Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to congratulate Thomas Thayer, the owner of International Truck Sales of Richmond, for his receiving of the International Circle of Excellence Award.

Tom's business, International Truck Sales of Richmond, is headquartered in Ashland, Virginia, where it was founded in 1998. Under his leadership, it has grown into one of the preeminent truck dealerships in the Southeast and the entire nation, with 109 employees and three dealer locations serving Richmond and its surrounding counties. In 2005, it was named the International Dealer of the Year, an honor awarded to the one International dealer who exhibits the highest commitment to best-in-class customer service. With this most recent award, International Truck Sales of Richmond has now received the Circle of Excellence Award under Tom's leadership a total of 13 times.

The Circle of Excellence, which is awarded by the international dealer organization, Navistar, Inc., honors International truck dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with respect to operating and financial standards, market representation, and most importantly, customer satisfaction.

Tom has achieved this level of accomplishment and recognition through many years of hard work and service to his industry and community. He has also built a successful truck leasing business, Idealease of Richmond, is the current chairman of the Truck Renting and Leasing Association, and is the past chairman of the Make a Wish Foundation. He is also involved with the Rotary Club, the United Way and the American Cancer Society. Despite all these activities, he still finds time to work the concession stand at James River High School on Friday nights, and serves as a band booster for his son, Robert, and his daughter, Leah.

Through his commitment to hard work and outstanding customer service, he has built an economically vital business of which he can be justly proud. Madam Speaker, I ask you

and my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Thomas Thayer for his record of accomplishment and for his many contributions to his community, state and Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to ask the gentleman if he can give us some better indication of what he means by the jobs agenda.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman refers to some areas that I hope he and the majority would work with the minority on in trying to do exactly as he stated, which is to create an environment for small businesses to create jobs. As the gentleman just saw in the vote taking place on the floor today, there were 35 members of his caucus who voted against the so-called jobs bill that was on the floor today, perhaps indicating that the gentleman may want to work with us as we have been continuing to propose tax cuts for small businesses, not necessarily connected with what kind of hires that the businesses should do, and not necessarily connected with some type of targeted credit that may or may not fit with the business model of any particular small business, but in general, I think the gentleman would agree, making it easier for small businesses to keep the lights on right now so they can return to a mode in which they could increase payroll.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could speak to his mention of the resolution dealing with the Afghanistan war powers. As the gentleman knows, the Republicans view a withdrawal from Afghanistan within 30 days as incredibly irresponsible.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Still I would say that the Republican view is we have consistently supported this President in his efforts in Afghanistan as he has listened to the commanders on the ground to determine the focus and future of our presence there in terms of protecting our troops and the U.S. interests there. So I imagine my friend from Maryland, knowing his position on these things, agrees with that.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether there will be an all-out push to make this some type of partisan issue. Perhaps the gentleman could shed some light on his position on this bill that is being brought forward next week. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to joining him in opposition to the resolution he is bringing to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman to give us, in the House, an update on when he expects the budget resolution to come to the floor. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, in view of the short period of time until Easter break, is it his expectation that the House will take up health care legislation within that time period? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the President has asked Congress--in fact yesterday-- that the majority here consider using the reconciliation process to pass this health care bill. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it his intention and the Speaker's intention to adhere to the President's request and actually use the reconciliation process? And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that and would say that nothing compares to the use of or suggested use of reconciliation then as to now with this bill. I would say that there was, in the main, bipartisan support and, frankly, support on the part of the people of this country for what was being done through reconciliation in those instances.

I would like to turn the gentleman's attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question that I have regarding statements that were made as late as September of 2007 when then-Candidate Obama said, ``This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and in the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority'' said then-Senator Obama. ``You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of Presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50 plus 1, but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as President, but you can't, you can't deliver on health. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.'' That later quote, again, was the next month in October.

So I'm having difficulty understanding, Mr. Speaker, why now the President and the majority seem to have done a 180 when it comes to using reconciliation with a $1 trillion bill that could very well alter one-sixth of our economy. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't know if the gentleman is saying, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the President was wrong when he spoke about not using this process; but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that 70-something percent of the American people don't like this health care bill.

I think the gentleman is correct, Mr. Speaker, that all of us care about doing something positive for health care. Republicans care about health care. We went to that forum with our ideas. The public began to see for 7 hours that there were very different approaches to how we are going to deal with health care. We said if we can stop the overhaul, stop the $1 trillion attempt to lead us to a path from government getting in the way of decision-making between patients and their doctors, if we can set that aside, there could be some things that we could work on much more modest and focused in terms of cost control. Once we reduce cost, people can have access. More people can have insurance. We could also do some things together to address the problems of preexisting condition exceptions in coverage. All of us want to do something about that.

So I would say to the gentleman, I am disappointed--as I know he knows that we are--that his side has decided to defy the protests that came from the President and others on his side of the aisle about the use of reconciliation for health care. But I would ask the gentleman, will the House move next on health care or will it be the Senate? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, from the summation of his remarks, I gather that there has been no willingness to listen to the American people on the part of the majority here in the House.

The gentleman does know that all polls indicate that the American people want us to set the bill aside, to stop this construct that Washington is going to tell everyone how to design

health care, and to really start over. In a CNN poll last week, 73 percent of the public said, Shelve the bill. Start over.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I look forward to working together with him in whatever way we can, frankly, focusing on the issue of getting America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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, we have 4 weeks before our next district work period, and I would like to inquire from the gentleman about the upcoming legislative schedule during the next 4 weeks and what bills does he expect the House to consider prior to the Easter recess.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

So, from my understanding, we can expect to have a vote on a health care bill between now and the Easter recess. If that is the case, I ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, what is the thought about what that bill would look like? And I would ask the gentleman does he expect this bill to be the President's bill or will there be actually a chance for the minority to participate in crafting a health care bill?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that in-depth explanation of where he and his side is on this debate.

Without prolonging this colloquy, I would just say to the gentleman, on display yesterday were clearly two different visions for how we want to address health care in this country. Clearly, the Republicans, by our attendance there and the engagement in that discussion, indicated that we too care about people's health care and want to do something to increase the quality, access, and affordability. We just have a very different way of trying to go about it.

There are some areas in concept where we do have agreement. We just don't care for the bill. And the reason is, Mr. Speaker, the bill, from our opinion, is very much a bill which imposes on people in this country a preferred way of going about providing health care and covering people in terms of their illnesses. And we believe that on balance, it is better to err on the side of people and their individual choices and the way they think their health care should be delivered and in what form.

So I look forward to perhaps the gentleman working with us to see if we could, if he doesn't like the word ``scrap,'' move away from the construct of the bill which, as the gentleman indicates, the public has rejected, as well as a significant portion of his caucus has rejected, and perhaps moving away from that construct and to try and address some of the issues that we discussed in a different context would be a way forward.

But if, as the gentleman indicates, the majority is unwilling to set aside the Senate bill, will the gentleman indicate whether we would then proceed with reconciliation? And is it his position that he will not take reconciliation off the table?

I thank the gentleman for those remarks.

I would ask the gentleman if we could turn, Mr. Speaker, to the question of jobs. As he indicated, that will be a focus of the next 4 weeks. The gentleman said earlier in this colloquy that we just participated in an historic event yesterday, that he in his career here has not seen an opportunity like that where both sides sat down with the President for 7 hours and the President spent the time on the issue of health care.

In that vein, in terms of trying to open up dialogue and discussion, it would be very appropriate, I believe, Mr. Speaker, for us to give equal or more time to the pressing issue of jobs in this economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Leader Boehner and I have forwarded to the gentleman as well as Speaker Pelosi a letter indicating that we would like to have a bipartisan jobs summit akin to what we had yesterday with the President, but perhaps just in this body. The Speaker's press reports have indicated that the Speaker is willing to engage in such a jobs summit. And I would just like to ask the gentleman if he intends to respond to the Leader and my letter. And if not, certainly responding here is just as well as to perhaps a scheduled time for such a summit to occur.

I thank the gentleman for that. Does he have any sense of when we could expect the acceptance and the scheduling of such an event?

I thank the gentleman for that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I look forward, along with the Leader and the rest of my colleagues, to begin working with the gentleman and the majority to start on an earnest attempt to create an environment for job creation so that people in this country can get back to work.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it would be recklessly naive to go about our business in Washington pretending there won't be severe consequences for the mountains of debt we are piling up. Yet today it is evident that this kind of willful ignorance is sweeping across Washington. We are set to lift our Nation's debt burden to $14 trillion.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues in this chamber if they know how many zeroes 14 trillion has. I would ask the American people if they know how many zeroes are in 14 trillion. It is 14 trillion. It is beyond comprehension to be talking about numbers this big. More precisely, the limit is 1, 4, 2, 9, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.

It is a travesty. The writing is on the wall. Congress needs to wake up and realize that the future of American prosperity is in dire straits, mortal danger. As Americans hunker down to weather the economic storm, Democrats in Congress boosted Federal spending by 12 percent. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about the majority's PAYGO scheme, but this will not affect any spending that has already happened.

In fact, it will perpetuate the problem by locking in that spending going forward. And the majority's solution to offset all of their spending is more tax increases, which will kill jobs at the time we need them most. Supporters of this legislation will pull the wool over the American people's eyes and claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but the American people aren't buying it. By voting in favor of this PAYGO bill, the majority will be increasing the debt burden on our children and grandchildren by $1.9 trillion. Strip away the sweet-sounding rhetoric, and that's what this bill is all about.

Madam Speaker, I just end with this rhetorical question: How effective can this so-called panacea really be when the debt has risen by $5.4 trillion since the majority imposed PAYGO in this very House over 3 years ago?

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, as this is the scheduling colloquy, I'd like to follow up with a few questions regarding the schedule. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the majority leader if he could tell us what he expects to have on the floor the second week of February, the week before we head into President's Day Recess.

I thank the gentleman for his accuracy. And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could tell us whether he believed there would be a vote on another health care bill prior to President's Day Recess. I yield.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of brevity, I just have one final question for the gentleman, and that is, we would anticipate the gentleman and his party bringing forward a budget at some point, and laying out the fiscal narrative, if you will, or plan for the year. And I know recent reports have indicated the President believes that Congress has a spending problem. We, and I'm sure the gentleman, accept the admonition that Congress does have a spending problem, and Mr. Speaker, I'd ask when we anticipate bringing that forward, and does the gentleman expect the House to follow the President's lead in freezing nonsecurity discretionary spending?

I thank the gentleman. And Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would first note, I agree with the gentleman. Discretionary spending is not the only piece that this Congress must address in terms of trying to get our fiscal house in order. But it is a point that should be made that over the last year, nondefense discretionary spending at the baseline has increased 67 percent. So that when we're calling for a small freeze, as the gentleman indicates, in terms of percentages of the budget, you know, we certainly could do more. As the gentleman knows, we have tried to advocate for a spending freeze that would incorporate rescinding some of

the increases, again, the 67 percent increases that we have seen over the last year.

As a result of all the spending, as the gentleman knows, the Nation's deficit now stands at a record $1.35 trillion, something that all of us, I know, are very mindful of and would like very much to see reduced if not erased.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, again in trying to maintain my brevity today, we do know that in the omnibus spending bill there was a 12 percent increase in the spending of the omnibus bill, something that all of us should try and eliminate and erase, given working families and small businesses are having to do much more and actually cut their expenditures right now.

With that, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

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, I would ask the gentleman if he can comment on some of the press reports that we have seen this morning about the Speaker's statement that this House and you will not be bringing to this House the Senate health care bill for consideration.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I would ask, Madam Speaker, and I would first preface the question by saying that this country saw a pretty extraordinary election in Massachusetts a few nights ago. From all reports, it seems that part of the outcome of that election was due to the health care bill and the difficulties which the gentleman's side has had in passing the bill. We on this side, Madam Speaker, would say there has been no bipartisan effort to pass a health care bill. And so if we are going to see a resolution of the differences that the gentleman refers to, those differences are clearly being on his side of the aisle because, Madam Speaker, we feel that we continue to be left out of the process.

So I would ask the gentleman if he has not decided whether he is bringing up the Senate bill or the House bill again, will we see the process start over? Will we see his side take the message from the Massachusetts election to involve Republicans in discussion over the health care bill and have a transparent process the way we believe ought to happen as well as I believe the American people think should happen?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman, and I take the gentleman's comments to heart that he wants to do what is right by his constituents and the people of this country. But the question we have before us, the question that the voters of Massachusetts had before them, just like the voters in Virginia and New Jersey, had a lot to do with the health care bill that this House deliberated upon and passed, and the health care bill that the Senate deliberated upon and passed.

And, Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman there is very little disagreement among the pollsters that have tested where the American people are on these health care bills. They are opposed to these health care bills. And you may insinuate that some of the comments that have been made by individuals in this body or the other on our side of the aisle were meant to obstruct.

But I can tell the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that the American people right now want this health care bill defeated. They want health care reform, but not in the way that has been constructed under either one of these bills. And if I recall, and I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to meet with me several months ago, and I don't want to take his comments as being dismissive of our proposal, because I handed him a summary, but I can tell the gentleman right here is the House Republican bill. And there are elements in this bill we can both agree upon. The plan is still before us. And if we take into consideration that, we have got a plan. The public doesn't like the gentleman's plan.

And fast forward to a discussion the gentleman and I had on the floor, I believe, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman told me it was not worth his while to engage in conversation with Republicans because we would not embrace the public option. I would tell the Speaker----

I would tell the gentleman we still don't embrace the public option. We don't embrace it because it is a path to single payer. So I would ask the gentleman again, the Speaker earlier today said, quote, ``I don't think it is possible to pass the Senate bill in the House. I don't see the votes for it at this time.'' I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, if that is an accurate statement that we can then count on.

I thank the gentleman.

I would respond simply by saying most indicators are the voters of that Commonwealth voted for Mr. Brown because of his stances, and one of those stances was that he would vote against the Senate or the House health care bill as they were constructed. And I agree with the gentleman we need to do something about health care.

I would remind him that it is the CBO who has pointed out that our Republican plan is the plan that actually does reduce health care premiums. That is where we started this whole discussion, was to reduce health care costs for the American people, and continue to reform the system so we can maintain the quality we have.

And, Madam Speaker, I just say that it is time, I think, for this body to finally listen to the American people and what they are asking us to do, run this body in an open and transparent way, stop the back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickbacks, the Louisiana Purchases, and make it so that this is once again the people's body. And we can all then deliberate out in the open, agree where we can agree to produce the positive reforms that the people expect.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman what his intentions are or what he thinks we can see in this House as far as an attempt to address the issue that the majority leader said was the number one issue on the minds of voters in Massachusetts, as well as the country, and that is the economy. Before we left for the winter break, we had a bill that came up that was dubbed a jobs bill. There was a lot of difficulty I know on his side in mustering the needed votes to get it passed. And I was wondering is there legislation he has in mind that would be offered to address the situation that Americans confront, which is double digit unemployment? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I know that it is tempting for the gentleman to delve into the past, comparing the Bush policies to the Clinton policies, but I know the gentleman realizes we are in the year 2010. We have new challenges before us. And I would say that the piece of information left out by the gentleman is the fact that it was his party that controlled Congress during some of the period in which he cites the job losses. In fact, there have been 3.6 million jobs lost just since January of 2009.

I would then say to the gentleman, as far as the stimulus bill that you speak of----

I will yield at the end of my statement.

My point is that the stimulus bill that passed almost 1 year ago, there is growing consensus here that it was not sufficiently targeted toward job growth. In fact, even the portion of infrastructure spending that the gentleman and his party and this White House decided upon, the design of that spending, the Associated Press has come out with a study indicating it did not grow employment at the local level in the communities which we represent.

So if we understand and know that that is not the way to grow jobs, that is, the design of the stimulus bill, why would we vote for Stimulus II? In fact,

I would remind the gentleman, as I know he remembers, the bipartisanship around the Stimulus II vote in December was against the bill, as well over 30 Members on his side of the aisle voted against the bill because, again, I believe it is trying to get it right this time.

And so instead of the gentleman's continuing to refer to years ago, I would remind him that we have presented to him as well as to the President a Republican no-cost jobs plan. The gentleman has dismissed that document and that plan saying there is nothing for free, that we shouldn't be talking about things that we could do together that don't cost anything.

I would say to the gentleman, the President himself has said that within the passage of three trade bills sitting in this body, we could see the creation of 250,000 jobs. We have had discussion on this floor about whether those trade bills are coming forward; 250,000 jobs at no cost. It seems to me we really should go about doing that as well as the other items that we listed in our no-cost jobs plan that the House Republicans have put forward.

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would simply respond that the Republican no-cost jobs plan is a plan that was fashioned around the principle that we've got to remove the uncertainty gripping the small businesses and job creators in this country. So contrary to the suggestion that the gentleman made about the fact that we just want to get rid of regulation, what the plan actually said, Madam Speaker, was to halt any proposed regulation expected to have an economic cost or result in job loss or have a disparate impact on small business.

In the same way, we call for lowering the deficit now without raising taxes because, as we all know, people don't know where Washington's next move is going. And so we say let's just freeze domestic discretionary spending at last year's level. My goodness, every small business owner, every family in this country is having to go through that exercise and, frankly, is having to cut, not just freeze.

In the same way, the suggestion that perhaps Republicans wouldn't support transparency and an even playing field and regulations that will control the amount of leverage on Wall Street, that's silly. Of course we support efforts like that. But what we do know is this administration, and, frankly, the majority in Congress, has been very slow at getting the message out to auditors and regulators in the field that they should be reflecting the sentiments that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve have said, which is, we need to return back to some sense of normalcy in the assessment of risk, because we all know this country has been built on entrepreneurialism, on opportunity. It is not that we have seen our prosperity come from this government. That's where, really, Madam Speaker, the differences lie because we don't believe that the way back to economic revival is through more Keynesian economic policy.

The gentleman can go ahead and suggest that the Bush policies failed. Obviously, I disagree. He would probably defend the Carter policies. I would certainly disagree with that and would say that they were an utter failure. He would probably say that the policies of Ronald Reagan were a failure. I would say we disagree on that.

At the end of the day, what's really the problem here is this government, under the majority's rule and the President's, has continued to expand. We haven't put an end to the bailout culture. Every time we expect to see the TARP program end, there is another use that has come up for that money, which is an emergency program. Every time we expect to say to business owners and their working families, let's stop sending signals that we're going to impose costs on you.

So, if it's a cap-and-trade bill, if it's a card check bill, or if it's a tax increase, why can't we just say, ``stop''?

Let the American people regain their sense of economic security and let the ingenuity in the private sector take hold again.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I didn't yield, Madam Speaker.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

I would say again, somehow, in the gentleman's memory of these past years, there is something that has been left out, which is this body and Congress, because, during the Clinton years, the Clinton years that saw prosperity, there was a Republican-controlled Congress. The Republican-controlled Congress yielded tax policies that we believe could once again get us back on track.

In the same way, referring to all the job losses that the gentleman continues to recite and point fingers at and blame the prior administration for, if we're going to play that game, I would say since his party has taken control of this body, we've lost in this country 6.1 million jobs. As he says, none of the job losses are acceptable.

I would say to the gentleman that there are many ways to look at these figures and who was responsible for what and who could claim credit for such, but at the end of the day, what we are facing right now is a situation where the American people and the small businesses and the working families of this country need to regain some confidence.

So I would ask the gentleman directly: If we're about removing uncertainty, is he willing to say to the small business owners out there and to the people of this country, no card check bill this session, no cap-and-trade this session, no death tax this session, and no hiking taxes in the time of unemployment that we are in? Those are the things from which we could send a message to the entrepreneurs and small businesses to lift this veil of uncertainty.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his indulgence in this lengthy colloquy.

If the scheduling piece of this colloquy has now yielded, the fact that there is an uncertainty as to whether we'll see card check or whether we'll see cap-and-trade or whether we're going to see tax hikes, then that's the message, I think, that is going to be delivered to the small businesses that we are going to count on to create jobs.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would note that, from Virginia to New Jersey to Massachusetts, the people of those States, and I believe the people of

America, have spoken. What the people want is a Congress that will work in a bipartisan fashion to get the American people back to work. Republicans, on our part, will continue to offer solutions just as we have done for the last year, and we hope that----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

I would say, Madam Speaker, in closing, yes, America voted in 2008 for Barack Obama to become President of the United States. It was this November that the people had the opportunity in the two States with the gubernatorial election and then just this week the people of Massachusetts had an opportunity to vote for their Senator based on the policies that have come out of this new administration and the majority in Congress.

It is those policies that were voted on this time, and it is those policies that I believe do not reflect the mainstream of America and where the Republicans stand, ready to work with the gentleman and his party in trying to bring the debate and these policy solutions back towards where most Americans feel we ought to be heading in terms of direction for this country.

I do thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in strong support of this important relief legislation for the people of Haiti.

On January 12, 2010, Haiti was shaken by an earthquake unparalleled in its history. As horrendous as they are, the pictures in our newspapers and on TV can only begin to tell the story of the suffering of the Haitian people. Just this morning, the people of that country had another scare, experiencing another shock with a magnitude of 6.1.

Madam Speaker, when crisis calls, American citizens are at their finest. The people of the U.S. have always been, and continue to be, a generous and giving people. And whether it is offering shelter to orphan children, making cash donations, or simply volunteering time, when tragedy strikes, the American people take action.

Charitable donations have already begun pouring into organizations assisting in the relief efforts. This legislation allows generous Americans who make a cash donation to the Haitian relief effort to treat those donations as if they were made in the tax year 2009.

Similar policy has been used in past tragedies, and studies show that it actually increases the total amount of charitable contributions.

I want to thank my colleague, Majority Whip Clyburn, for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan and their leadership in bringing forward this important bill. While it is often the differences between the parties in Congress that makes the news, this legislation demonstrates that we can come together on commonsense proposals to ease the suffering of our fellow man. When our offices discussed last week how we could help encourage charitable donations for the relief effort, and in particular this proposal, it was clear that partisanship had been set aside. I think the American people and those in Haiti are all the better for it. I ask for support of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

And I, too, stand with much respect as we today commemorate the life of Paula Nowakowski.

To her family that is here with us, we gather today in this moment to salute a dear friend, a dedicated staffer, an indispensable member of our leader's team and, frankly, of our conference's team.

Paula had an unshakable devotion to our country and its principles. As the Speaker just indicated, she had a very innovative spirit about her and about the commonsense solutions that we are trying to arrive at here to address the challenges of the people whom we represent.

Her sage advice and counsel made her an invaluable resource to our Members each and every day and, frankly, to this institution. She will be in our thoughts every day as we pass legislation that empowers individuals and that lifts the American spirit.

Paula was particularly concerned about the working families in her beloved State of Michigan. Almost daily, we would hear in leadership meetings, in conference meetings about the plight of the manufacturing workers who would see nothing but closed-up factories and question their future. Paula was there for them.

Paula's life was cut short way too soon. We will, Mr. Leader, all miss her terribly, but we will find strength, determination and inspiration in the example that she set for all of us. All of us, I guess, can learn from this when it is all said and done. What is most important is not when you die but how you lived. Everyone who knew Paula knows, as the leader said, she was tough as nails, but she lived every day to the fullest, giving her heart and her soul to help make America a better, more prosperous place.

We will all remember her each day. We will remember her when we do the work on this floor, we will remember her in our places of worship, and we will smile and think of her the next time that her beloved Detroit Red Wings win another Stanley Cup. Our party and our Nation owe Paula a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to read a letter from Senator Mitch McConnell, the distinguished Senate Minority Leader.

``Dear Leader Boehner:

``I share your sorrow over the untimely passing of Paula Nowakowski. I too considered Paula a trusted confidant. Over the years, I came to deeply value her candid counsel, her sound instincts and her warm good humor. She was unafraid to speak the truth. Her sense of teamwork and loyalty helped to lay a foundation of open communication and trust on both sides of the Capitol dome. My staff and I will miss her tremendously.

``It is a testament to the respect and admiration that she enjoyed on this side of the Capitol that if any of us ever started a conversation with `I just talked to Paula,' or `Paula said,' everyone from Senators to staffers not only knew who you were talking about, but that whatever she said carried an implicit guarantee. You could take it to the bank. She was regarded by everyone here as a consummate professional, a tremendous asset to our party and the Congress, and sharp as they come--in short, an extraordinary woman.

``All those qualities aren't easy to find in one place. But that is what made Paula stand out, and that's why her passing has prompted so many heartfelt expressions of grief and admiration from both sides of the aisle. It's a truly trusted adviser who can finish his or her boss's sentences--and she was one who could.'' And often did, I might add. ``It is also a rare staffer who could be so intensely focused on the business of the House even as she succeeded in building such a strong sense of teamwork with the Senate.

``So on behalf of the entire Senate family, please accept our condolences on this loss to you, your staff, to Congress, and, indeed, to our country. Hopefully the memory of her spirit and example will provide some measure of consolation at this difficult time.

``Yours Sincerely, Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader.''

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once said that, ``All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.''

Today it is apparent that Congress has not learned anything. The bill on the floor today is just another round of spending that doubles down the failure of last February's so-called stimulus plan while ballooning the deficit.

The first stimulus plan and bill failed to hold down unemployment, but it successfully increased our reliance on borrowed money. Worse, a lot of the money designated for infrastructure, those shovel-ready projects we all heard about, hasn't even gotten out of Washington yet. Why is it still here if it was designed to create jobs?

Sadly, pouring billions into the very same programs will meet a similar dismal fate. Just as bad, this legislation continues to fall hopelessly short of providing real relief to small businesses so they can resume hiring, investing, and expanding.

Now is not the time to spend an additional $150 billion we don't have. It's time to come together to ease the burden on small businesses and to start giving them a sense of certainty so they can go about the business of creating jobs and prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this so-called ``jobs'' bill.

I thank the gentlelady, as well as the gentleman from California, for their leadership, and bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, a nuclear Iran would be a game-changing development that poses irreparable damage to global security and stability. Yet, with each passing day, the regime in Tehran brazenly forges ahead to make this nightmare scenario a reality.

These are times of sharp partisan rancor in our Nation's Capitol. 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 Iran's nuclear program is now. By passing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, we send the overdue message that the cost of doing business with Iran is too much to bear.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation leverages our economic muscle to punish any individual or company who sells or ships gasoline to Iran. It offers one of our best chances to convince Iran that it is firmly in its interest to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

As Iran takes a more belligerent approach to its nuclear program, the United States will not fall asleep at the wheel. We must lead. With the passage of this bill, we must, and will, rally the international community in order to stop the Middle East from moving irreversibly toward nuclearization.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

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.

And Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the gentleman about the schedule for the rest of this year. Obviously many, many Members are asking the question as to when we will be able to return to our districts. Many have plans for the Christmas holiday.

So I would ask the gentleman, does he expect the House to adjourn for the year by Friday next week, December 18?

And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman speaks a lot about the appropriations factor, and I assume that means when we would actually bring up the Defense appropriations bill, but specifically, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman whether it is his hope that we will be considering health care in this House, or whether we could expect that to fall off into next year.

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and would ask about the Speaker's planned codel to Copenhagen. I'm aware, I think correctly, that there are about 30 Members that will be going with the Speaker to Copenhagen, scheduled to depart Wednesday evening next week, and would like to ask whether that will impact our schedule for work next week or does he expect that we will be in for 5 days with the Speaker and the codel gone?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman did, Mr. Speaker, mention one of the things that needs to be addressed, the debt limit, and I believe, if I heard correctly, the gentleman said that he felt we needed to do that prior to year's end.

That has created a lot of concern. A lot of reports in the press have indicated that perhaps the administration is looking for ways that we could avoid doing that. Obviously given the size of the expected increase of the debt limit to nearly $2 trillion, a lot of Americans are wondering how in the world we keep spending money we don't have.

So I would ask again, does the gentleman believe that that comes to the floor next week?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were both in attendance at a meeting at the White House this week where we Republicans presented a plan to the President to suggest that there are ways that we could work together, without costing the taxpayers, to try and get America back to work. It has been labeled a No Cost Jobs Plan.

And as the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, I had suggested last week that perhaps we could work on some of those measures together. I know that the gentleman just told us, Mr. Speaker, that we may be able to expect certain things like COBRA, UI extension, and others that he believes, I imagine, would be part of a stimulus effort, and we wonder whether we could expect any of the items that we presented as Republicans to the majority, we could expect any of the items that we presented in that No Cost Jobs Plan, to also be a part of perhaps of what may come to the floor next week?

I yield.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman and say that I was, first of all, heartened by the fact that when we did come into the meeting with the President at the White House that he actually had a copy already of our Republican No Cost Jobs Plan. And I took that as a positive sign that perhaps we could actually work together in doing some things that don't cost anything.

And I would say to the gentleman, his comment that nothing is for free, there are some things that we could do together that don't cost anything that will, I think, produce jobs and most people agree they could produce jobs. And some of those being--and we told the President we would respond, and I would share that with the gentleman, also-- there are a host of rules and regulations being promulgated by this administration and its agencies that frankly harm job creation. Those are the kinds of things we could stop right now if we are going to put jobs first and make sure we do everything we can to get Americans back to work.

As for the TARP funds themselves, Mr. Speaker, my recollection, we voted for that authorization of money in order to stave off a collapse in our capital markets. Most were in agreement that we were on the edge of an abyss and something needed to be done, and so we took the action. Within the proscription of that statute was the definition, or perhaps the mission, of those funds. Those funds were there to make sure our capital markets didn't collapse.

Now, all of us want to be able to say we're doing things to get people back to work. But I think what the American people are growing tired of is Congress saying that it is spending money for one purpose and then all of a sudden deciding, whoops, there's another need out there; let me then go, when we get this back into the Treasury, spend it somewhere else.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why our motion to recommit was crafted the way it was was because we feel very strongly in the emergency nature of the TARP program, and in the statute we called for the return of those moneys to the general fund, essentially to the taxpayers, and not to go and spend the money again, because it's borrowed in the first place. So I would say to the gentleman, we look forward to doing some things that don't cost anything to create jobs.

Some of the discussion at the White House centered on trade. We have three pending free trade agreements. If I recall correctly, the President indicated his support for those agreements, because all of us know those agreements will increase exports from this country. I believe, if I'm correct, that the leader himself, the gentleman from Maryland, did say, Mr. Speaker, that he would like to see those exports increased and perhaps those bills taken care of. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? If we're serious about it, why don't we do that next week? We could leave before the Christmas holiday, and most people would say that by passing those bills, we could be on the path to creating 250,000 new jobs in this country.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman recognizing that there are differences, absolutely, on how we believe that we can work on getting this economy going again. I do believe that we have some similarities, which is why we proposed the No Cost Jobs Plan.

So I ask the gentleman again, are we going to see the three trade bills come to the floor? Because in my estimation, I believe at least one, if not all of the bills, can garner a majority of the votes on this floor, something we could do next week, leaving town saying we are committed to job creation. Are we going to see those bills, Mr. Speaker?

And I will yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I think he makes the case for all the more reason we do something now. If there is no immediate impact tomorrow, at least we could be well on the way to fostering that impact on those jobs for the Americans who, as he correctly states, are facing a lot of trouble right now being out of work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman about the 72-hour rule and the importance of that that we felt back earlier this year. And because of the way that the stimulus bill was brought to the floor earlier, in January or February, the backlash was such that I believe the gentleman and his party committed to 72 hours to review any bill before it was voted on, for the Members as well as the public to realize their right to know.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman is: Why now have we abandoned that commitment? Why have we abandoned the public's right to know in major pieces of legislation this week, in both the omnibus bill as well as the bank bailout, the TARP II bill that we just passed? Both of those bills came to this floor. The House voted on it, on the example of the omnibus, and within 24 hours, not 72. And in the example of what we consider to be an extension of TARP and a bank bailout bill, there was a 249-page manager's amendment that was made available 8 a.m. yesterday, and that very same manager's amendment was voted on at 8:54 p.m. last night. How is it that we have now decided that it is not important to recognize and abide by the 72-hour rule?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused by the gentleman's commitment to

give the public and Members as much time as they, the majority, could. Again, we have a 72-hour rule in place, I thought, and that was for the very purpose of allowing all of us, including our constituents, the right to realize what's going on in this House. Obviously, we have a lot of work undone for the year. We've got 5 legislative days next week. Certainly, if we are going to be incurring the type of debt and expenditure that we are looking at, surely we could make sure that there is adequate notice and that the 72-hour rule is abided by.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is what the public is tired of. I find it somewhat interesting that the gentleman says it's okay for the majority to do that because when we were in the majority we did that. Well, I know the gentleman knows, we were let go in the majority in 2006 and they assumed the majority. And again, there is a reason for that, the public is looking for transparency, the public is looking for fiscal responsibility, and certainly, when we are talking the numbers that we are talking, in terms of taxpayer dollars, $1.8 trillion in new debt, certainly, I think, Mr. Speaker, we should afford the public its right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And I would say in closing that the gentleman may be right, it may be that the cause for the 2006 loss and the majority now coming into power was because of the policies, because of the war, because of fiscal practices, what have you, any number of things. But certainly now the gentleman knows that the public is not too keen on the agenda being pushed by this majority. In fact, most of the people in this country feel we're headed down the wrong track.

But also, Mr. Speaker, the public is extremely, extremely concerned about their future. We've got to restore the trust in this institution, Mr. Speaker. We've got to abide by the same rules that we expect the public to abide by, and that is transparency. That is, when we commit to a certain set of rules to live by, we ought not change them midcourse. That is not what we should be doing. We shouldn't be changing the rules of the game as far as the TARP program is concerned. The public thought that money would be paid back. We shouldn't be changing course in terms of the 72-hour rule. The public has gotten to know that and expects us to give them their right to know, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm talking about in terms of this Democratic majority in this House living up to the public trust that they gained in 2006.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 225th birthday anniversary of former President Zachary Taylor. President Taylor was born in Orange County, Virginia, on November 24, 1784, to a family with a background in military service. His father, Richard Taylor, fought in the Revolutionary War, and Zachary followed in his footsteps in 1808 as he started a military career of his own. Zachary Taylor was personally appointed by his cousin James Madison to serve as a first lieutenant in the War of 1812, and he led many successful battles thereafter.

Because of Zachary Taylor's military accomplishments, he achieved national recognition, and won the Whig Party nomination for President in 1848. Subsequently, he became the twelfth President of the United States, joining the ranks of presidents born in Virginia. As President, Taylor implemented an effective foreign policy, especially in regards to forming a strong alliance with Great Britain.

Sadly, on July 4, 1850, after having served as President for only sixteen months, Zachary Taylor died unexpectedly. He served his country well both in the military and political fields. In honor of President Taylor, the United States Mint will be placing a Zachary Taylor coin into public circulation.

Please join me in remembering the many outstanding contributions of President Zachary Taylor.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my Alma Mater, the Collegiate High School Football team on winning the 2009 Virginia Independent Schools Division I State championship. Led by Coach Mark Palyo, the Cougars compiled an impressive

10-1 record culminating in a 48-28 win over the Liberty Christian Academy Bulldogs in the Championship Game on November 21, 2009.

The Collegiate Cougars were successful in defending their state title which they have been awarded five out of their last seven seasons. I join the Richmond community, family and friends in proud recognition of the Collegiate High School Football team's fantastic achievement and undoubtedly bright future.

I commend the Cougars on their successful season and ask you to join me in celebrating their victory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, since this is our first colloquy following Thanksgiving break, I would like to ask the gentleman if he could give the Members a sense of what legislation perhaps that we will be voting on for the remainder of this month. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And I know I'm joined by the gentlelady from Florida in thanking you very much for your work on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act and bringing that to the floor.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, I note that he did announce that we will be considering H.R. 4173, the financial regulation bill, and perhaps seven appropriations bills. I don't know which form that would be in, whether it would be separately or in an omnibus form; but, nonetheless, all of these are incredibly large measures costing billions of dollars of taxpayer money, stretching over thousands of pages.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is, What is the gentleman's intention as to the period of time which Members and the public will have to review these bills prior to the Members voting on them? And does that mean that we will still be consistent with the gentleman's representations on other bills prior to this session that we would have 72 hours for consideration and review of those bills as well as any manager's amendment and self-executing amendments in a rule?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And I do realize that the House has considered its version, although we all know that when they come back from conference especially, many of the Members on both sides of the aisle have some concerns about earmarks and others, which would, I think, warrant the time to review these bills. In the same light, Mr. Speaker, it is the concern of many that we have an opportunity to look at any manager's amendment or self-executing amendments in the rules that are presented to the body and our having time to review that as well. And I would just make that note.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does he expect a final health care bill this month? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman on that. And as a followup to that, Mr. Speaker, I know there's been some discussion or reports that the Senate may be scheduled to be in session past the Christmas holiday, and I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman expected that to impact the House's schedule after Christmas. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman does he expect to vote on increasing the Nation's debt limit this month? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a followup to that comment. Does the gentleman expect us to have an up- or-down vote on the increase of the debt limit, or, if not, if it is a part, as he suggested, of another piece of legislation, which legislation that would be? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to the question of whether this House will be dealing with what has been reported, a second stimulus bill. And I know that we have been reading much about the White House job summit today. There's been a lot of reports in the press about the majority's meeting on a second stimulus bill, and I'd like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if he could clarify the timing, the content and the cost of a proposed second stimulus bill. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that extension of an offer to allow us to, once again, proffer our ideas. As the gentleman may know, I did speak out yesterday with a list of what I call a no- cost jobs plan, and I am happy to forward that to the gentleman. I have made a similar type of request of the White House, and I think have gotten a response that they too may be willing to consider some of the Republican solutions to the current crisis that people are feeling across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am somewhat heartened to hear the gentleman talk about the ineffectiveness of the first stimulus bill. The gentleman did say that the term ``stimulus'' was a little broader than what they're looking at now. And in my opinion, I thought that the definition of a stimulus bill was to create jobs. So if the gentleman now is agreeing with me that the creation of jobs did not hit the mark the way that was promised on the first stimulus bill, that we do need to finally focus on job creation, that gives me a lot of confidence, Mr. Speaker, because at least we're now talking about the same thing. And along those lines, again, I am thankful that the gentleman asked for our solutions, and we're going to proffer those.

But I do want to suggest that we can, and there are some commonsense things we can sit down and probably agree on that we could do right now that wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, and we wouldn't have to be continuing to mortgage the future of our children. I think both of us can agree, Mr. Speaker, that both sides have done their share to dig the hole of incurring too much debt for this country. Enough is enough. And I do think that we have and will offer solutions that will begin to arrest that trend, and at the same time focus on job creation.

I will. And I would like to ask one more point, and then I will yield. If we are talking about finally shifting to the mode, Mr. Speaker, of job creation, I'd like to ask the gentleman, has there been any discussion in his caucus about perhaps holding back on some of the measures that are being discussed, such as the financial regulatory reform bill coming to the floor next week, because there is a study recently released by the University of Chicago, University College London, and George Mason University economists, which said that this package of reform bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee will reduce consumer borrowing by at least 2.1 percent and reduce new jobs by 4.3 percent. And essentially, the study comes to the conclusion that interest rates will rise by 141 basis points, which will yield the loss of over a million jobs over the next 5 years. So if we are concerned about job creation, why are we moving forward with such a measure? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And I would say he would agree with me that since the beginning of the 111th, priority one for this Nation has been job creation.

And the facts are the facts. The stimulus bill was brought to this floor with the promise that it would stop unemployment from exceeding 8 percent. We are now at over 10 percent national unemployment. The facts are the facts.

Under this administration, the deficit has tripled since the last administration left. That is the facts. The gentleman points out, CBO says that we've created X number of jobs. I would say to the gentleman, while you have people across this country--10.2 percent of the workforce being out of work--there is no way that anyone in this country would believe CBO when it says the economy is better. That's the fact.

And so if we're going to be about job creation, my simple point is this about bringing the package of financial regulatory reform bills to the floor. I don't doubt the gentleman's intention to try and do the right thing. But the reality is this is a case where we're doing the wrong thing for the right reason. This bill impacts negatively the job creators. We know this bill will increase interest rates 141 basis points, which means the loss of an additional million-plus jobs over the next 5 years.

So in that vein, I would ask the gentleman again, if we are to see our way to work together, let's relieve the harm. This bill adds to the harm. In the same way, I would ask the gentleman, there is continued talk of the bill otherwise known as Card Check. If I've heard it once, I think all Members have, from small businesses and large, the job creators, Please, please don't pass that bill because that will create a huge drain on job creation.

So I would ask the gentleman, is there any sense in his caucus that maybe now in times of high unemployment is not the time to bring up Card Check?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would like to come to my district and talk to the businesses there, I think I could gather up many individuals who have put their entire life's investment savings on the line and don't want to see Washington or this Congress continue to threaten the very existence of those businesses.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

My purpose in bringing up this notion that we still have this Card Check bill out there is to demonstrate the fact that there really is a disconnect as far as doing what we say and follow what I do. Because if we're serious about relieving the pain on job creators, if we're serious about getting Americans back to work, we wouldn't be necessarily bringing the wrong bills to the floor for the right reason, which is my point, Mr. Speaker.

No one is quibbling with intention here. I think that I would agree with the gentleman that there is a sense in America that there is not a level playing field at giving people a fair shot at their returns on Wall Street or a fair

shot in terms of heavy regulations in hand coming from Washington.

So we can all agree that we need to make the environment better for job creators and people who want to jump in and take risks. But the financial regulatory reform package that is being brought to the floor just as the Card Check bill that's still being spoken of around here, those are job killers. We ought to at least relieve the harm so that people we're relying on to create jobs can get back to work to do that. That was simply my point, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the gentleman that 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the passage of the majority's first stimulus bill; and the Nation's debt now stands at over $12 trillion.

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