Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Bakersfield National Cemetery located in Kern County, California. The Bakersfield National Cemetery opened in July of last year and we will all be honoring veterans at the cemetery's first Memorial Day

this weekend. This cemetery will serve as a final resting place for our veterans and their family members for many years to come.

The Bakersfield National Cemetery covers more than five hundred acres and includes full-casket gravesites, pre-placed crypts, in-ground cremation sites and columbarium niches. Additionally, the grounds will include a public information center, a maintenance complex, a flag assembly area, a memorial walkway, a committal service shelter, as well as interment areas, plus irrigation and support facilities that will keep the grounds pristine as the final resting place of many of our heroes from the Central Valley of California who have served and sacrificed for our country.

It is of the utmost importance that the brave men and women who keep us safe be honored. This cemetery provides solace to the families of service personnel; for others, it will serve as a reminder of the sacrifice that patriots have made, and will continue to make, on behalf of our nation.

The Bakersfield National Cemetery is a monument not only to the sacrifice of our local veterans, but also to Kern County's unending commitment to those who serve, and the cause of freedom for all. The Bakersfield National Cemetery is a small token of appreciation for our men and women in uniform who protect the freedoms that we enjoy today, and I am honored today to recognize its first Memorial Day ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 298 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I introduced, along with my colleagues Congressman Eric Cantor, Congressman Dave Camp, Congressman Paul Ryan, and Congressman Kevin Brady, that would require the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to publish certain fiscal information on the Federal government each year and make it available to taxpayers online and when they prepare their taxes.

Just like publicly-owned companies in the United States provide information on their finances in annual shareholder reports, I believe the Federal government ought to provide important transparency about the state of our Nation's finances. Taxpayers are like shareholders of the Federal government and ought to have access to similar information on their government.

Unfortunately, statistics on Federal government tax revenue, spending, deficits, and debt are often buried in random reports or on government websites and presented in a confusing manner with technical jargon or confusing formats. Why must it be that difficult for Americans to learn about what their government is doing with their money? It should not be, and this is the purpose of the Informed Taxpayers' Federal Government Annual Reporting Act.

Specifically, this bill would require the IRS to publish a chart on government finances to be included in the instruction booklets taxpayers use when filing their income taxes each April and post this chart on the IRS online homepage. The chart would be broken down into three sections. The first section, ``Current Federal Government Finances,'' would be required to include current Federal tax revenue, spending, deficits, and public debt statistics. ``Federal Government Finances & You,'' the second section, would include per capita data, such as each taxpayer's share of the national debt. And the last section, ``Projected Federal Government Finances,'' would be required to include estimated Federal tax revenue, spending, deficits, and debt over the next ten years as put together by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO.

With enactment of the Federal government takeover of health care and the $1 trillion stimulus bill--including interest--it is all the more important for the American people to know what their government is doing and how this impacts our nation as whole. These policies have contributed to the current amount of taxes, spending, deficit, and debt, which are all in the trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, it seems in Washington that trillion has become the new billion.

The Federal government takes in over $2 trillion in tax revenue annually, but even with that incredible amount of taxpayer dollars flowing into the government, this Congress and the President continue to spend with borrowed money--$1.4 trillion last year. This means Washington spent almost $3.5 trillion. And this year, it does not look that much better with deficits projected to be $1.5 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. With all this runaway spending, the Federal debt continues to grow, and CBO projects it to be $13.2 trillion this year.

These numbers are not only shocking, but unsustainable.

The Informed Taxpayers' Federal Government Annual Reporting Act is designed to build upon fundamental tenets of American democracy of transparency and openness in government by helping ensure that all Americans have access to easy-to-understand information on how their tax dollars are being used by their government.

Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House, and we were sent here to represent people throughout America. Some are actually in the gallery, some have been marching around this building, some are sitting at home watching on TV. Or they're in their car driving back from church, and many of them have been calling this Congress. And they've been asking one thing, Why does Washington refuse to listen? They see what many on this side of the aisle see, the arrogance of Washington. We are here to represent our constituents, which is why we are asking, Why are we voting on a health care bill today that empowers government instead of the people?

Survey after survey demonstrates the great unpopularity of today's bill. Not only the substance of it, but the trickery, the deals and the shortcuts that led us to where we are today. But this bill is being pushed through because the majority in this Congress refused to listen to the people. The Speaker has even said that she believes that we have to pass this bill so people can find out what's in it. The logic here is, Washington knows better than the people.

All this at a time when Washington is borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, adding to our national debt, mortgaging our children's future. And this $2.4 trillion bill will steal even more money from our children's futures at a time when this administration and Congress are poised to run up the debt more than any other administrations combined. It doesn't have to be this way. We could have easily found a positive bipartisan agreement on commonsense health care reforms that reduce the costs, increase competition and increase access, all without raising the debt. Today is a legacy vote for Members of this people's House, and I urge my colleagues to start over and craft the bill to solve the problem.

Madam Speaker, just last week I was listening to the Speaker talk about health care. She said--and I had to actually look it up in the transcripts because I couldn't believe what I heard--Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi said, ``We have to pass it so you can see what's in it.'' Well, she was wrong then, and she is wrong now. The Democratic majority in this people's House is not listening to the people. Americans do not want this bill.

How do we know this? Well, because in my own town halls last summer, which I had in Bakersfield, California, and Paso Robles, more than 5,000 constituents turned out just to say that. And it is not just because they don't know what's in the bill. They get it. They don't like it. They don't like the political payoffs, the job-killing tax hikes, the huge cuts in Medicare; and most of all, they don't like Washington running their health care.

Maybe that's why this House Democratic majority is poised to use the parliamentary procedure to pass this bill without an actual vote. By doing this, the House majority will prove, once again, they are not listening. It's time for a new direction. Scrap the bill and start over.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a well-respected parochial school in my community. St. Francis Parish School, located in Bakersfield, California is celebrating 100 years of education this upcoming April.

The St. Francis Parish School has a unique history. Started by the Sisters of Mercy in 1910, the school consisted of two classrooms in the basement of a church. After sixteen years of various makeshift learning environments, an actual school structure was constructed, and in 1940 the St. Francis High School was created which gave the two schools a combined K-12 presence. In 1943, the Sisters of Mercy were unable to staff a high school and lower school, so they delegated the Dominican sisters of the Congregation of St. Thomas of Aquinas, Diocese of Seattle to take over the St. Francis students. The present location of St. Francis Parish School was opened in 1952, and the Dominican Sisters continued to run the school until 1978. After changing hands once more in 1978 to a different sister group, the school is presently operated by lay teachers and one Mercy Sister. It is fitting that the staff has come full circle to include this one Mercy Sister.

Today, St. Francis Parish School has a preschool through eighth grade platform that serves 586 students. The school's curriculum has grown to add computer technology, and grades 2-8 have smart boards, internet capability, and sound systems in every classroom. Growing with demand, the school has evolved to include Spanish, art, and music. Additional teachers have been added to St. Francis' staff to teach these new curriculums, and yearly textbook updates occur in every class in order to maximize the school's educating potential.

Most importantly, St. Francis Parish School pushes its students to be lifelong active leaders and responsible citizens. Every age group is required to do community service through both class service projects and quarterly school service projects. An array of community service organizations welcome the school's generosity such as the American Heart Association, the Cancer Society, Mercy Beyond Borders, the Homeless Center, Catholic Charities, Mercy Hospital, Lion's Club, SPCA, the Valley Achievement Center, Alpha Canine, and St. Faustina's. For 100 years, St. Francis Parish School has instilled high leadership, faith, and service qualities throughout its students.

St. Francis Parish School is a keystone of our educational community that measures success in its loyalty from generations of students. I thank St. Francis for its 100 years of service to the people of Bakersfield and wish them the very best in its next 100 years.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike section 6012 from the bill, which changes the liability standards for credit rating agencies that are Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, or NRSROs, when they include their ratings on the new securities offerings.

First, I'm not here to defend credit rating agencies. I am supportive of other credit rating agency reforms that the committee passed, including removing references to credit rating from Federal statutes. I think the government and the private sector should use credit ratings for what they are--predictive opinions about inherently uncertain futures.

To cut through the technical discussion about section 7 and section 11 liability related to this issue, let me just make three points. Structure dictates behavior. Increased liability may lead to agencies being hesitant to even allow their ratings on security offerings, thereby providing potential investors with less information.

This also reminds me of the health care debate and our discussion of defensive medicine. Costs go up when doctors must practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from reckless lawsuits. In the same way, if rating agencies must practice defensive ratings for fear of being sued, this would ultimately increase costs and restrict credit. Opening NRSROs to unlimited civil liability will not guarantee more accurate credit ratings. Litigating an industry to death does not solve any problems.

Additionally, the SEC is currently seeking feedback on whether to rescind Rule 436(g), with comments due December 15. I am a critic of the SEC, and I do not always agree with their actions. However, I do think making this change, which will significantly affect security offerings, should be done thoughtfully and with an eye to the impact seemingly small changes will have on information investors receive as part of new securities offerings.

The SEC has asked for comments on a variety of issues, including whether rescinding 436(g) will disrupt access to capital, make it more difficult for smaller companies to obtain a credit rating, or would have negative consequences for smaller NRSROs. These are good issues to examine at any time. They are vital issues to examine in our current economy. We should be very careful about seemingly small changes that have huge consequences.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining?

At this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

At this time, I will yield the remaining time to my good friend from Texas, Mr. Jeb Hensarling.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is my second term. Since being elected by the people of California's 22nd District, I am reminded about how much things have changed.

Three years ago on this date, unemployment was 4.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate has more than doubled to a 26-year high of 10.2. Three years ago on this date, the stock market was over 12,000. Today, the stock market has dropped by 2,000 points. Three years ago on this date the current House majority promised to drain the swamp. Today, the swamp in Washington isn't drained; it's overflowing. And 3 years ago on this date, November 7, 2006, the Democratic Party was victorious in winning control of this House.

Today, we are here on the floor to vote on a $1 trillion government takeover that can replace the health insurance that millions of Americans have. This is a defining vote for this Congress. We can reject tax increases on small business at a time when 2.8 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed into law and say yes to helping small businesses access more affordable health insurance for their employees. We can reject the government takeover of our health care that will increase health insurance costs and say yes to saving American families up to $5,000 off their current health care premiums.

I know that over the last 3 years there have been many disappointments, when the voices of Americans have been overruled by government bailouts and now a government takeover of health care, but I urge my colleagues to reject the politics of the past and fight for a better direction for our country, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3962 and a ``yes'' vote for the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3962. Specifically, I am very concerned about how the House Democratic Leadership's government takeover of health care legislation will affect the biotech industry, which has been a source of innovation and job creation in California.

Californians know very well how the burden of heavy taxes and regulations can harm small businesses and innovation, as our state economy continues to lag and continues to have an unemployment rate much higher than the national average. On top of state taxes and regulatory burdens, H.R. 3962 would only add on to the devastating burdens facing our biotech industry, through its $20 billion excise tax on medical devices and by establishing a pathway for follow-on biologics that could harm innovation and American jobs.

As one of the biotech leaders in our country, California boasts more than 2,000 biomedical companies and has created more than 271,000 jobs. The proposed excise tax, whose purpose seems to be solely to raise revenue, is a job killer and would stifle innovation. It will ultimately result in making it more difficult for millions of Americans to have access to life-saving medical devices that they need for their health and well-being.

Further, H.R. 3962 would establish a new pathway for follow-on biologics that could slow advances to new life-saving therapies, and ultimately reduce the number of American jobs. The bill does not expressly require clinical trials for follow-on biologics to be completed in the United States, which could allow for these studies to be conducted overseas. Over the past decades, many innovator biologics have demonstrated to be safe, reliable and life-changing--the product of strong clinical trials and research done by dedicated researchers here in America. As unemployment has now crossed 10 percent nationally, and is over 12 percent in California, I hope that we could continue to foster the creation of jobs and research in America.

These are some of the many concerns I have with H.R. 3962, which is why I instead support the Republican health care alternative. The alternative excludes the unnecessary and burdensome excise tax in H.R. 3962, and also includes a responsible pathway for follow-on biologics by including provisions from the Pathways for Biosimilars Act, which I am a proud cosponsor of. By passing the Republican alternative, we can ensure that the American biotech industry can continue to lead the world in innovative therapies and that the necessary research and clinical testing in the field can continue to be done domestically so we can continue to create good-paying American jobs.

Californians, and all Americans, need Washington to pass strong common-sense health care solutions. But we need solutions that strike a balance in reducing health care costs, strengthening health care access, and allowing health innovators, like our biotech industry, to continue to research and improve therapies for patients. That is why I support the Republican health care alternative--it addresses the needs of patients and ensures that we keep good-paying jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to thousands of my constituents on tele-town halls this past summer and held town halls with 5,000 constituents in August, the overwhelming and consistent message they told me was to find real solutions.

My constituents told me we need to improve health care, but H.R. 3200 is bureaucracy; it's deficit spending; it's taxes; it's intrusion into the personal health care decisions between our doctors and ourselves moved in the wrong direction.

I don't think any one of my constituents told me that Congress needs to double down on H.R. 3200, but that's what the new 1,990-page Pelosi health care bill is. It is version 2.0 in the government's taking over of the health care of Americans. It creates government bureaucracies that make health care decisions for us. It costs over $1 trillion, and it uses Medicare cuts on seniors and new taxes on Americans and small businesses to pay for them.

We want solutions that will give us the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines. We want solutions that will help people who can't get insurance because of preexisting conditions. We want solutions that don't use Medicare to pay for non-Medicare spending, and we want solutions that will control health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I know that success is measured by results. If you don't achieve results, you have to rethink your approach to make your business successful. The same cannot be said of this Congress. Bipartisan stimulus ideas to help small businesses grow jobs were ignored. Instead, a $1 trillion spending bill was crafted behind closed doors with the stated purpose to create 3.5 million jobs. The results? We now find ourselves with an unemployment rate not seen in over 25 years. In my home State of California alone, the White House predicted that 396,000 jobs would be created. Well, 336,000 jobs, and counting, have been lost. So where are the jobs?

Now in addressing health care, the Democratic majority is again crafting a bill behind closed doors. Can we expect the same lack of results? Likely. Because how do you save money for American families and small businesses by raising taxes and once again ignoring bipartisan ideas, like lawsuit abuse reform?

Our families deserve better; our small businesses deserve better; America deserves better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Liptak, a resident and community leader from Paso Robles, California, for his outstanding and exemplary leadership while serving as the 2009 President of the California Association of REALTORS'.

Jim has been a longtime successful leader in local real estate matters, reflecting immense enthusiasm, care, and commitment to his community. He has served the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS' in all levels of leadership and has served two terms as President since being named Realtor of the Year five times by his peers at the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS'.

Jim has also ably represented Paso Robles realtors and the Paso Robles community in the state and national association. He started his career in 1983 as a California Association of REALTORS' (C.A.R.) Director, winning an election for the position as a ``Write-in Candidate.'' He has since served as Chair on over 5 committees and was a 1995 Chairman of the California Association of REALTORS' Legislative Committee, where he holds the record for most bills introduced in a single session, 17. In 1998 he became the Honorary Director for Life in the California Association of REALTORS', and is the first realtor in Region 31 of the Central Coast to be named a National Association of REALTORS' Director. Since 2006, Mr. Liptak has been an Honorary Life Member by the Paso Robles Association of REALTORS', and is a ``National Ten Year Golden R'' Member-- President's Circle.

A true mark of leadership is the generosity of time and talents that one gives on behalf of his neighbors and communities. Jim Liptak exemplifies this time-honored tradition. I commend Jim for his service and leadership as President of the California Association of REALTORS' and wish him and his family well as he continues to serve our community.

I thank my friend from Florida.

As I listen to my colleague from California, I rise opposed to this rule. You cannot bring water to California when you bring another closed rule to the floor. You cannot bring debate to the floor when you don't allow amendments.

Madam Speaker, the people of the Central Valley are being crushed with record unemployment from a man-made drought, from 14 percent to over 40 percent. Plain and simple, the majority that runs this House is failing to fix this problem. Jobs are being lost because the pumps were shut off.

At a time of crisis, when there is no excuse for partisanship, some appear to be playing partisan games at the expense of people's livelihoods. Instead of coming together as Republicans, Democrats and Independents, the solution to get the water flowing sits behind post office bills and this bill that would recycle water for use in San Francisco Bay.

I ask this simple question: why are we failing to take up a needed bill to turn the pumps on to get the water flowing again? This is not a liberal, conservative or moderate issue. This is a commonsense issue.

Madam Speaker, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said the Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. Well, the pumps are off, the pipes are dry, the land is no longer able to produce, and the soil is being destroyed. How do you bring water to California with a closed rule? How do you sit on this floor and say you are bringing all these bills up for water but you deny the Valley, you deny the breadbasket and you deny the ability for the pumps to be turned on?

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I thank my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, as I sit and listen to this debate, I have many colleagues on the other side that happen to be in the majority. They not only show it in committee by the number of one on one side and fewer on the other, but they show it when the bills come to the floor.

The idea that the power of the idea would win at the end of the day doesn't happen here. They go to the Rules Committee and they deny an amendment to even come forward. They do a colloquy on the other side to talk about bills that have been brought up. I would like to see a colloquy that talked about the bills that have been denied.

I come from the Central Valley, where unemployment is double digit. Some cities have 40 percent unemployment. But I don't hear the colloquy from my friends on the other side of the aisle to talk about H.R. 3105, the Turn the Pumps on Act.

You have 200 billion gallons a year being denied to the Central Valley. The party in power shows where their desire is to go, to deny the valley the ability to grow, to deny the valley the ability to go create jobs.

I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle when we had the Rules debate of a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He once said, the Nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.

The pumps are off, the pipes are dry, the land is no longer able to produce, so the soil is being destroyed. But it does not have to stay that way. Man-made droughts can change. And what the debate today is about and what the passion you feel from this side is, it is not a partisan passion. This is a passion of Independents, a passion of Democrats and a passion of Republicans, that you allow the bills to come to the floor.

I listened to a colleague on the other side of the aisle say, well, these bills will fail. Well, bring them here. You have the power. You have the majority. Do not deny them. Do not deny the amendments. Let the people who have the power of the idea win at the end of the day.

When you talk about a bill that will produce 2.6 billion gallons a year, but you deny bills that provide 200 billion gallons this year for the Central Valley, no longer do you talk of the valley feeding the world; you talk of the valley being dry.

You look at the rallies that are being created and you look at the faces in the rallies. They are a microcosm of America, from every walk of life. They come there with one sign, ``Turn the pumps on,'' and that is our message today. That is our message with this bill, that we have the power to make the decision to get the water pumping again.

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

Reclaiming my time, I thank the majority leader for that information. And knowing from time to time we do this, in watching the colloquy that you do with our whip, Mr. Cantor, I know last week you told him not to expect the health care bill on the floor until the last week in October at the earliest.

Do you still think this is the case, the last week of October?

I thank the gentleman.

I just want to make sure I heard correctly. You will wait until the bill is scored and you will allow 72 hours for the public to also be able to view and read the bill; is that correct?

I thank the gentleman for that.

The only thing I would follow up to that and ask, knowing some of the behavior on some of the other bills and some of the concerns that people had of when they were posted--some posted at 3 o'clock in the morning when the Rules Committee filed when it came to Energy and Commerce and the cap-and-trade bill--when you count the 72 hours, would this be like business hours? Like, if it's late into the night, can we wait until the morning so people will have the ability to start the clock?

I yield to the gentleman.

I'll just ask the gentleman, knowing the size that this bill will be, one, to make sure that we have a scoring; two, the amount that the American public has been engaged in this process from the town hall meetings that many people have had and the knowledge of what they have in going forward and knowing the changes that have been talked about; but three, not from a Republican side or Democrat side, but truly, when I sat and listened to the town hall meetings, one of the frustrations they had with this House--I know people think process is wrong--is the transparency. And I applaud you for telling us the 72 hours. I would just ask the majority to be cognizant of what happens if you start the clock at 5 o'clock in the morning, you start the clock at 3 o'clock in the morning, the public has a real concern about that, and we would as well.

Gladly.

I thank the gentleman.

I do agree with the gentleman that the public has been very aware of this bill. The gentleman is saying that the majority of this bill is going to be the same as H.R. 3200, but you may change the number, and knowing that the public has----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman talks about the three committees, Ways and Means, the Energy and Commerce and the Education and Labor, and that bill that they took up was 3200. And you say there might be some other debate. Just to remind the gentleman, that bill didn't take effect, the actions within health care, until 2014, but the taxes and the Medicare cuts took effect next year. So I just want to stress the point that we have 72 hours in making sure, in business time, that people can see it.

The gentleman says it is going to change, and you have public out there, and the public has knowledge of H.R. 3200, that they can be able to see whatever changes. So very cognizant of not being someone running the clock late at night while people are sleeping, I understand time difference. I come from California. But the most open transparency we could would really be one that would bring respect back to this House.

I thank the gentleman for talking about that.

I do have another thing I would like to talk to the gentleman about. You always hear rumors. That's what's nice to have this colloquy, to try to make sure we get them, if they are right or if they are wrong. I have heard rumors during the week of a plan to attach that D.C. voting bill that we all know about to the Department of Defense appropriation conference report. That would be of concern to me because it would be showing a propensity to use our men and women in uniform to carry controversial legislation, much like a debate we had last week. So my question to you is, when do you expect this conference report to come to the floor?

And the second part would be, will it include the D.C. voting bill as rumored?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his passion and the answer, but should I take it that that is still a possibility, then?

One thing I would offer to the gentleman, the passion which you started speaking when you talked about the troops, I will never question your passion for the troops. I haven't been in this House long. This is my third year. When I come into this building, I still get goose bumps. I know we have our philosophical differences. I think they are constructive. I think debates are constructive. But the one thing I firmly believe, when we talk about the Department of Defense, when we talk about the fact that we have men and women in harm's way, we should never play politics with it.

I will make this pledge to you. When you talk Department of Defense and you talk about funding supplementals and others, I won't come here as a Republican, I will come here as an American. And the more ability that we have to not put anything within that, I would guarantee you, you would have a much greater ability to work together to make sure our men and women have whatever they need to carry out whatever mission.

Gladly.

If the gentleman from across the way in the majority would ever let me have the gavel, I will guarantee you, I could bring a lot of bills to the floor.

I would add to the gentleman, I know you know numbers. You got elected majority leader. You have more than 218. There's 178 on this side. You have the power I never had when we were here to schedule this floor at any time. You have the power to schedule this floor. You have the power to move forward. When I asked you about at the very beginning as we talk about our troops, let's make sure we have a very clean bill is the desire on this side of the aisle.

To the gentleman, I will always help you work because you explain to me each and every day, and you show us each and every day from the committee to the bill we took up today on the floor when it came up about water. You have the power of the Rules Committee. If you can guarantee me that it's an open rule when it comes to the floor and has open debate, the idea that the Founding Fathers, the idea that the dome of this Capitol, it's the second dome, when did they start building it? During the Civil War, not even knowing if this country would come together. But the idea that the power of this floor, that the idea would be able to work----

The only person who could actually put the very top together was a slave, because we bought it from the French, and they wanted more money to put the directions together. A slave sat inside and put that monument together. And that's what this body was built on.

I yield to the gentleman.

I want an open rule. Is that unfair? We just talked about transparency, sir.

And I was telling you, I will be more than glad to help you as long as it is a clean bill, that you have an open rule, the way the American public believes this floor is supposed to be run, that people could have power of the idea, could actually raise an issue and raise a debate.

I thank the gentleman for the colloquy. But the one thing I would like to lead in with is the last couple of questions. This week the House overwhelmingly voted for the Barney Frank-authored Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. I know you put out a press release about the strong message to Tehran that unless it abides by its international norms, its economic isolation will continue. On the same day we passed the Frank bill, news reports from Moscow indicated that Russia has no stomach for further sanctions against Iran.

Given your praise for the Frank bill and the fact that Russia feels unwilling to go along with new sanctions, is it your intention not to consider Chairman Howard Berman's Iran sanctions bill this year?

So should I assume by the end of October, or am I missing something?

Let me make sure I hear you correctly. The committee says, the chairman, it will pass out within the next 2 weeks approximately. And your pledge to the committee chairman was to bring it to the floor directly afterwards within that week?

I yield.

I will make this pledge: I know you asked me for help. I will help you with this bill, too.

Well, I thought that I would put that offer out there to you. When you bring it, I will be there to help you.

I thank the gentleman for his time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, according to Politico, the Speaker announced at your caucus meeting on Wednesday that she intends to have the final version of the Democrat health care bill drafted by the end of next week. My question is: Was the Speaker's statement accurate? And do we expect floor action on the health care bill in the House?

Was the Speaker correct? Do we think it is going to be brought to the floor or ready by next week?

Will the bill be drafted by next week so people on the other side could actually see it?

Well, I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Earlier this week on Monday, our Republican whip, Eric Cantor, held a bipartisan town hall on health care with Democrat Bobby Scott, both of Richmond, Virginia, showing bipartisan action. Following the town hall, the majority leader on your side told the media that he would like to meet and discuss health care reform with us, and we have expressed our willingness to meet with him. But we have not been asked by the majority leader yet.

Do you believe that we will be at any time soon, so that our leader can continue to carry on that bipartisan conversation?

I yield to the gentleman.

We look forward to that. Being one of the signatures early on in this health care discussion to a letter that the leadership on this side sent to the President saying that we were willing, able and wanting to sit down to discuss health care, we're still waiting for the President to allow us to have that discussion in a bipartisan manner.

I do believe that the work that our Republican whip, Eric Cantor, and Congressman Bobby Scott on your side of the aisle, that the bipartisanship that they showed down there was very positive. We look to your majority leader coming forward and following up and having that discussion with our leader.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to know from one standpoint early on and within here as we look across America and we look at the jobless and the idea that we want to create jobs here, many on this side of the aisle worked very hard on a stimulus bill that focused on small business, where 79 percent of all jobs are created. We wanted to focus on job creation. We presented that to the President. Unfortunately, that did not get put into the stimulus.

But the President told us that unemployment would not rise above 8.5 percent if we passed the Democrats' stimulus. Since the signing of the stimulus bill, Americans have lost another 2.5 million jobs and unemployment is now at 9.7, much higher than what the President said it would be.

Will this House bring any legislation next week to help create jobs?

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work together. And knowing that with the stimulus the President said unemployment would not go above 8.5, and now it's 9.7, and sitting on Financial Services listening to Mr. Bernanke saying that it will continue to rise, would your side of the aisle be willing to work with us so we could reprogram the money in the stimulus to actually be job creation or help pay down this national debt so our country could actually be stronger? Do you see any future ability of making that happen?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, when the President first got elected, this side of the aisle invited him to our conference and we sat down and had a discussion about which direction the stimulus bill should go. We actually had a very honest debate.

This side of the aisle wanted to focus on job creation. Our focus was about small business. That's where 79 percent of the jobs are created. And the President said, Well, why don't you write out a bill and bring out some ideas?

So a number of us worked together, a lot of hours, a lot of nights, crafting legislation. And we put this together, and we actually sat down and said, You can't just write down legislation; you need to score it. The idea is for the American people to know what this would cost and how many jobs would it create. And as we put that scoring together, do you know it created twice as many jobs with half the amount of money in the stimulus bill? And we handed that to the President. Unfortunately, it did not get into the bill. And the President said that it was more important on the time of when the stimulus bill passed, and not what was in it; he said if the bill was passed now, unemployment would not go above 8.5 percent.

Well, I don't need a CBO study to understand that's not true. It's now at 9.7. And I think the American people want us to work together to create jobs, not to sit here and somehow celebrate the idea that only 21,000 jobs were lost. We need to be able to work together and celebrate a million new jobs created. We have legislation that allows it, that focuses on small business, focuses on job creation. And I look forward that this Congress could come together.

I'm glad to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. The bipartisan vote for the stimulus bill was a ``no'' vote. A number of people on the other side of the aisle also saw that that bill would not hold us to only 8.5 percent unemployment, that there was a better way, a better idea.

The one thing I would always ask the gentleman and those on the other side, bipartisanship means the power of the idea wins at the end of the day. So when a paper is presented that shows it creates twice as many jobs with half the cost, the pride in ownership should not be there. We should allow the American people to actually win, that jobs being created is a much better place for America. And when that is presented again, which we will always gladly do, to sit here and work with you, because we want to put people before politics. We want to create an America that is strong, and we want to leave America not in debt.

So as we move forward, I would always challenge everybody on this floor: The amount of the national debt that is accumulating in this administration is unheard of, and we have to make sure, this generation that's going before us, that we leave an America better off than we were before.

I would be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, if the President only slashes it in half, it's still the highest deficit that we have ever had.

I am one who likes to look forward. I may have only been here 3 years, but the one thing I have seen, if you take the entire history since the creation of this country, there have been 44 administrations. If you just take the first 43, from George Washington to George Bush, and you add up all the amount of debt that was accumulating, and that's from the creation of this country to our battles with Britain, to World War I, to the Depression, to World War II, Katrina, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, the creation of a highway system, it is equal to the amount of debt that is going to be doubled. That is something that cannot be maintained. That is something that cannot be happening.

The way to get out of it, you have to control your spending and you have to create jobs. That's why the power of the idea needs to win at the end of the day.

So we will continue to come up with the ideas. We will continue to try to work in a bipartisan manner, and we will continue to hand them to you. But the only thing I ask of you is when you see something that would create twice as many jobs with half the cost, let's put people before politics, let's put America first, and let's move forward to the future.

It's to the end of George Bush's term.