I would say, again, we have got to do better. The American people are waiting for this body to step up in a responsible way to stop the spending, which brings on the need for yet even more debt, which ultimately will lead to higher taxes, despite what the gentleman says, that there's been enough tax relief, and get back to a fiscal path that makes sense so we can see small business grow again.

I yield.

I thought that the gentleman, Madam Speaker, had said that there has been so much tax relief under the current administration that it seems that all we need to do is keep spending.

I will apologize----

I will say to the gentleman again if he is so intent on comparing the two, let's go back to the Bush budget, which would allow us to cut the deficit by 50 percent, if he is so intent on saying how bad things were. Let's stop the spending.

But I would say to the gentleman as far as tax relief is concerned, that tax relief to 95 percent of the public, 25 percent of the tax relief went to entities and individuals that don't even pay taxes. Now, in the minds of most Americans, that is not a tax cut; that's a handout. And that is why we have got to start getting back to basics, Madam Speaker, and insist that the kinds of things that we do here are actually constructive to job creation because that is what we need to be about.

Now, we can go through the litany of things in this President's budget and what the majority has done over its term in office this session to demonstrate taxes have gone up significantly over this period.

It is time to stop taxing, stop spending, and stop borrowing.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for----

I yield.

Well, I can say this year, this year, Madam Speaker, taxes have increased $670 billion, $316 billion of which comes at the expense of the middle class, breaking the President's promise.

Madam Speaker, I would say, if you look at the health care bill that was just passed----

The health care bill that has just passed, as long as this economy and the players in this economy understand that actions are being taken now to facilitate adopting to a very high tax environment.

Now, if the gentleman wants to join us, if he wants to join us in sending the signal to the public that we're not going to continue business as usual, then let's step up, send the signal we're not going to allow taxes to increase any further, and that starts with differing from the President's budget, which calls for $2 trillion of tax hikes over the next 10 years.

So I'll say to the gentleman, you can say all day long that you have sat here and provided enough middle class tax relief. It's just not true. The public doesn't understand that. The public sees Washington spending money in unprecedented ways and having to borrow to pay for that. And, ultimately, people understand that it is about raising their taxes, reducing their take-home pay in order to pay for that.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time. Madam Speaker, now, see, this is when the politics of attack kick in. For anyone to sit here and say that Republicans don't care about people, that's just not true, and he knows it. It's a definitional question.

If the gentleman differs with my characterization it's not a handout, it's a hand up, okay. But what we're talking about was tax relief. It was not a tax cut. If you don't pay taxes, you can't get a tax cut.

But what I'd say to the gentleman is this: times are different right now, Madam Speaker. The American public understands the crossroads this country is at, that we are on a path to fiscal ruin.

And the gentleman likes to continue to defend the stimulus bill as having been a success. Well, I would say to the Speaker, I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, no one, not very many people in America think the stimulus bill was a success at generating jobs, and that's just almost a unanimous fact among most Americans. So if we know that, why would we continue to advocate the same policies?

And instead, Madam Speaker, I would say again I hope the gentleman would join us in advocating tax cuts for small businesses so that we can grow jobs in this economy.

The gentleman did ask what tax cuts, or what tax hikes, occurred over the last, over this session. And during the gentleman's party's majority rule, we know that there was a $65 billion tax increase on tobacco products. There was an almost $7 billion tax increase under the stimulus law repealing guidance allowing certain payers to claim losses of an acquired corporation. There was another almost $23 billion of surtaxes extended for the Federal unemployment program. And there was also, Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, a delay of rules reducing double taxation of American foreign nationals to the tune of almost $6 billion. Those are the tax hikes that have occurred, in addition to the overwhelming billions and billions of dollars inside the health care bill.

So, Madam Speaker, it is not accurate for the gentleman to represent that, number one, this Congress has not raised taxes on the middle class. We know differently. And, number two, to sit here and hide behind the notion that there aren't going to be tax increases at the end of this year, and the fact that that realization is not impacting job growth or the lack thereof, that's not being completely accurate, Madam Speaker.

And I would say to the gentleman, times are different now. It is time for us to own up to the obligations that we face as a country and work together to try and put this country back onto a growth path.

So with that, Madam Speaker----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And in trying to close this colloquy, Madam Speaker, I would say the gentleman knows good and well that when we had a positive job growth report last month, I was the first one to speak out and acknowledge the fact that, yes, growing jobs is a good thing. We've got a long way to go.

The gentleman admits that we are at a different time now, and he points to the deficits; and I point to the fact that the old administration, he alleges, didn't pay its bills, and that perhaps we, in the majority, spent too much. Okay. Fine.

But it doesn't give this majority and this Congress and this administration any better or more license to go and bankrupt this country by continuing on the spending path, and that is my point.

We are at a crossroads, Madam Speaker. I would tell to the gentleman, we have tremendous challenges before us; and as the American people know, if we don't stop the reckless policies of this town, it may very well lead to the fact that our kids and their kids will not enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that we do.

So I continue to tell the gentleman we stand ready to work with him to try and address this extremely critical time in our Nation.

I yield back.

And I'd say, final closing, Madam Speaker. I'd say that in order to get a handle on spending, just stop. And that is why we shouldn't allow for discussion of hiking taxes. It allows this body, this Federal Government, to have yet even more of the taxpayer dollars to decide how to spend.

It's time for us to stop and practice fiscal discipline and get this economy back on track.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, today, I am honored to commemorate the life and many achievements of Dr. Dorothy Irene Height. Born in my hometown of Richmond, Virginia on March 24, 1912, Dr. Height became a leader and national champion of the civil rights movement.

As one of the only women at the table when contemporaries like Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others were formulating plans for the civil rights movement, Dr. Height distinguished herself as a civil rights activist and leader. Faced with many obstacles, Dorothy overcame each and every challenge taking

on many leadership roles throughout her career, including President of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and her thirty-three years of service with the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA).

Her wise counsel has been sought by many American leaders such as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. She has also earned several awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom an I was proud to add my name to a bill in 2003 that was supported unanimously in Congress to award Dr. Height the Congressional Gold Medal. Though we are saddened by Dr. Height's recent passing, it is my firm belief that she will be an inspiration for future generations of Americans and will always be remembered for her hard work, courage, and determination in the fight for equality and opportunity for all.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this body, Republicans and Democrats alike, care about Americans' health care, but many of us from both sides of the aisle don't care for this trillion dollar overhaul. And the fact is, the majority of Americans don't care for it either.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the only bipartisanship we've seen surrounding this overhaul has been in opposition to it, and there's a reason for that. Health care is a very personal issue, and this overhaul will impact every man, woman, and child in this country. It will even affect future generations that have not yet been born.

Mr. Speaker, this overhaul will have a huge impact on our parents, our spouses, and our kids. This is something that they'll be paying for for the rest of their lives. And for too long, Mr. Speaker, the majority in this body and the President of the United States have refused to listen to the American people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a message for those Americans. We hear you. We hear you loud and clear, because we believe this government must stop spending money that it doesn't have, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite.

We believe that this government must stop piling debt upon our children and grandchildren, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite.

We believe that this government must stop raising taxes on small businesses and families, and, Mr. Speaker, this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite.

We believe that America is the land of innovation and that government must stop crippling job creators and entrepreneurs with oppressive mandates and taxes, and this trillion dollar overhaul will do the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that in America our government must not force those who fundamentally object to abortion to have to pay for it, and this trillion dollar overhaul does the opposite.

And we believe in building upon what works in our current health care, Mr. Speaker, so that doctors in America can continue to provide the best care in the world, and this trillion dollar overhaul does the opposite.

And, Mr. Speaker, we believe that families and patients should have the freedom and the right to choose the doctors they want, and this trillion dollar overhaul will begin to take that freedom away.

Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the American people have learned over the past year, it's that we are truly at a critical time in this country. We are at a crossroads.

This trillion dollar health care overhaul before us today has caused a lot of fear and uncertainty. It's the latest part of an agenda that is being forced upon the American people that attempts to seize more control over the economy and our lives.

The choices we make on deficit spending, higher taxes, energy security, and health care, they're all important. They're important because they will all determine what kind of country we want to be.

Mr. Speaker, the choice before us is very clear. The choice is whether we want to become a country that is unrecognizable, or one that will fulfill the American Dream so that we remain the most secure and most prosperous, freest country in the history of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to listen to the people and vote ``no'' against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader to inform the House of this weekend's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if we are here on Monday, no matter what, is what I heard from the gentleman. Secondly, I'd ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, what time could Members expect votes to begin on Sunday?

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas at least three members of the House Democratic

Leadership have endorsed a procedural tactic for the sole

purpose of avoiding an up-or-down vote, by the yeas and nays,

on the Senate-passed health care bill;

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 Representative James

Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, stated, ``We will deem

passed the Senate bill. . .'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post reported,

``After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week

on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure

without having members vote on it. Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.)

would rely on a procedural sleight of hand. . .'';

Whereas in the same Washington Post article, the Speaker

declared, ``. . . I like it because people don't have to vote

on the Senate bill.'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, McClatchy Newspapers reported

Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic

Caucus, stated, ``Many of our members would prefer not to

have voted for the Senate bill.'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 9, U.S. News and World Report

reported, ``Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected

officials assembled `that Congress [has] to pass the bill so

you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of

controversy.' '';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post

editorialized, ``. . . what is intended as a final sprint

threatens to turn

into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to

Democrats' promises of transparency and time for

deliberation. . . . [I]t strikes us as a dodgy way to reform

the health-care system. Democrats who vote for the package

will be tagged with supporting the Senate bill in any

event.''

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The form of the remainder of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, the Cincinnati Enquirer

editorialized, ``This disgusting process, which Democrats

brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done

with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of

Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is

necessary, think this particular approach will take our

nation down the wrong economic path.'';

Whereas bipartisan members of the House and Senate have

expressed their opposition to using the Slaughter Solution;

Whereas on Wednesday, March 10, Representative Joe Donnelly

released the following statement, ``The process over the past

few months has been frustrating, including the cutting of

unacceptable special deals to assure a few senators'

votes.'';

Whereas Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania has

characterized the exploitation of the Slaughter Solution by

Democratic Leadership as ``wrong'' and unpopular among his

constituents;

Whereas on Friday, March 12, POLITICO reported on a memo

sent from Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to freshman and

sophomore House Democrats that stated, ``At this point, we

have to just rip the band-aid off. . . Things like

reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE

Mr. Speaker, I seek to offer the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor today because we care about Americans' health care. We just don't care for this bill. But still, the majority seems committed to trying to muscle through a trillion-dollar overhaul that will change health care for every man, woman, and child.

Americans have made it very clear. They don't like this bill. They don't want the government in the decision-making of their health care. They want lower costs, and they don't want their government tax dollars going to fund abortion services.

So why can't we start over, Madam Speaker? We ask again. There has been a year and a half nearly of debate over this and still more questions than answers. That's why we are hearing reports that the majority will try to ram this through without a direct vote on the Senate bill, Madam Speaker. We should take an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I think it has been well reported that the majority plans to try to use the reconciliation process to ram a health care bill through this House and the one across the Capitol, and we also know from the reports that it is imperative that this House and the House majority and members of the majority must first pass the Senate's health care bill before any other action on a reconciliation measure is taken. The gentleman has announced, Madam Speaker, that all this will take place next week.

I wonder if the gentleman could give us a little bit more clarity as to the schedule and perhaps the need for Members to keep their schedules flexible through the weekend.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, all I asked was whether the Members should be prepared to be here over the weekend.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, without having to delve back into the debate on what makes this health care bill different than the other times reconciliation was used, I think the American people are those that see the obvious.

But I would ask the gentleman, since he says we will be employing regular order here in response to the President's request that there be an up-or-down vote in this House, could the gentleman give us some enlightenment as to the suggestion surrounding something called the ``Slaughter solution'' and whether, in fact, Members can have an up-or- down vote, clean up-or-down vote on this bill, or whether there will be some procedural maneuvering, self-executing rule deeming the Senate bill passed? If he could give us some indication of what we may be able to expect next week.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask again, consistent with the President's request that there be an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill itself, can we expect an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill itself?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman would like to speak to the Senate. We are trying to focus on the House here and what the vote will look like. Since the gentleman has indicated that the President and he and all of America would like to see a vote up or down in this House as well, I would ask the gentleman whether we can expect an up-or-down vote on the health care bill itself or not.

I thank the gentleman.

I take that to mean that there is a likelihood that we will not see an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill itself and that perhaps these reports of a concept called the Slaughter solution in which the majority will deem it passed, the Senate bill, in some type of procedural move, that maybe the public can expect that to happen. I know that the gentleman does not think that that represents the kind of vote that the American people expect, but I take that to mean that that certainly is a possibility.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman whether he expects the House to have 72 hours to review whatever legislation comes to the floor next week.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, I am a little bit taken aback that now the 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside, since no one in this House has had an opportunity to see what is in the reconciliation bill, at least I speak for the Members on our side of the aisle that have not had an opportunity to see what is in the reconciliation bill, and I imagine would have some of the provisions that the President in his plan, not the legislation, put up online prior to the Blair House meeting.

Again, it is rather disturbing, Madam Speaker, that the 72-hour rule has now been completely cast aside.

I thank the gentleman.

I guess the gentleman may begin to understand why it is some on our side of the aisle, including yours truly, depict this as ramming the bill through. I mean, if we can't even get a commitment from the gentleman, as well as the Speaker had indicated prior, that we would have 72 hours to review any piece of legislation that comes to the floor, I think that that is consistent with the depiction that perhaps there is a ramming through going on.

Madam Speaker, I tell the gentleman again, we are expecting, as he said, to see a new bill, a reconciliation bill on the floor next week. That bill, no one on our side of the aisle has had an opportunity to see. Perhaps the Congressional Budget Office has had 72 hours to see it, but we haven't. No one, I believe, has had 72 hours in this body to see the reconciliation bill. That is the bill that I am speaking to.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

And, again, it seems as if we are not going to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill in the House, but we will be voting on a reconciliation measure. And the instructions that were included in the budget bill are not legislative text. That is my point, Madam Speaker.

But since we are not going to, since we cannot be guaranteed a 72- hour period for review, Madam Speaker, nor can the American people realize their right to know during the 72-hour period, I would ask the gentleman whether the reconciliation package will contain the House language referred to as the Stupak-Pitts language.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just like to, Madam Speaker, read a recently reported statement by the gentleman in which he said, it is clear that the matter of abortion cannot be dealt with per se in the reconciliation bill; so we are pretty much going to have to deal with it as is at this point in time.

I ask the gentleman if that is a correct translation of his remarks today.

I yield.

So, Madam Speaker, I would take that to mean the Stupak- Pitts language will not be in the reconciliation package.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman that I'm sure he has seen a letter that has been signed by 41 Senate Republicans in which they indicated they would oppose any effort to waive the so-called Byrd rule during the Senate's consideration of the reconciliation bill, which means to me, Madam Speaker, it is far from certain that the Senate will actually pass the bill when the House sends it to the Senate. And, in fact, I would just call that to the gentleman's attention that we stand ready to continue to work in another direction, but it seems to me very much in doubt with this bill.

I will yield.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would indicate that in that letter there is no specific language that directly relates to an abortion provision or any other. And the gentleman I know agrees that this country has had

a longstanding tradition of denying government funding for abortion services. That is the very important issue behind the Stupak-Pitts language. In fact, 45 Senators voted in favor of that language, just as a majority of this House voted for that language. That is why it is so important, I think, that the Members, as well their constituents, understand that you will not be including the Stupak-Pitts language with the protection that will guarantee no government funding goes toward abortion services, which is why I bring the point up, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I say to the gentleman, if that is his interpretation and belief that this language in the Senate bill protects that longstanding tradition, that may be. However, the U.S. Catholic Bishops as well as Right to Life have strongly, strongly opposed the language in the Senate bill as not having the adequate safeguards to deny government funding of abortion services.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for his clarification of his intent. I would just say again the Catholic bishops, as well as the right-to-life organizations, stand very much in opposition to this language. I stand with them.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the Parliamentarian in the Senate has ruled that the Senate cannot take up the reconciliation package until the Senate-passed health care bill is signed into law. That is the bill, Madam Speaker, that contains provisions such as the Cornhusker kickback. And I would ask the gentleman if it is his position that that would be the case that this House must pass the Senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation package.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman in trying to refocus the issue of this House on getting Americans back to work. And the gentleman did indicate that there will be further action in what he is calling a ``jobs agenda.'' Certainly that didn't happen today, as we are here already having finished the legislative business of the day and only having considered a bill dealing with algae.

I only mention this because 52 percent of Americans do think that jobs and the economy are the Nation's top issue; and, by contrast, only 13 percent of Americans think that health care is our Nation's top priority. This was according to a CBS-New York Times poll.

So I do thank the gentleman for his willingness, hopefully, to get back to the question of how we get America back to work.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for his view of history. I also would like to say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, I share his commitment to the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. I do, however, think that the American people are most interested in seeing us get back to the business of focusing on the economy. That is why I

raised the issue of our being here today, not doing anything today to promote job creation.

And as far as any quarrel we may have with history as to why we got or how we got to where we are today, I would just like to quote to the gentleman in closing Winston Churchill's speech to the House of Commons June 18, 1940. And he said, ``Of this I'm quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.''

And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.