Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true champion of the conservative movement, Morton Blackwell, who just celebrated his 70th birthday.

I have known Morton since the days when he attended meetings in my parents' living room, planning how we would advance the conservative cause in Virginia. We realized the fruits of those talks during the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s, when Virginia--and Morton Blackwell-- led the way.

Morton's life thus far has been a testament to the kind of man he is. There is a list of rules that Morton has developed, entitled the Laws of the Public Policy Process, which I always keep close at hand. One of my favorites is number 10, which simply states: ``Sound doctrine is sound politics.'' Morton lives and teaches by this rule. He has dedicated his adult life to serving on the front lines of all the major battles in our nation to ensure that faith, family, and freedom always prevail. I would venture to say that much of Morton's success is due to the fact that he has had a key partner in these efforts in his wife Helen, the president of the Virginia chapter of the Eagle Forum.

In addition to his birthday, Morton also celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the Leadership Institute. Morton founded LI in 1979 for the sole purpose of teaching conservatives to win. His approach wasn't to sit on the sidelines and analyze policy, as important as that may be. Instead, his strategy was to train people to actually influence that very policy by directly participating in it, through activism and leadership. The more than 76,000 students who have been mentored by Morton are now spread throughout the country, in arenas ranging from grassroots organizations to campaigns at every level to elected office. I don't believe there's a doubt in anyone's mind that Morton has trained more political activists than any other conservative.

This outreach didn't start with the founding of LI, though. Decades before that, Morton worked with fellow Republicans as a leader of College Republicans, and then of local and state Republican party chapters. In a role that any conservative would envy, Morton's hard work and dedication earned him a job as Special Assistant to President Reagan. At nearly 70 years old, Morton still demonstrates the energy and activity of a young man, serving the boards of at least six major conservative organizations, and frequently writes widely published pieces on a variety of conservative issues.

As in the times when I first met Morton, conservatives have recently had plenty of reasons to feel discouraged. Morton's rules, however, also tell us to ``remember it's a long ball game.'' Keeping in mind that the game is not yet over, we continue to fight. I was proud to stand next to Morton on the stage one month ago, as we celebrated Bob McDonnell's election as the next governor of the state we call home. As I said on that same stage, the conservative resurgence begins now, and it begins in Virginia. Americans everywhere can thank Morton Blackwell for that.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully request the attention of the House to pay recognition to an important day in the lives of Mr. and Mrs. A. Norman Bantz.

On November 16, 2009, Norman and Gloria Bantz celebrated their 63rd wedding anniversary. Norman was born on July 17, 1921, and his wife, Gloria, was born on November 16, 1922.

The couple married on November 16, 1946 at Annunciation Church in Crestwood, New York.

Over the years, Norman and Gloria have been blessed with 6 children, Alexandra Louise, Rita Marie, Ralph Fredrick, Margaret Elizabeth, Katherine Mary, and Peter James; 13 grandchildren, and 7 great grandchildren.

On November 16, the couple along with their family and friends celebrated their anniversary at the home of their daughter.

I would like to congratulate, Norman and Gloria, for reaching this important milestone in their lives. They are shining examples of love and dedication for us all, and I wish them and their family all the best at this important occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we have tried to do everything possible to pay for this doctor fix, and it seems that the majority just refuses to do the fiscally responsible thing. We just offered a proposal that was a fully paid doctor fix that provided our doctors with 2 percent updates for 4 years. The majority blocked this House from even voting on that proposal because they object to paying for the costs of the doctor fix.

It seems that the rules that the majority is using prevent us from paying for this bill simply because, Mr. Speaker, the majority doesn't pay for this bill. Seeing that that is the case, one has to ask how perverse is that? Because the majority is okay with adding $250 billion to our debt, the Republicans are prevented under the rules from trying to be responsible and pay for those costs. Is this what passes for fiscal responsibility in the majority party, I ask?

So now we are offering a second motion to recommit that attempts to address the deficit costs while living under the rules imposed on us by the majority. What does this motion do? Very simply, it recognizes that there is a fund already in existing law that has $22.3 billion in it that can be used to pay for the doctor fix. It further limits spending under this bill to that same amount, $22.3 billion. That is enough to provide the doctor payment updates for all of 2010 and most, if not all, of 2011 envisioned under the Democratic bill.

So we've identified, Mr. Speaker, an amount of money that is available to pay for 2 years' worth of a doctor fix and limited this bill to 2 years. A vote for this motion to recommit is a vote to recognize that we ought to help our doctors, but we ought to do it in a fiscally responsible manner, and this motion shows us how to do it. I wish we could do more, but the rules imposed on us by the majority simply won't permit it.

So now is the time to choose: Do we want to plan for a fiscally responsible doctor fix or $250 billion in new debt? Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to vote for fiscal responsibility.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that the Democrats' bill will add $210 billion to the deficit?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my prior inquiry asked: Would the Democrats' bill add $210 billion to the deficit, and I would say even the Blue Dogs know that the Democrat bill adds $210 billion to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 175th anniversary of St. Joseph's Villa in Richmond, Virginia.

St. Joseph's Villa has been serving the Richmond community since 1834 when it was established by the Daughters of Charity as an orphanage. It is now a nonsectarian organization and is the oldest and largest operating children's nonprofit in metropolitan Richmond.

Currently, the Villa works with more than 600 children and families on a daily basis. The mission of St. Joseph's Villa is to provide children with special needs, as well as their families, the opportunity to succeed through innovative and effective programs. To accomplish this mission, St. Joseph's Villa works with local school systems and parents to provide a variety of educational, residential and day programs to children and families dealing with autism, homelessness or physical and mental disabilities or other behaviors that classify the child as being ``at risk.'' These programs include, to name just a few, the Dooley School at St. Joseph's Villa, for middle- and high-school students with learning disabilities and behavioral issues, the Dooley Center for Alternative Education, for students who have been suspended or expelled from their local high school, and the Dooley School at Cherokee Road, an elementary-school program for students with a variety of learning disabilities. Each program contains both academic and behavioral components and their goal is to prepare the child for returning to his or her local school.

St. Joseph's Villa employs more than 300 full and part-time employees who are integral in making this organization a success. The Villa is committed to staff-development, involvement, and effective teamwork that respect the individuals they serve. I commend them on the services they have rendered to the Richmond community over the years.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing St. Joseph's Villa as it celebrates its anniversary and wishing the students and staff the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today brings the culmination of an extensive and spirited debate over health care reform. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable. Obviously, we disagree on how to fix what is broken. And as the gentleman from New York just said, there are times in this body when we really can tell the difference between us Republicans and you Democrats, and this is certainly one of them.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat solution is a 1,990-page, trillion-dollar overhaul of the health care system we know, a sweeping new entitlement that raises taxes, cuts benefits to seniors and, Mr. Speaker, it spends over a trillion dollars that we don't have.

Republicans believe there is a better way. We have proposed an alternative approach that offers a stark contrast to the majority's plan. It is a fiscally responsible and reasoned approach.

The majority's proposal overturns the whole system. We keep what works and then try to fix what is wrong.

Their bill puts the government between families and their doctors. Ours doesn't.

Their plan cuts Medicare benefits to seniors. Ours retains them.

Their proposal blows a hole in the deficit. Ours actually saves money.

Their bill imposes penalties and mandates on our small businesses that cost jobs. Ours does not.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, our bill will help you access health care if you lose or change your job. And it will ensure that you have access to medical care if you have a preexisting condition. And we also, Mr. Speaker, deliver on something that the majority refuses to even talk about, and that's real, meaningful medical liability reform.

And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we produce cost savings for workers, families, and small businesses. The Congressional Budget Office says that the Democrats' new government-run system won't reduce costs. CBO says our legislation lowers health care costs. In fact, CBO says that the Republican plan cuts premiums by up to 10 percent for employees covered by small businesses, up to 8 percent for those not covered by employers, and up to 3 percent for employees covered by large businesses.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of 10.2 percent unemployment, Americans want jobs. They want less government spending and more economic security. The majority's bill shows they have not listened. Ours shows we have.

Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the only bipartisanship on Capitol Hill today will be in opposition to Speaker Pelosi's trillion-dollar-plus government overhaul of America's health care system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, any physician in America will tell you that the simplest way to reduce health care costs is to enact real medical liability reform. The fear of being sued by opportunistic trial lawyers is pervasive in the practice of medicine. Our system wastes billions on defensive medicine that should be going to patient care. That's why real medical liability reform is needed. In fact, CBO estimates that as much as $54 billion can be saved by the Federal Government alone. It is totally unacceptable that this money is being spent in the courtroom instead of the operating room.

At the same time, the majority has promised the American people that their health care bill will lower costs, yet the bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, contains no medical liability reforms. And why not? The truth comes from one of the Democrats' own, no less than former DNC Chair and physician Howard Dean, who said last August, The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people that wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit adds real meaningful medical liability and reform and uses its $54 billion in savings to create a fund that will protect seniors, especially those in rural areas, from the steep cuts to Medicare in the Democrats' reform package. It gives Members the chance to prioritize the health of our Nation's seniors instead of lining the bank accounts of trial lawyers. It's time to get trial lawyers out of the clinics and the operating rooms and leave patient care to the people trained to handle it best-- our doctors.

Mr. Speaker, to talk about this further, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Brown-Waite.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, so that he may inform the House on what to expect about this weekend's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just like to ask the gentleman for a point of clarification, our Members can count on a vote on final passage on the health care bill on Saturday and, upon having done that, can anticipate being able to leave sometime Saturday night or Sunday?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the majority's move to overhaul our health care system this week.

From what I can see, Mr. Speaker, the version of health care reform that this majority is bringing forward is a horrible, horrible step. The bill is something unseen before; it's a trillion-dollar attempt to overhaul the system we know with one that we don't.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans will stand united against this bill. Mr. Speaker, we will do so because, one, the American people have spoken out, and they see that this is an extreme attempt to try to address what's really wrong with our system, and it doesn't match what the mainstream commonsense American wants.

Number two, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the suggestions on the other side, we do have a better way. We will be offering our Republican plan. That plan will reduce health care costs. It is well documented. The majority is unconcerned about reducing costs for the people who have insurance in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this resolution. More importantly, I stand to support the right of democracies to defend their citizens against terrorism.

For years, without provocation, Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza launched thousands of deadly rockets at Israeli civilians. The attacks laid siege to entire swaths of Israelis. By last December, Israel said enough was enough.

When it entered Gaza, Israel found a ruthless enemy hiding in civilian areas. Hamas committed blatant war crimes by using the Palestinian people as human shields. But the one-sided and biased Goldstone Commission isn't concerned with any of this. Its report equates a democracy's defensive strikes on armed targets with a terror group's deliberate efforts to kill and sacrifice innocent people.

The Goldstone Report does not contribute to the ongoing peace process. The cases of Gaza and Lebanon show that every time Israel makes concessions of peace, it results in increased terrorism. Why would Israel agree to deal if it knows the international community will demonize it should it have to respond to terror?

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

Madam Speaker, providing about 70 percent of U.S. jobs, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. When they struggle, when they contract, when they fail to obtain credit and put capital to work, America struggles. And right now our small businesses are struggling like never before.

With such an ominous backdrop, it is only logical that we do everything in our power to strengthen our small businesses and make it easier for them to create jobs and put people back to work. But as small business owners across this country have told us for months now, Washington is doing the opposite. The wave of newly proposed tax increases, health care mandates, and financial and energy regulations are adding fresh gasoline to the fire. They have created a pervasive state of fear about the future cost of doing business that is enveloping reluctant job creators.

Madam Speaker, if the economy is going to be resurgent, small business owners will have to provide the spark. I know many of us have met with our small business owners over the last several months. I have. I have conducted several small business forums in my district. One of those, in Richmond, I heard the message loud and clear. Small businesses want to expand. They want to hire more workers. They want to invest. But they can barely afford to keep the lights on right now.

The message to me, Madam Speaker, was very clear. Of all times, now is the wrong one for Washington to go and slap more taxes and regulations on us. These small businesses asked me: Why is there such a huge disconnect between what we in the small business community need and what our government thinks we need? Why does Washington spend so extravagantly and fund this spree by squeezing the very people who can create and provide jobs?

The point was this: It was that the misguided policies being brought forward either siphon capital away from small businesses or cause them to hoard capital out of a grave concern. Talk of card check, surtaxes, marginal tax hikes, minimum health coverage mandates, cap-and-trade, et cetera, all of this adds new and unnecessary layers of concern. This concern will harm small business employment, and has, and the number of business establishments and the types of such establishments, such as sole proprietorships, corporations, and partnerships.

Madam Speaker, we will see repercussions in the amount of capital investment small businesses attract; in the number of business formations and failures; and the amount of sales and new orders and investment in plant and equipment because of the very actions being proposed in this House and throughout Washington.

The bill before us today proposes to modify and expand a variety of SBA loan programs. The SBA plays an important part in helping America's small businesses. But let us be clear, Madam Speaker, the vast majority of small businesses do not participate in SBA programs. They rely on community banks, investment capital, and

other forms of credit to start and expand their business. In fact, the Discovery Financial Services small business survey recently found that 90 percent of small businesses report that they have never even applied for an SBA loan. Reports from banks confirm that most small business credit is supplied outside of the SBA. In 2007--the most recent data-- banks reported through the CRA that they originated or purchased $329 billion in loans for small businesses. By comparison, Madam Speaker, the SBA averages between $20 billion and $30 billion in lending a year.

Small businesses, whether they use SBA or other sources of financing, will all be impacted by massive tax hikes, regulations, and mandates being proposed currently by the Democratic majority.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this. The resulting loans being called for under this bill by the Small Business Administration will not even come close to offsetting the cost to small businesses caused by the concerns businesses have over the majority's agenda in this House. So, Madam Speaker, I suggest this. Abandon your proposals to impose record-high taxes. Abandon the proposals for underfunded mandates on our businesses and costly regulations.

Provide our small business job creators with the certainty that Washington isn't going to be saddling them with new penalties, with new taxes and with new high costs. We take a first step towards that goal today, Madam Speaker, by adopting this motion, and I urge the House to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he can give us any indication about the days on which we could expect these particular bills to be debated and voted upon on the House floor.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman that I noticed that this morning we Republicans, just like the public, were not allowed to attend the Speaker's unveiling of the public option bill.

I know that the gentleman here on this House floor and I have always talked about the need for transparency, certainly at this particular occasion, and at the press conference the public nor any Republican was allowed to attend.

I would note for the record, Madam Speaker--I know the gentleman knows this--that the steps of the Capitol are and should be open to the public. I would think, Madam Speaker, that in the spirit of trying to work together, when we have such a transformative piece of domestic legislation, that if there is a press conference for the public on public grounds to discuss public option, it should be open to all.

Madam Speaker, I just felt that the gentleman would agree with me on that. But I would like to at this point turn to what the events of next week will be.

I yield.

Madam Speaker--and I don't intend to belabor this point with the gentleman--but I do know for a fact that individuals were precluded from entering. And I'm told that invitations were issued with RSVPs, and if you were not on the list of RSVPs, you couldn't enter. And I do know for a fact that people were prohibited from doing so.

Again, Madam Speaker, I would say, this is not just some ordinary press conference. This was a press conference held on the front steps of the Capitol. This was a press conference, the subject of which was a piece of legislation that portends to transform one-sixth of this economy of this country and to deal with the most personal issues of health care universally applied to all people.

So I do thank the gentleman for his concern and his belief that it should have been open, because I believe as well.

Again, I don't want to belabor the point any further. I just politely disagree with the gentleman, having known, and the fact is there were people stopped from entering.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would turn to some inquiries that I have about how we are going to proceed in discussing this massive 1,990 pages of legislation; how it is that if the gentleman believes that we are going to be taking it up as early as Thursday, then could he tell us if the bill itself, in general, does it resemble H.R. 3200?

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, not every one of the Members in this body serve on those three committees. From what I can gather of the gentleman's statement that if the discussion in the committees and the discussion in the town halls across this country over the summer were indicative of the discussions surrounding this new bill, then perhaps I am to conclude that this bill is H.R. 3200, because the point, Madam Speaker, is that this is a new bill.

It was unveiled today, and, again, I pointed out to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, very troubling that it was unveiled in a closed press conference. Somehow the majority felt and the Speaker felt it necessary to block Republicans and the public from that unveiling. Now we have a new bill, it is over 1,900, nearly 2,000 pages long. We do have a concern that we have adequate time to look at this bill, to understand this bill, to debate this bill.

I would ask the gentleman how much time for debate will be given on this House floor of this 1,990-page bill?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that history.

And the interpretation of that history.

I asked a simple question, Madam Speaker, of how long the debate will be on this House floor of a bill that has been just introduced, and, according to the gentleman, maybe it's not this bill that's just been introduced, maybe it is H.R. 3200, because that's what's been the discussion across this country up until now. But, Madam Speaker, this is a bill that is now being reported to be presented at a cost of $2 million a word, five times longer than the Torah, longer than the well- known work of War and Peace. That's how long this bill is.

It's a new bill. I am simply asking how much time can we expect to have for debate on the floor of this transformative piece of legislation that will alter one-sixth of the country's economy.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I am just asking a simple question. There is no criticism here. There is plenty of that I know in this body. I am asking a simple question, Madam Speaker. How long are we going to be allowed for debate on this floor on this bill?

I thank the gentleman.

As I am not, Madam Speaker, being too successful in eliciting a response that is definitive, I would ask the gentleman, when we are considering this bill that is not affecting one program like Medicare, like he referred to in 2003 in part D, while we are considering a bill that is dealing with one-sixth of our economy, every aspect of health care in America comes under this bill.

What is it that the majority leader has in mind in terms of the ability for all Members of this body to represent their constituents, to offer amendments, to have their voices heard on this floor? If the gentleman could please enlighten me and our colleagues as to what the amendment process will be on this bill.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would ask the gentleman if he could be a little bit more specific about the amendment deadline so our Members can be adequately put on notice for that.

I yield.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, then, does that mean there will be no amendments allowed?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would expect that he would inform us of exactly when that vote will take place in order for us to know when that 72-hour period will be triggered as far as our substitute, if the gentleman is offering us a substitute, would be submitted in order to meet what he imposes as a deadline on us.

Madam Speaker, I would ask, though, I still don't understand about the posture of amendments. I know that there are many Members in this House, in fact, there may very well be close to a majority if not more than a majority of Members in this House, who are interested in amendments having to do with the protection of life in this bill on health care and the question of prohibiting government funding of abortion. And I would ask the gentleman whether we are going to be given an opportunity to vote on that issue through the amendment process.

I yield.

I'm sorry?

I thank you.

Madam Speaker, there is also the issue of the conscience clause, as to whether that will also be a subject of an amendment to this bill, as many of our Members, if not a majority, are interested in that as well.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would just point out, I'm sure as he knows, the law that perhaps he's referring to is riders on appropriations bills, and, as well, I think he is well aware that courts have indicated if there is silence on the issue of life and government funding of abortion, that necessarily goes against those who want to see the prohibition of the government funding of abortion, which is why it is so important that this House take up that issue.

I would ask the gentleman, though, if the issues that I raised surrounding the government funding of abortion will be addressed, will those issues be addressed in the manager's amendment or will we expect to be able to address those in an amendment?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for taking note of our concern on that issue.

I yield.

That is correct, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments there.

I would ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, about the question of the manager's amendment, when we can expect that to be online and whether the public will have 72 hours to view that amendment prior to any vote.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Finally, on the issue of this massive bill on health care that we are about to debate next week, I would ask, Madam Speaker, the gentleman whether we can expect the doctor reimbursement bill to be included in this bill or whether it will be coming as a separate bill to the floor.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I know that, as he discussed the Senate's experience with that bill, obviously the question of a deficit is looming large surrounding that issue, and I would note that, Madam Speaker.

But in closing----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

And I know that he knows the reported agreement on all of this excludes the doc fix as well as those other items from being paid for, which is of concern to him, I know, as well as many of us when we're considering this health bill and then choose to leave out a significant portion of government expense under Medicare in terms of reimbursing providers under the SGR.

I yield.

I think the gentleman knows that I, as well as most of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, will be supportive of trying to address the inequities that exist in the current SGR formula, and he has my commitment to want to work to try to fix and right those inequities since the payment formulas that have been established are far from matching the realities of practice expense for our physicians.

I thank the gentleman for that.

In closing, Madam Speaker, after we have had this discussion and the colloquy and the gentleman's words as well as mine for some time now, I would just note for the gentleman as well as our colleagues that 41 percent of the American people, according to a recent Gallup Poll, think the economy should be our top priority while only 17 percent think that health care should be Congress's top priority.

In addition to that, Madam Speaker, there was a poll out over the last several weeks by a Democratic pollster, Jeff Garin, in which was cited that 81 percent of Americans do not think that the majority, do not think the Democrats are doing enough to address the disappearing jobs in our economy.

So, Madam Speaker, I close with that. I thank the gentleman very much for his time.

I yield.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman just by saying I don't think neither he nor I are proud of what the public views as the performance of this body as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the midst of the increasing momentum we detect on the other side to push through a government takeover of health care in our country. To me, it is about four distinct questions.

One, does anyone believe that the passage of a $1 trillion bill, does anyone believe that won't aggravate the deficit? I think the answer is resoundingly ``no.''

Secondly, if it is going to be $1 trillion, who is going to pay for that? Well, we know that the majority is talking about small businesses and seniors paying for that.

Third, does anyone really think that the health care overhaul being proposed is going to make your health care better? I don't think so.

And lastly, is there any guarantee that this government is not going to get in between you and your doctor? Mr. Speaker, I say to that, the answer is ``no.''

We Republicans have a better way. We believe we can accomplish reform aimed at the discrete problems that exist, to fix those, and then expand health care opportunities for those who do not currently have it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the majority leader, for the purposes of finding out about next week's schedule. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the gentleman about some reports that we've been hearing about other bills that could perhaps come to the floor next week, and I wonder if he could add

some clarity to that. There have been reports that perhaps an estate tax bill would be coming to the floor next week. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman and, Mr. Speaker, would ask further whether we can expect that bill to include the statutory PAYGO provisions and whether that bill would be compliant with those provisions. And I yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted to reiterate so, in my understanding, that would mean that the estate tax bill would be paid for if it came to the floor of the House. I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, what I'm hearing is that neither the estate tax bill nor the other items included in the budget resolution passed would be paid for, and that there would be an assumption somehow that that money would just be taken care of. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. Again, I just wanted to make the point that, again, as we are in unprecedented times incurring debt unlike we have ever in this country, that these obviously very important bills that need consideration are coming to the floor without being paid for contributing to the exacerbation of the debt situation on our children and their children. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, further--

I would yield to the gentleman, sure.

Mr. Speaker, I'd respond to the gentleman, he and I both know that we actually have shared position on the fact that we need to address the uncertainty surrounding the cliff, if you will, in the estate tax expiration of the repeal.

But, again, if we are in the age of being very concerned about the deficit, the Members, I believe, on our side need to know that the bills coming to the floor are not paid for. They may be compliant with provisions in the budget resolution, but simply are not paid for. And the assumptions made about baseline are just those.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker----

Mr. Speaker, I would say, that I, as well as other Members of our leadership and our conference certainly would be willing to engage in crafting solutions as to how we go about implementing PAYGO provisions without raising taxes because, as we know now, families across this country are hurting, small businesses are having difficulty keeping lights on. And now, certainly is not the time for us to see increased taxes on the working families or small businesses of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman further about what we could expect in terms of the reports surrounding the so-called ``doc fix'' on the sustainable growth rate formula and whether we can expect such a bill to come to the floor next week and whether that bill would be paid for. And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman again, might we expect that bill to come to the floor next week? And if not, when could we expect such a bill to come to the floor? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And if I could, Mr. Speaker, turn the gentleman's attention to the question of the bill that Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Berman are working on in terms of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman has indicated to me, as well as to the chief deputy whip, Mr. McCarthy, last week that that bill would be coming to the floor within the next few weeks, and would ask the gentleman, does he expect the bill on the floor next week or the week following? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that, and appreciate his efforts to try and bring that bill to the floor. I know he and I share a commitment to try and make that happen as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman where we stand as far as the schedule for November and December. As we know now, we are within a week or so of the October 30 targeted adjournment. I guess all of us understand that that is not going to be met. But we've not been given a schedule; and as the gentleman knows, Members on his side as well as ours are used to having some advance notice about scheduling their lives and when they can be home with their families, their constituents, when they will be asked to be here in Washington performing their duties. And I don't recall that we've ever been in a situation where there's not been an official schedule issued this far or this close up to an adjournment.

So I'm asking the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if he could tell us, officially,

what the schedule could be for the next month and the month succeeding that. And I yield.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I would just reiterate the custom, which is to release an official schedule so that, as he knows, Members can do their planning.

Yes

I thank the gentleman.

Again, whether we are in or whether we are out, I don't think we're advocating a position of being out and certainly not completing work.

But, again, it is rather unprecedented where we are without the ability for us to have an official schedule, which is why I continue, Mr. Speaker, to prod on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if I could then turn to the question of the piece of legislation that the gentleman referred to, health care reform, and about its timing and, frankly, the inclusion of a public option.

We've been hearing a tremendous number of reports--many of them conflicting--about what will be the timing of the health care bill coming on the floor of this House, what may be included. Again, we are in a position being kept in the dark, which is rather odd given the repeated insistence by this White House and the President--both as he is our President now and when he was a candidate for President, when he proclaimed that negotiations over important bills--and, of course, this would be one of them--would occur in the light of day and even appear on C-SPAN. That's obviously not been the case.

We've heard yesterday from the Speaker quoted in the press that she had the votes for a public option. We then have heard today reports indicating that there isn't the support on your side for a robust public option.

Again, this just underscores the fact that there is so much movement on one side of the aisle without any participation by the other.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to clarify and give us some clarity on this notion and whether he could define for us what is included in a robust public option, what is the difference between a robust public option or something else which seems to have now captured the interest of everybody in this body and certainly those in the press.

And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I think the gentleman makes one of the points I am trying to convey, and that is these discussions, these continuing negotiations are occurring behind closed doors, they're occurring just on one side of the aisle in and around issues of health care that affect every American--young, old, Republican, Democrat, male, female. It is universal in its application, the issue of health care.

So it is troubling, at the very least, for us to sit here and witness these ongoing negotiations behind closed doors when we on our side, I think, have posited alternatives. The gentleman and I have met on discussions surrounding some points that we can agree upon.

But what's troubling right now is the insistence that we continue to read about that there be a public option. My office has received reports about their being three different public options that your side is considering.

Now, we've heard reports that you have whipped those three distinct public options. My question, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman is, what are those three public options? I think the public deserves the right to know. The public has rejected the notion of a public option replacing their health care. That is really the impetus, I believe, that the gentleman would want to put on display about this discussion about the so-called public option and the three versions that are discussed.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little taken aback by the gentleman's statement saying it's pointless for him to have discussions with Republicans regarding health care.

I will.

The gentleman is not incorrect because Republicans believe that a public option doesn't bring about competition. I think both of us, Mr. Speaker, agree that competition is what is needed to bring down prices to increase access.

We believe that real competition comes from the ability for individuals to choose not just from two or three insurance companies that may have 50 percent of market share; we believe real competition comes from the ability for an individual to choose from a thousand different insurance plans for that individual and his or her family. That's where we begin to--that's what we can agree on. The competition brings down prices. We don't believe public option brings competition.

And that is the essence. The end shouldn't be public option.

I will yield when I finish.

And I would further say again to the gentleman's representation about where the American public is because of a poll that was taken this week, I think there have been numerous articles written on debunking the methodology behind that poll. In fact, the question when posed, do you support a public option to compete with private insurance, is and would yield a different response than if you were to ask, would you support a public option that replaces the current health care coverage that you have.

And, Mr. Speaker, this is our position. We believe that if you introduce a government that also makes the rules as a competitor, that there will no longer be an even playing field for competition, that you are on a path to single-payer health care in this country. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. But I don't think that the gentleman is correct in his saying it is fruitless to have discussions surrounding health care because we have a difference of opinion.

And I yield.

I would say to the gentleman there are a lot of differences to the construct of the MMA, the legislation passed that created part D than what is being discussed today.

Reclaiming my time.

So I would say if the gentleman is of that opinion that there is an ability to discuss things surrounding health care, then why is it that we continue to see closed door negotiations?

So the gentleman points to the different options, public options or versions thereof, being discussed in the three different committees in the House. Are those the public options that the gentleman and his side have whipped and are being discussed now behind closed doors?

Frankly, any imposition of a public plan is going to cost taxpayers and small businesses money. I would certainly think the gentleman would share the notion that Republicans should be involved, and it would be of concern to both Republicans and Democrats throughout this country that the American people would want their right to know being realized in these discussions, which is my point as to why is it that we can't hear what these three different public options are and what the differences are therein.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we have always and continue to represent that we are ready to work with him, his leadership and the other side in crafting and affecting positive health care reform. Again, shutting down discussions is not a route to achieve that that could fairly produce what the American people want.

I don't think it could produce fairly or unfairly what the American people want if it is going to be about my way or the highway as far as health care discussions and a bill that passes on this floor.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Saint Benedict Parochial School in Richmond, Virginia.

Saint Benedict Parochial School has been serving the Richmond area since 1919 when it opened on the corner of Grove and Belmont Avenues. Classes were temporarily held in the convent, which was moved just a few years later to make room for the proposed school building. An addition to the school was built in 1949 after an increasing number of students outgrew the existing school.

Today, Saint Benedict Parochial School continues to offer a traditional education in a faith-filled environment to both elementary and middle school students. Along with language arts, mathematics, social studies and science, religion is also taught as one of the core subject areas. In fact, the school motto is Ut in Omnibus Glorificetur Deus, or in other words, ``So that in all things God may be glorified!''

In addition to concentrating on their education, Saint Benedict students spend countless hours serving the community. Once a month, students prepare and deliver bagged lunches to the homeless. They also collect canned food for the Central Virginia Food Bank, and have worked to raise money for organizations like the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital as well as a school in the greater Richmond area that was facing the possibility of closing.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing Saint Benedict Parochial School as it celebrates its anniversary and wishing the students and staff the best in their future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman from California and also salute the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, today could have been and should have been marked by bipartisan support for our troops, but instead has become something very different.

The sole purpose of the Department of Defense authorization legislation is to authorize funds to ensure a strong national defense, but today it is being used as a vehicle to force hate crimes legislation through the House, and it is with deep regret that I'm left with no choice but to oppose it.

This legislation and this vote is a political ploy and symbolic of everything that is wrong with Washington. Those who support the Federal criminalization of hate crimes should demand that it be removed from this legislation and be considered solely upon its own merit, not that of our national defense.

I believe that all Americans should be protected from violent crime and viewed equally under the law, and the truth of the matter is that all violent crimes are hateful. Thought crimes are no different.

Our message is simple: All Republicans support our troops, and the issue of hate crimes has nothing to do with our national defense.

One must really question the priorities of this majority. We must not, should not treat our service men and women as political pawns in their effort to force a social agenda upon the court system and the American people.

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. I would also like to thank the gentleman for his courtesy and his time in meeting with me earlier today in the discussion of health care, and I'm hopeful that that discussion was fruitful and that we could see a dialogue continue towards some type of working relationship in the areas that we can agree on. So I do thank the gentleman.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman some of the things we didn't cover in the meeting, and that is, first off, the timing of any kind of health care bill reaching the floor of this House and whether he could provide any clarity on that.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

So if I hear correctly, we're talking about the final week of this month at the earliest.

I thank the gentleman for that.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, about some statement that the Speaker made indicating how the reimbursement rates would work and whether there is clarity on that or not yet. I think the Speaker had asked the question rhetorically whether Medicare rates would be the reimbursement rates in the bill, and any kind of enlightenment that he can shed on that, I'd appreciate it.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, again, the gentleman and I had discussed in general the opposition to the public option that we have on this side, and I would just like to ask the gentleman again, given the Speaker's comments about reimbursement rates, Medicare rates, whether the public option is still where the Speaker and he are in terms of what a House bill would look like given where the Senate is.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. And again, he and I have discussed the differences that the sides

have philosophically and about Medicare rates being the prevailing rate in terms of required coverage, which would essentially mean, in our opinion, that we will be on a path to a single-payer system, something that certainly our Members would not want to see.

But I thank the gentleman for sharing, and we look forward to perhaps working on those parts or, if we could, just items that we can agree on, again, if the public option begins to have trouble. So, again, I thank the gentleman.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, turn to the question of foreign policy and where we are in terms of the bill coming from the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had said that the White House was engaging in discussions with China and Russia, that perhaps that was why the bill would not be moving forward. This, again, is the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. And to paraphrase the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman indicated that Mr. Berman will be talking to the White House about timing.

I yield to find out whether we have any clarity on that and when that bill will be coming to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has noticed that the Homeland Security appropriations bill is coming to the floor next week. Reports have indicated that perhaps some of the trouble surrounding bringing that bill to the floor deals with the language of dealing with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and their transfer. And as the gentleman knows, Republican-sponsored language that was adopted by the House is something that we would very much like to see included in the conference report.

I do know, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate just adopted in the Defense appropriations bill that they are deliberating upon that no funds would be allocated or appropriated for the transfer of those detainees, by an overwhelming vote.

So I would ask the gentleman, should we expect that language, the House-passed language, to be in the conference report that would come to the floor?

I thank the gentleman.

I would just note as well that the House-passed language in the Homeland Security bill also had a provision lacking in the bill we just passed which had to do with States' ability to veto a decision to transfer detainees--something very much, I would say to the gentleman, our Members would like to see in the bill that comes to the floor next week on the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

I would just like to lastly turn to the issue of the remainder of the year and the calendar and what Members can expect as far as November is concerned.

Today is October 8. The House is scheduled to adjourn at the end of this month on October 30, and I was hoping that the gentleman could give us a better sense of the session that we will expect in November.

And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I yield back the balance of my time.