Floor Statements

Ladies and gentlemen, I rise with the extraordinarily sad and wrenching news that 12 of our people at Fort Hood have been killed today by a gunman or more and 31 others were wounded.

President Obama called the incident a horrific outburst of violence, and he went on to say these are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision to risk their lives in the service of our Nation. The President went on to say it's horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.

I know that all of us are extraordinarily saddened and shocked by this incident. Our hearts, our minds, our prayers go out to the families of all of those whose lives have been lost and our prayers for their wholeness and health go out to those who have been injured.

Now, Madam Speaker, I yield to Congressman Carter in whose district Fort Hood is located.

Madam Speaker, I join Mr. Carter in asking for this moment of silence. And as we do, we remember all of those in our Armed Forces, whether they are here in America, they are in uniform or in civilian service in the defense of our country.

Obviously, these brave souls were the objects as members of our Armed Forces. And as we rise in a moment of silence to them, we remember as well all of those brave men and women who are serving around the world to maintain peace, security, and freedom.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as the House well knows, we are contemplating the consideration of the Health Care for All Americans Act on Saturday. We will be considering the

amendments on the chemical protection bill that we are now considering tomorrow. We will consider perhaps some other suspensions as well.

My expectation is that on Saturday we will convene at 9 o'clock in the morning. I expect to have five 1-minute speeches on each side, as we usually do on Friday and the end of the week. We will then go to the rule on the health care bill, and then it is my expectation we will have consideration of the health care bill and the Republican substitute.

It is my expectation that if we proceed apace and come to a vote and disposition on that piece of legislation, that we would then adjourn Saturday at whatever hour we complete our work and that the adjournment would be to the 16th of November, the Monday of the following week.

We will convene on the 16th at 6:30 p.m. and meet through Friday of that week. It is my expectation, as I have indicated, that we would be off the following week, which is Thanksgiving week.

That's my present plan, which oft go awry, as all of us know, but that is my present plan for the balance of the month.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

That would be my expectation. Again, I want to clarify and make sure that everybody understands it is our intent to finish the health care bill, but assuming that we finish the health care bill sometime Saturday, Saturday night, or early Sunday morning, it would be my expectation there would be no further business until the 16th.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for introducing and working with the chairman on this resolution.

I rise to voice my objection to the unfair, unbalanced, and inaccurate report of the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report.

The report not only paints a distorted picture of Israel's legitimate efforts at self-defense, in my opinion, but it epitomizes the practice of singling Israel out from all other nations for condemnation.

The Goldstone Report does little to build confidence that the U.N. or its Human Rights Council can deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an evenhanded manner. I agree with those who spoke before me that it ought to, but the Goldstone Report does not give us much confidence that that's what's happening.

For one, the Human Rights Council's mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel's self- defense in Operation Cast Lead.

The report's lead author himself, Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, objected to that one-sided Band-Aid. Let me repeat that. Goldstone himself, when the commission issued its report, objected to that one-sided mandate that they issued. But notwithstanding his objection, it was not formally altered.

Similarly, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, whom many of you know, Mary Robinson, not known as a great defender of Israel, Mary Robinson, who has criticized Israel's record in the past, also objected to this one-sided mandate. In her words, and I quote Mary Robinson: ``Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel has done, and I don't think that's the human rights approach,'' said Mary Robinson.

Secretary of State Clinton agrees. She said this:

``We believe that the mandate for the Goldstone Report was one-sided and that many of the recommendations are appropriately dealt with by the institutions within Israel.''

And, indeed, if they were not, I would be here to say that we ought to support the United Nations' actions. The Goldstone Report largely neglects the context within which Israel's action took place. Why is that context so vital, and why is the report so empty without it? Because for years--for years--Israel has been the target of asymmetrical warfare for terrorists who hide behind civilians and aim to kill civilians. For 8 years before Operation Cast Lead, Hamas, aided by Iran and others, launched deadly rockets and mortar fire into Israel, even after Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, even after it withdrew its military. More than 6,000 rockets have fallen indiscriminately on southern Israel's cities and towns. I can't imagine there is one of us in this Chamber that if Canada or Mexico rained down six missiles on our civilian population--not 6,000 on our population-- that there would be a Member here who would not want decisive response to stop that assault. Each was intended to kill the maximum number of civilians. These rockets did not target military targets. They targeted civilians. How do I know? I've been there, and I have seen the effectiveness firsthand of the fear that has been put in the minds of the people of Sderot and others.

In the Israeli town of Sderot, I saw children who had lost literally the ability to speak, who no longer had control over their bodily functions, who were condemned to play in an armored playground from fear of the rockets that could kill with only seconds' warning. There is no military establishment in Sderot. Families, children. That is the context of which the Goldstone Report makes such short shrift.

Tragically, civilians in Gaza suffered and continue to suffer. They suffer in major part from the determination of their imposed leaders to pursue indiscriminate terror. I have had a discussion with my friend Mr. Kucinich, for whom I have a great deal of respect. We ought to have great empathy for the Palestinian people who have been put at great risk by their leaders pursuing terrorism. We ought to have empathy for those children who live in the camps in Gaza. Terrible condition. I've been there. Is there anybody here who doubts that if those children living there for decade after decade after decade were European children or American children or Jewish children that they would still be there in those camps? I say to you, not the case. Why are they there? Because the Arab community does not want to absorb them, and their leaders will not seek a meaningful peace. That is why they're there.

Hamas, like its state sponsors, is notorious for using men, women and children as human shields and political props. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it earlier this year, ``Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage.'' They still do. Should we have empathy for those young people and not so young people held hostage? Absolutely, we should. Should we act to help their plight? Absolutely, we should. But that does not mean we ought to rationalize terrorists who attack children in Sderot or any other place. Hamas continues to hold them hostage, likely subjecting the Goldstone Report's Palestinian witnesses to intimidation and threats, a possibility that the report does not take into account, of course.

Unlike Hamas and its sponsors, Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary, and all of us know that that judiciary frequently has said to the military and to the Israel Government, you cannot do this. You did it wrong. You're going to be held accountable. There is nothing like that in Gaza, little like that in the West Bank, although the West Bank is getting better. Its security is increasing. Abbas and Fayad are making progress. It is fully investigating its military for any--I am going back to Israel now--for any human rights violations that may have been committed in Gaza. That is appropriate. They ought to do that. Tragically, we know that when men and, indeed, women go to war, that there are those who do not always act properly on both sides. We need to hold that conduct accountable.

I believe in the integrity of Israel's investigations because I believe in its legitimacy as a democratic state, but I do not accept the legitimacy of singling out Israel for biased censure. It is essential to hold every nation to international norms of behavior in peace as well as in war. Israel must be held to the same standards as any other nation. It holds itself to such standards, I would add, even when its enemies do not. Indeed, few nations constrain themselves more than Israel, but no other nation has so many in the U.N. eager to condemn it, irrespective of facts and justification.

Soon, the U.N. General Assembly will vote on endorsing the Goldstone Report. Goldstone himself said that their report was not a fair report, but by doing so and by condemning Israel, the U.N. would also be threatening the just self-defense of any state endangered by asymmetrical warfare.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 8 a.m. for morning-hour debate. The House will then meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately. The House will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. in a joint meeting with the Senate to receive Her Excellency, Dr. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider the Expedited Card Reform for Consumer Act of 2009; H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009; and H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act.

I would expect the credit card bill to be considered as early as Wednesday; the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act to be considered as early as Wednesday or Thursday; and the Affordable Health Care Act as early as Thursday.

Will the gentleman yield before we get to next week?

I am informed that Fox News is talking a lot about this, but the fact of the matter is it was open to the public. There were public there, as a matter of fact. If the gentleman's contention is somehow this was walled off or there were people who were prohibiting people from being there in attendance at the rollout of America's health care bill, I was there. I saw nobody turned away. I saw nobody precluded from attending.

If the gentleman's contention is that every time he has a press conference he calls me up or somebody else up and says, By the way, I'm having a press conference, if you want to come by, come by, I will check my phone records and my e-mail and any other messages that I have, but the gentleman and I both know that doesn't happen.

We have been considering this bill for some period of time. I will go into that a little later. But I think the gentleman's contention that somehow he or any other Republican was precluded from being on the site at the foot of the Capitol steps is incorrect, and I reject it.

I believe, so we accurately express it, that it was open.

There are certainly, as I think I indicated in the press, three committees worked off that base. The three committees, as you know, reported somewhat different bills. Those bills have been put together and there are additions and subtractions from that bill.

But I would say to the gentleman that the overwhelming part of that bill, as I have indicated, has been online for over 3 months. There have been literally thousands of town meetings with reference to the substance of the bill--not the specific bill that was just put on the line at 10 a.m. this morning. And now there are 8 million hits on the Rules Committee Web site, downloads. So Americans are doing what we indicated we'd give them the opportunity to do--and we wanted them to do.

I'm sure you have, I don't know whether you personally have, but I'm sure your side has downloaded it as well. From that standpoint, the notice that we promised to give is being given. It is a massive bill. It is a very consequential bill. We believe it's a very important bill for every American, every American family, every American business, and for our country.

That bill is going to get and has been getting, over the last, frankly, 8 months, where we have had a large number of hearings, from 2007 to this date, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 hearings. I'm not sure of that specific number. I had it, but I can't recall it right now. There were markups on the bills, over 100 amendments presented in each committee and considered and voted upon.

So that this bill, as I said before in the colloquy last week, has had more discussion, more town meetings, has been read more extensively than any bill in the 29 years that I have been here in the House of Representatives.

So again, I would reiterate to the gentleman that this bill has received extraordinary oversight, extraordinary review, and extraordinary input from the citizens of this country and, indeed, in the markups of three committees, input from the members of the three committees.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me again express the fact that I believe this bill has received the most extensive consideration of any bill since I have been in Congress, and that hasn't always happened.

The gentleman has been here for a number of years, and he was here, I believe, on June 25, 2003. He recalls that that was a bill which was the most massive change in Medicare in over a quarter of a century. The gentleman probably recalls that bill; the prescription drug bill, referred to affectionately. I know the gentleman must clearly remember how we considered that bill. But just on the off chance he doesn't, let me remind him.

On June 25, 2003, a new version was introduced and referred to committee. Hear me. New bill, introduced, referred to committee on June 25. On June 26, at 6:20 a.m. in the morning, a rule for martial law was considered by the Rules Committee, with 3 hours of debate and a Rangel substitute permitted with 1 hour of debate. On June 26 at 6:55 p.m., debate began pursuant to House Resolution 299. Then the House proceeded with 3 hours of general debate. On 6/27--6/27--at 2:32 a.m., there was a 50-minute vote, and the bill passed 216-215 after all of about 36 hours of exposure from introduction to passage.

Now, that bill, of course, went to conference, and it came back from conference. Let me remind my friend about the timing on the conference report.

On 11/21/2003 at 1:17 a.m., the conference report was filed. At 11/ 21/2003 at 3:41 a.m., 2 hours and approximately 20 minutes later, martial-law consideration of conference report by the Rules Committee. At 11/21, the same day, 2003, at 11:26 p.m.--now this started at 1:17 a.m. in the morning--at 11:26 p.m., it passed the House, the rule. Now, at 11:36 p.m., 10 minutes later--10 minutes later--Mr. Thomas brought up the conference report for consideration. At 11/22, at 2:39 a.m., we began to vote. I am sure you remember that vote. It took 3 hours.

Now, of course, we had had this under consideration from the day before at 1:17 a.m. when the conference report was reported back. This side of the aisle won for 2 hours and 45 minutes while you spent time changing votes on your side of the aisle. You were ultimately successful.

About 2 hours and 55 minutes into that particular vote, the longest vote which I have considered, and, frankly, the longest time this was considered as a piece of legislation, you changed the votes. And it won, 211-222, at 11/22 at 5:50 a.m.

In other words, consideration of the conference report was laid on the table at 11/21/2003 for the Rules Committee consideration, and by 11/22 at 5:50 a.m., about 30 hours later, it was passed.

I tell my friend in reviewing this, this was an 800-page bill, by the way, no extensive hearings on that bill. By the way, when you had press conferences regarding that bill, none of us were invited. You know that and I know that.

I would tell me friend with all due respect, this saying that the Democrats have rolled out a bill, we rolled out a bill 4 months ago. We rolled out a bill 6 months ago. We rolled out hearings 8, 9 and 10 months ago.

Your major piece of legislation, in 25 years the most significant amendment to the Medicare Act that had passed to that period of time, you passed with less than 48 hours' notice from the Rules Committee consideration to the passage. We have said we have had months of consideration, months of debate, months of transparency on the Web. Now on the Web we are going to give you, as I promised we would, at least 72 hours notice to read that bill and to have it considered on this floor.

I knew you would be interested. That's why I wanted to do it.

I would respond to him, more time than we had to consider the prescription drug bill, the major amendment to the Medicare bill, and by a factor of months and months and months, more time to consider the substance of this bill.

I tell my friend again, and he knows this well, we have had hearings on health care reform from 2007 to this day. We have had 81 hours of committee markup. We have had over 86 hours of hearings. We had over 203 hours of caucuses on our side. I presume you have had a similar time, I am sure, paying attention to this bill that has been available to you. It's been 80 days from the time the House bill was first introduced, of which this is obviously an offshoot.

The public has been able to view the bill and extensive information about it is online the entire time. It's been 126 days since, as I said, the House discussion draft was first made available online. I think every one of us has had ample opportunity to debate the bill and offer amendments.

During the markup, 129 amendments were offered by Republicans. You act as if all of a sudden this is a brand-new day. It may be a brand- new day tomorrow, but the legislation has been under consideration for a long time.

Have we made changes? We have. Are those changes so major that your side can't consider them and analyze them

over the next 72-plus hours? Because it would be longer than 72 hours. I think the answer to that is no. You certainly have that capability and have been focusing on this very carefully. We promised the 72 hours on the bill and on any manager's amendment that might be offered subsequently, and we are going to do that.

So I tell my friend, I just don't believe that it's a fair criticism to say that a bill that has been discussed, analyzed, more public hearings than any other bill, perhaps, certainly in my career in this House, has somehow all of a sudden come as a surprise to your side of the aisle.

And what I said was that the Rules Committee has not met yet. But I think clearly there will be more debate, as there has been an extraordinary amount of debate on this bill up to this time. There will be more debate than we had available to us with respect the massive amendment and legislation that you offered with reference to Medicare. I believe that there will be sufficient time made available over the consideration of this bill for both sides to make their case.

I know the gentleman wants to somehow diminish that little tiny bill of some 800 or 900 pages that amended Medicare and created prescription drug, and I don't know whether he recalls how many amendments our side was given. I would yield to him if he recalls, but if he doesn't recall, the answer is zero.

Why? Because you had considered that bill a long time; your proposition was that we had all had an opportunity to discuss it, albeit one-tenth of one one-hundredth of the time that this piece of legislation has been under consideration, but there were no amendments from this side allowed.

But what we did have allowed was a substitute. Now, I will tell my friend, and I have said before, that your side has told me you have a bill. Somebody waved it around, as a matter of fact, on national television. I presume that hopefully you're going to get that scored. Hopefully you will give us 72 hours' notice of that. And once we get the score and the 72 hours' notice of your substitute, we will be glad to consider it.

But I will tell the gentleman that we expect the same 72 hours' notice and we expect it to be scored. And I will help the gentleman facilitate the scoring of your substitute.

Well, there is no amendment deadline. The committee has not requested amendments at this point in time.

I just indicated to you that you will recall that after you brought this massive bill, I suggest, you wanted to diminish 900 pages. Ours is longer because it deals with a broader subject, you're correct, in giving every American health care and including, by the way, expanding protections to senior citizens on the doughnut hole that was incorporated in that bill. There were no amendments offered, and my presumption is your theory was that it had been so carefully constructed that you didn't want to have amendments to that bill, but you did, in fact, allow us a substitute and we offered that substitute.

I would say to the gentleman, as I have said before, that certainly I believe you ought to have, and we are going to invite you to have, a substitute and introduce your alternative that you have been talking about now for some months. I hope that you have submitted it to CBO for scoring, and we would expect 72 hours' notice of that substitute before it's brought to the floor, as you expect us to give you 72 hours' notice of our bill and of our manager's amendment.

I think that question will be addressed.

I think that question will be addressed. The answer is yes.

As the previous issue, I think that will be addressed. As a matter of fact, there is some reference to it, as you know, in existing legislation and existing law. We have not changed that. And the answer is my presumption is that will be considered--will be addressed.

I have not discussed specifically the Rules Committee's plan on that. I would repeat that it will be addressed. Now, how it will be addressed, I don't have an answer for you specifically.

If the gentleman would yield.

As you know, that concern is shared on both sides of the aisle.

I think you sort of asked the question and then I didn't respond to it as to when we may first consider the bill itself; so let me back up from there.

I expect the manager's amendment to be available on Monday, and I expect there to be 72 hours for the body to have notice of that as well as the general public. I would expect, therefore, the earliest votes to be no earlier than Thursday, 72 hours after the manager's amendment is put online. So that may be Thursday at some point in time, but we will meet that 72-hour pledge that we have made.

As the gentleman knows, the so-called sustainable growth rate, which as you referred correctly, as we all sort of refer to it as the doc fix or compensation, as the gentleman knows, the Senate tried to pass a freestanding bill on the sustainable growth rate so that doctors do not receive a 21 percent decrease on January 1 in their Medicare reimbursement rates.

On our side of the aisle, we are strongly in favor of making sure that that cut does not occur. We think that will not serve seniors in particular, because medical personnel will be unable to serve with those compensation levels. As a result, we very much expect to have a sustainable growth rate bill pass this House.

As the gentleman knows, we have done that in years past, not related necessarily to any other health reform bill. It is an issue in and of itself that relates to existing Medicare. The health care reform bill deals with the reform and the creation of a system of affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans. The sustainable growth rate deals with the present system. We have got to deal with it, and I will tell the gentleman it's my intention that we make sure that we bring to the floor a sustainable growth rate. We've been discussing it with the Senate because the Senate tried to do it and was not successful in passing that. We want to see success. It is absolutely essential that we do that. Whether we do health care reform or not, we will do that. So I tell my friend that we are going to have that probably, probably, as a freestanding piece of legislation.

Will my friend yield on that point?

I thank my friend for yielding, because I did not mention that. We are and, as the gentleman knows, I am very concerned about the looming deficits that have been caused by the very substantial economic downturn and our necessity to respond to that under the previous administration and under this administration. We need to get a handle on that.

One of the things that we have pledged in our budget to do is to make sure that statutory PAYGO is put in place which will be an extrinsic constraint, if you will, a statutory constraint on the spending, whether it's spending in terms of entitlement spending, whether it's in terms of revenues or in terms of spending. Both have an adverse impact on deficit. So it is my expectation that when we deal with either the sustainable growth rate, the doc fix, or the estate tax or the AMT or middle class income tax reduction, we will include provisions for statutory PAYGO to be sent with that legislation to the Senate, as is consistent with the budget that we passed and that the Senate passed.

Will my friend yield?

Let me ask my friend, just so I know as we move forward, if we do not consider the health reform bill, is the gentleman in favor of moving a reimbursement for doctors provision notwithstanding that?

I thank the gentleman and look forward to his help.

Before you close, will you yield on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Those were interesting polls. Did the gentleman miss the portion of the poll that reflected which party the American public trusted more to deal with either one of those issues? I didn't hear you say it. I happened to have seen those polls and happened to have seen those numbers, and I just wondered if the gentleman had seen those numbers.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, for morning-hour debate and 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting Her Excellency Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 A.M. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m.

We'll consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009. We also will consider the conference report, H.R. 2996, on the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and also a House joint resolution making further appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes, otherwise known as a CR. The CR, as the gentleman from Virginia knows, will run out on the 31st of this month.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. We're working with the Ways and Means Committee and would like to bring to this floor in the next few weeks, at least, if not next week, a bill to deal with the estate tax issue.

Yes on both questions. We will probably have, either in the bill or by rule, we'll adopt statutory PAYGO, which we pledged to do in our budget, as you know, and it will be compliant.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman will recall, I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, the budget that we passed provided for baseline spending for four items, that is to say, that the baseline which is, essentially, the premise that I think your party has adopted with respect to tax legislation, that the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, the middle income tax cuts and the so- called ``doc fix,'' the sustainable growth rates, would be scored at baseline, which means effectively you would not pay for them.

And I would expect us to comply with that budget provision, giving those four exceptions of which the estate tax is one.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's sort of like your assumptions when we have tax bills on the floor, yes.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman, of course, knows that if we don't act on the estate tax that there will be a great cost next year. The gentleman's aware of that which will itself exacerbate the budget.

Will my friend yield again?

Given my friend's concern, would the gentleman join me in supporting and getting the votes for a statutory PAYGO on its own? I yield back.

Because of our concern about the deficit, which I share.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As you know, when the former administration was in office, we regularly passed the doc fix which, as you know, wasn't paid for. We think that's not appropriate. But we agree with you that now is not the time to raise taxes. However, we also understand that if we do not address the sustainable growth rate for doctors, that Medicare recipients won't have doctors to go to. We want to ensure that Medicare recipients do in fact have providers who can meet their medical needs.

As a result, Senator Reid, as you know, tried to pass the sustainable growth rate modification so there wouldn't be a 21 percent cut in January to doctors. Unfortunately, all of your party voted against that and 13 of my party voted against that, so it lost 47-53. But we believe that that's going to be addressed one way or another so that we assure and we intend to do that, to assure our Medicare recipients that they will not lose the services of their doctors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm not sure that we're going to have it next week, but I can assure the gentleman that we do intend to address the issue so that doctors do not confront a 21 percent cut in their Medicare reimbursements for Medicare patients, yes.

I thank the gentleman for the question. As I have said, Mr. Berman expected to mark up the bill, as is my expectation, and Mr. Berman will be marking up the bill. As the gentleman probably knows, that bill is subject to joint jurisdiction or co-jurisdiction by three other committees, the Oversight Committee, the Financial Services Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, so they will have to do their work on that bill as well.

But I do look forward to moving that bill, as the gentleman, as I've indicated in the past, and not only that, I want to say to the gentleman, I look forward to discussing it with him in the next couple of days.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have, for at least 3 weeks now, been indicating what I thought the schedule was going to be in November. As you know, a little earlier this week I modified that. As I caveated when I announced that we would be meeting the first and third weeks of November, and not the second week of November--because Veterans Day, which all of our Members want to be home with those memorializing those we have lost in the defense of freedom and celebrating those who have served in defending freedom and democracy. Our Members want to be with their fellow citizens at home accomplishing that objective, including myself and, I'm sure, yourself.

The fact is, however, I also caveated that with, if we could pass health care we may use a portion of that week. Therefore, let me make it very clear officially, if you will, that I do not expect and do not plan that we'll be here Thanksgiving week. I expect us to be here the first and third weeks, from Monday through Friday of November.

On the second week of November, which starts with the 9th of November, I want Members to make available and ask their schedulers now for Saturday the 7th, Monday the 9th and Tuesday the 10th as possible dates, possible on which we would meet. The contingency will be whether or not we can move the health care bill, which we believe is the most important piece of legislation that we'll consider, and probably both sides believe that, whatever their view of what they're going to do on that legislation, that we will consider.

And if, in fact, it's possible to pass it prior to Tuesday the 10th, then we will possibly be in on Saturday the 7th, Monday the 9th and Tuesday the 10th. On Tuesday the 10th we would meet no later than 3 p.m.

In December--I've had discussions with the majority leader in the Senate. We are of the opinion that we certainly ought to make every effort and will make every effort to be out of this session, the first session of this Congress, by Friday the 18th of December. The following week is Christmas week and we certainly, my view is, want to have people home on Christmas week. And I have no intention of meeting the following week either. We are in discussions about the first, the month of January, not just the first 2 weeks, but the month of January. I'm hopeful that fairly soon I'll be able to announce what we want to do on that.

As a matter of fact, I would be glad to have discussions with the gentleman from Virginia on that issue.

Will the gentleman yield?

We all want that. But I think anyone who has served any time in the House or the Senate knows that as you begin to wind down a session--in this case the first session of this Congress--legislation passing between the two bodies dictates your schedule more than simply arbitrarily saying we'd like to be out on this day. And as a result, we will have to see where we are as we move along.

The Interior bill I was hopeful that we would consider 2 weeks ago, it's on the schedule for this coming week. As you know, we were unable to get to agreement. We now appear to have got an agreement in the conference, and we're ready to move forward.

I don't know that I am going to get into a long, extended discussion about the substance of this bill or we could be here until late tonight.

I will tell the gentleman, however, that no one ought to be surprised, having watched this bill being considered over the last 6 to 7 months, some 70-plus hearings that have been held over the last 2 years, to know this is a very difficult subject of great magnitude of impact on the American public and the American economy. One-sixth of our economy is health care expenditures.

No one should be surprised that it's receiving a lot of discussion and attention. No one should be surprised that there are differences as to how to get from where we are--which is a system that is escalating at a very rapid rate. Family costs are increasing by probably $1,800 a year, families are being forced out of the market, and the uninsured grow. So we are trying to deal with that issue.

The fact is that in terms of the public option as has been discussed, there are a number of ways to provide an alternative assurance of coverage to individuals other than simply an exchange, which would be like the Office of Personnel Management's Federal employee health benefit exchange--which is private sector--folks competing for our business and the business of those that are employed by the Federal Government. There is a lot of discussion about that.

That discussion continues, and I will tell the gentleman that as the Speaker said and I've said, we will bring the bill to the floor when we think it's ready to come to the floor. And I've further asserted emphatically that we will give the 72-hours notice that we had indicated we would give.

I would tell you further that until such time as we've resolved what the bill is going to look like, it is impossible for CBO to give a final score.

We had pledged that we're going to be deficit free, that is to say the bill will be paid for, will not add to the deficit. The President indicated that in his speech to the joint session, and we intend to do that.

So I tell the gentleman we're having continuing discussions on not just the public option, to which the gentleman refers, and to how that will be configured, but there are other matters as well of concern to the public and to all of us.

Will the gentleman yield?

I reject the gentleman's conclusion, which I think is incorrect, the premise that the public has rejected. In fact, as the gentleman probably knows, hopefully, the polling data indicates that the support for the public option has risen since August--has risen, I tell my friend. And there are a number of different ways to get there.

The Senate has one that's on public display, has been on the Internet. The House Education and Labor Committee has one option with Ways and Means that has been on the Internet. It's been on the Internet since July. Energy and Commerce has one--a different correlation of that--and it's been on the Internet since July. There have been a lot of discussions, and I would refer my friend to the Internet, and I am sure he has copies of all of those bills.

Nothing is secret, nothing is behind closed doors.

Now, are we having discussions with ourselves about how we want to get there and with people who will vote for the bill?

The gentleman has made it very clear, I don't think your side is for a public option. We disagree on that. That is a fair disagreement. You're not for a public option, and I haven't talked to anybody on your side that's for a public option.

We disagree. We believe that the public option is an option that the public ought to have and not simply be in the sights of insurance companies who may or may not give them the price or the coverage that they could either afford or need. That's the difference. But I haven't talked to anybody on your side who wants a public option no matter how it is configured.

So very frankly, I will tell my friend that discussions with your side on a public option seem somewhat pointless.

Will the gentleman yield?

I didn't say that.

The gentleman, as he cited, we had a meeting. Am I incorrect in saying that the gentleman indicated to me he was not for a public option? Is that an accurate statement?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman misstates what I said. I said discussion regarding a public option when I had talked to nobody on your side who was for a public option.

It seems pointless, from my perspective, to talk to somebody about how a public option ought to be configured if, as you have just stated, you're not for a public option. Therefore, a discussion about a public option does in fact to me seem pointless.

Furthermore, let me say this: The gentleman was here when we--I believe you were here--when we adopted the current part D of the Medicare program. The gentleman will recall in that bill you provided for a public option. You provided for a public option to provide competition and availability of a health care prescription-drug coverage. Now, you provided it in the event that there was no private sector, or at least not more than one, available in any one segment of our society.

So I tell the gentleman, in your own bill--that I think you supported; I don't know that off the top of my head--but my presumption is you supported it or certainly the overwhelming majority of your party supported with very few Democratic votes, and that provided for an option of a public option.

I agree with that. But it did provide for an option of a public option.

I would repeat, you know exactly what the options are. As I just told you, they are online. They have been discussed. They were discussed extensively in the committee on television. Surely the gentleman would not want the Speaker or anybody else to be misunderstood as the fact that your party doesn't have discussions among yourselves as to what options you want to pursue.

If that's your representation, frankly, I tell my friend, I don't think many people are going to believe that. Are we having discussions? We are. I don't believe either you individually or anybody that I have talked to on your side of the aisle is for a public option.

We are discussing how public option ought to be configured. You don't believe there ought to be a public option, period, for the reasons you have stated. We understand that. We have a difference of opinion on that.

Now, if you are for public option on some configuration, then if you will submit that to me, I would be glad to talk to you about it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, we had hoped to do an additional appropriation bill, but the subcommittee has not yet reached agreement. As a result, I wanted to let Members know that when we finish the business that is scheduled for today, which includes the water bill that we will be considering later today after the Homeland Security bill, we will then not plan to be here on Friday. I know that disappoints all of you.

It does disappoint me because I'm very focused, and we are working very hard with the Senate to try to get the appropriations bills done individually. I'm not a fan of omnibuses. I don't think anybody here is either. But as a result of being unable to move the Interior appropriation bill, my view was that originally we had scheduled the water bill for tomorrow, but it is our belief that we can consider both of them today which would then not require Members to be here on Friday.

You can lodge your complaints to me later.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology and Roadmap Act of 2010, sponsored by Gabrielle Giffords, and H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In addition, we may consider Senate amendments to the House unemployment extension legislation, assuming that is passed by the Senate.

I certainly think it's the case not to expect it before the last week in October.

As I've indicated in the past, we intend to give 72 hours' notice of having the bill posted for the public and for Members prior to bringing it to the floor. We are still working to bring that bill to a point where CBO can give us a final score. We believe CBO is going to take probably a week to maybe a little longer than a week. So it certainly would not be before the last week in October, and it may well be the first week in November.

We will wait 72 hours until after the bill is posted. Now, I don't think I said that that necessarily will be after the scoring. But essentially, we don't think we're going to post the bill until the scoring. If, however, for some reason there was somewhat of a delay in scoring but we had the majority of it and posted the bill, the 72 hours will run from the posting of the bill.

In addition, Mr. McCarthy, what I indicated last week, and we still will hold to, if there is a manager's amendment, as there may well be, we will also assure that there is 72 hours from the posting of the manager's amendment. Now, if the manager's amendment and the bill are posted at the same time, obviously that would be the same 72 hours. If, on the other hand, the manager's amendment is posted a day or so later, then the 72 hours would run from the posting of the manager's amendment.

It is our intent to make sure that everybody has 72 hours to review whatever legislation and/or amendments will be considered on the floor.

We're not going to do 72 business hours. We're going to do 72 hours. We're going to have the full 3 days if people want to read the bill. If they want to read it at night, they can do that. If they want to read it on Saturday or Sunday, they can do that.

But it was a good try.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate what the gentleman has said; however, the gentleman, I am sure understands, the overwhelming majority of this bill will have been on the Web site since July.

The overwhelming majority of this bill, it's going to be a new bill and will have a new number, but this has been probably the most transparent, reviewed bill in the 29 years that I have been in the House of Representatives, I will tell my friend. As you know, we've been working between the House and the Senate. I've had discussions with Mr. Cantor and others on your side. We haven't reached any agreement, as the gentleman knows. I'm sorry about that. But I want to say in all honesty, I can't remember a bill in my 29 years in the House of Representatives that has had more review, more discussion, more people involved in town meetings around this country, more discussion in the media, and has been longer on the Internet for review from beginning to end than this particular piece of legislation.

So I think when we talk about transparency, this bill has probably been the most transparently considered bill that I have been involved in in my tenure here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to be accurate, and I want to characterize it as I did characterize it. Clearly, many of the proposals that came out of the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and Labor Committee will be very much alike, or similar to, what will be in the bill that is put together

from those three committees. I think that would not come as a surprise to anybody.

Will there be, as we put these together, some changes perhaps from what was in the original three bills? There may be. My point was, and I think it is valid, is that the overwhelming majority of the proposals that will ultimately end up either in the Senate or the House bill have been available to the public for a long period of time, either in the HELP bill out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee of the Senate, or in the Senate Finance Committee, of course, has been a shorter time because they have just completed their work. But it is certainly not going to be H.R. 3200; it will be an amalgam, and it will have incorporated many of the additional thoughts and comments that we've received from the public during the month of August, September and frankly since July.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I can't tell you when it will come to the floor. As you know, the Senate just passed it recently, the latter part of last week or the beginning of this week, I think, and we have not appointed conferees. So I can't give you the answer, really, to either question, because we don't have conferees appointed as it relates to the D.C. bill, as you know.

We have talked about the Defense bill. We have an Armed Forces. The Armed Forces is dedicated to the defense of freedom and the preservation of democracy. We have lost over 4,500 troops in Iraq. The people of Baghdad can elect members of their parliament today because our young men and women, and some not so young, fought, and too many died so that the people of Baghdad could elect a voting member of their parliament.

It is somewhat ironic that in the symbol of democracy around the world, that our fellow citizens, some 600,000 of them, don't have a voting representative in their parliament, the House of Representatives, the people's House. I think that's an egregious undermining of the principles for which our men and women fight, for which we stand and to which we have pledged support of our Constitution. Now whether or not that will be included in the Defense bill, it is about democracy. It is about participation. It is about respect.

I will tell my friend, I don't know whether that's going to be. I've heard some discussion about that myself. But whether it is or not, I will tell my friend that I will continue to fight as hard as I can to try to figure out how I can bring that bill to the floor, get it to a vote, and give the people of the District of Columbia, our fellow citizens, the right to vote as the citizens in Baghdad can do, the citizens in Moscow can do, the citizens in every free country in the world except the United States of America, can do. I think that's a blot on our democracy. I would hope that we would erase that blot as soon as we can in any way that we can.

I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for yielding.

Most things are possible.

Will my friend yield?

I appreciate that representation. I pose a question to my friend.

Would he help me bring the District of Columbia bill to the floor as a clean bill on the question of whether the citizens of the District of Columbia's representative ought to be able to vote as every one of us can on this floor?

That was not an answer to my question, I respectfully suggest to you. It was a serious question.

The reason the hate crime bill was on the armed services bill, which it shouldn't have been, it was because we couldn't get 60 votes to bring it up on the floor, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the Senate and the majority of the House supported that bill.

The gentleman talks, very persuasively in my view, about bringing up bills in the proper order. The problem is, very frankly, we don't have the Interior bill this week and we don't have some other bills because frankly we can't get 60 votes to consider them on the floor of the United States Senate. I think that is lamentable. It's also unfortunate.

Again, if you will yield, what I was responding to is your observation about a clean bill. My response was, would the gentleman work with me to perhaps get both of our sides to vote on a rule that provides for a clean consideration of whether or not the representative of 600,000 of our fellow citizens who live in the capital of the United States of America, the symbol of democracy throughout the world, but who do not have a voting representative, would my friend help me do that? Because I haven't been able to do it. With all that power you think I have and with the gavel that you think we have, we haven't been able to that.

Would you help me do that?

Do you know who helped build this dome? Slaves. We thought that was wrong.

My comment is a very simple question, and you wanted to have an open rule.

I'm talking about the Defense bill and your concern about D.C. vote being added to the Defense bill. My retort to you, because you wanted the Defense bill clean to deal just with the subject matter of defense. That's as I took your question. My response to you was, I think that's a good point.

Would you help me, then, do the same for the D.C. bill, which also stands for democracy, clean, not obstructed by issues which are obviously very controversial, which are not consistent with considering simply the very simple, straightforward question, do the 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia, American citizens, our neighbors, have the right as our citizens have, of having us have a vote that counts on the floor of the House of Representatives? That's all I was responding to.

I expect to consider it. The chairman has announced that he expects to consider that, not next week but the week after. I have told the chairman, as I told Mr. Cantor last week, that I expect to bring it to the floor shortly after it's passed out of committee.

He says not next week but the week after. And whenever he passes it, I will bring it out shortly thereafter. So it could either be the last of October or the very first few days of November. So in 2 or 3 weeks at the outside.

I don't know whether I made a pledge. I am very much for this. I am a cosponsor of that. I want to pass it as soon as possible.

It's been the chairman's judgment as to when to bring it up. He is going to bring it up, and I am going to bring it as soon thereafter as is practical, which I suspect to be a matter of days. But if he passes it on Thursday and if we are not scheduled to be here on a Friday, I don't know that I will schedule Friday; we may pass it Tuesday, but I expect to pass it very shortly after it passes out of committee.

This bill, frankly, with all due respect, your help would be nice, but not needed. It's the other bill I need your help on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his leadership.

I want to say particularly as I start that the distinguished chairman of this committee does America a great service. This is a critical bill for our Nation and for our men and women in uniform. There is no greater advocate of America's readiness or the quality of life of our service personnel than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on this vital bill for fiscal year 2010, which takes important steps to enhance our military readiness, our national security, and the well-being of our military families, and I might add our Federal employees, our civilian personnel as well.

I particularly want to thank Chairman Skelton, the Armed Services Committee and staff for their months of hard work to bring this legislation close to enactment. I know on the staff, this has been tough. The conference was tough.

In sum, the conference report authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs at the Department of Energy, as well as $130 billion for overseas contingency operations. It is a serious response to the real, immediate, and rapidly changing threats our Nation and our troops face.

Among its most important provisions are those that help to rebuild our Armed Forces, which are worn down after years of war.

It provides $11 billion and $2 billion to re-equip the Army and Marine Corps respectively, as well as $6.9 billion to meet equipment shortfalls in the National Guard and Reserve.

In line with President Obama's request, it also adds an additional 30,000 troops to the Army, 14,650 to the Air Force, 8,100 to the Marines, and 2,477 to the Navy. I believe these are critical provisions. We are asking our men and women to serve long tours at great risk. The trauma that they are experiencing is very substantial. The ops tempo, as we call it, is such that if we do not increase our forces, we will not be able to give the proper rest that our troops need. So I congratulate the committee for attending to that issue

It authorizes 30,000 more Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Our Nation has made the proper decision to confront those who would cause us risk. But if we are going to do so, we must properly resource our services with the proper number of personnel.

To ensure safety and dignified living standards for those troops, it commits $350 million to construct new Army training barracks and $200 million for facilities in the National Guard and Reserve.

This conference report also orients our country in the direction of the new national security strategy put forward by the Obama administration, which includes redeployment from Iraq and a commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conference report reflects those priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I have other matters that I could speak to, but I think everyone on this floor knows the importance of this bill. I note the presence on the floor of, like Mr. Skelton, one of the great leaders in supporting our Armed Forces on the floor with me, my good and dear friend Bill Young from the State of Florida, as the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Subcommittee. I want to thank him for his leadership. Mr. Young has been here, Ike, longer than either one of us has been here, and he has served his country very well. It is appropriate that he is on the floor as we consider this important bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member in this House to support this bill which supports our troops, to support this bill which authorizes the funds necessary to respond to the needs and the policies of the United States of America in protecting our citizens and our homeland from those who would undermine our security and safety, who would attack our property and persons. That's what this bill is about.

This bill has many items in it, some more controversial than others. But at heart, this bill is about our troops and about America's security. I would hope and urge every one of my colleagues, when the roll is called, to vote ``aye'' on this critically important bill for the security of the United States of America.

Mr. Skelton, I congratulate you for your leadership. You are one of America's great patriots and leaders, and I am proud to be your colleague.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009; the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010; and quite possibly, assuming the conference is completed, the conference report on H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for coming by my office and spending time in discussion.

As the gentleman knows, health care has been the focus of this Congress for much of our present session; three committees have completed their work, ongoing discussions about how to put the work product of the three individual committees together. The Senate Finance Committee is, we think, going to vote on theirs next week. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has reported out a bill. So we have five committees that have essentially completed their work. There will be, obviously, once the bills are put together and all the suggestions are incorporated, a necessity to get a score from CBO. We expect that to take at least a week, 7 days, maybe more.

In addition to that, the Speaker and I have both indicated that there will be 72 hours' notice of the bill and a manager's amendment. I want to clarify that. If they both come out at the same time, it will be one 72-hour period. If for any reason they come out separately, then we will make sure that the last issued will have 72 hours before we put the bill out on the floor.

In light of that, my expectation is certainly the bill will not be on the floor either the next week or early in the following week. The earliest, in my opinion, the bill could be on the floor would be the latter part of the second week from now.

I think that would be the earliest, as a practical matter, that we could put the bill on the floor with the notice that we have indicated we're going to give and, of course, with the CBO score.

At this point in time, these are still under discussion, and, therefore, I don't have a specific answer for the gentleman. But the Speaker's comments, I think, spoke to the fact that they are still under discussion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In terms of where the Speaker and I are, we have been consistently for, as you know, a public option. The Speaker and I continue to be for a public option, as is the President, and we believe the majority of the House is for that.

I will tell the gentleman that I think that in terms of the reimbursement rates, as I said, that's still under discussion, but I think there is consensus that a public option is something, as the President has indicated, as we have indicated, that will provide a competitive model to both bring prices down and to protect consumers. So I think the answer is that that's certainly still part of our plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have talked to Mr. Berman. He is in discussions with the White House. Both you and I are strong supporters of the legislation, as is Mr. Berman. My expectation is he has indicated that he wants to consider this bill and bring it to the floor, and I have told him that as soon as it's ready to come to the floor, I will schedule it for the floor.

In addition, I will tell the gentleman that it is possible that we will have the sanctions bill out of the Financial Services Committee. As you know, there are two different bills. The Berman bill is the stronger of the two. But we may well move next week, may move next week, on the Financial Services sanction bill, which deals with, obviously, financial transactions.

My expectation is Mr. Berman is looking at this and does hope and expect to bring this bill out either at the very latter part of a couple weeks from now or perhaps the first week in November. But I know he's very much engaged in this, and we very much support moving on this.

Of course, the conference hasn't been held so I don't want to predict what's going to be in there or not. I will tell the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, the authorization bill, the conference report that we just passed does have within it, as you know, a prohibition on the release of Guantanamo detainees in the United States, territories, and possessions. In addition, it restricts detainee transfers to the United States or its territories or possessions until 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress certifying that the detainees will pose little or no threat or risk to the United States if transferred. That language we just passed.

Now, I can't predict whether the appropriations conference will track that language or will have different language such as the language to which you just referred. But I expect there to be language on that issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I have said before, my expectation is that Members ought to be planning on at least 4-day weeks in the first week in November and the third week in November. As the gentleman knows, Veterans Day falls in the middle of the second week of November, and my belief is it's going to be very difficult to get Members back for a day and a half--and very impractical and costly--then to have to go back for Veterans Day and then probably not come back doesn't seem to be a very useful use of time.

But I have caveated that with the issue of health care. Health care is, as I said, the major issue that we're focused on. We think it's critically important for the American people to have access to affordable, quality health care, which is our objective. As a result, that second week we haven't given it away yet, but my expectation is that we probably will not be meeting that week. My expectation is also--and my plan will be--not to meet Thanksgiving week. I think people ought to be home during Thanksgiving week and, again, I make the caveat as to where we may be on health care.

Now of course if we can get unanimous consent to put it on a consent calendar and pass it, maybe we can shorten the time. But absent that, I want to make sure that we all understand that if health care, for instance, was being considered that third week and we had to move into Saturday or Monday to pass it, we might do that.

But again, I reiterate that for November, my expectation is first and third week probably here at least Tuesday through Friday of each week, and with respect to the second week, probably not here and the fourth week probably not here.

Having said that, you asked for the balance of the year.

Again, it will depend upon whether we can complete our work within those 2 months. If we can't, we will clearly be here in December. Again, as someone who has served here a long time and has seen us meet as late as December 23 or 24, I think that's not good for our families, it's not good for the Members, and I certainly am not one that looks forward to that, and I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we get our work done no later than the end of the second week of December.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday the House will not be in session. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday there are no votes expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition to the suspension bills, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, the conference report on H.R. 2997, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, and the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010.

First of all, let me say that, as far as I know, we have no premise that we want to pursue of a government takeover of health care, so notwithstanding the characterization, we don't believe that what's being proposed does that, any more than Medicare, from our perspective, was a takeover of the health care system. Having said that, we are working, as you know, as the press is reporting, on seeing what alternatives are available. There are three committee bills that have been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had full markups, Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee. As you know, they differ in part, and so there are now discussions as to how you meld those bills together with the theory and intention of offering a bill from those three bills.

We would expect the Rules Committee, at some point in time, to effect that objective, as has been done in the past. Our expectation is that we will do that within the time frame that we're able to do it; that is to say, there's not yet a resolution of how that is accomplished, so we don't have a time frame.

And we haven't set a time frame, but we will do it when it's possible to put forward.

Lastly, I would say to the gentleman, he and I talked earlier this week, as he pointed out, and I look forward to sitting down with him next week to see if there are areas where we can agree. If there are, we'd like to do that. And I think the gentleman has expressed his desire to do so as well. On the other hand, as we know, there are areas of substantial disagreement. It's certainly not our view that we can start over again. It is our view that this matter has had over 90 hearings over the last couple of years; that we've had over 2,000 town meetings on this, and we've been really at this for about over a year now, with very substantial discussions during the Presidential campaign from all candidates on both sides of the aisle, as to the fact that health care reform was necessary, and we believe the overwhelming majority of the American people believe that. Obviously, the details are the critical issue, and I look forward to pursuing discussions next week with the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield.

I do not expect a bill to be on the floor within the next 2 weeks, if that's what the gentleman's asking. I think we'll have time to have discussions.

If the gentleman would yield, because I think probably--to complete the answer--the Speaker and I are both committed to giving substantial notice, not only of the bill, when a bill is put together, but also of any manager's amendment which may effect the resolution between the three committee documents. It is our expectation that there would be at least 72 hours for either the bill and the manager's amendment or, if they are separate, 72 hours for each.

Since I made that representation, I have, in fact, met with both not only Mr. Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but also Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. As the gentleman knows, there are two sanctions bills. One is Chairman Frank's bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly last year, and provides authority to State and local governments to divest their assets from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. That is not as consequential, obviously, as Mr. Berman's bill. Mr. Berman's bill, as you know, requires any foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise assist such sales to be banned from doing business in the United States. Obviously, that has real teeth to it.

As the gentleman also knows, October 1, discussions are underway with Iran for the first time in a long time. Furthermore, significantly, the administration is working with our allies, certainly with, as the gentleman knows, with Britain and France, but also engaged with Germany as well, and with Russia and with China, members of the P-5 plus 1, essentially, members of the Security Council plus Germany, on how we might respond to what the world has viewed as a violation of the U.N. resolutions and what Iran has been doing. The gentleman and I share a view that Iran's process is unacceptable, that Iran's pursuing of nuclear armed capability, weapons capability is unacceptable and dangerous to the region and to the international community.

The administration shares that view, and therefore, with respect to Mr. Berman's resolution, we are in contact with the administration, and Mr. Berman is prepared to bring that forward at a time when, based upon whatever may occur in the next week--I don't want to put a time frame on it--a week or two, that might indicate that we could get a broader international toughening of sanctions that now exist, with the agreement, particularly of Russia. As you know, President Medvedev has made some pretty strong statements about Qom and the findings there, and what he believes to be Iran's failure to keep the world informed and concern about what Iran is doing, which was a positive sign.

But with those considerations in mind, I know that Mr. Berman is very focused on this and ready to bring a resolution to the floor at a time he believes is consistent with the administration's trying to attain, with the international community, the strongest possible sanctions internationally, as well as our own sanctions.

If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that, and I am confident that, as the gentleman points out, that we will move ahead in a bipartisan and overwhelming fashion on this bill. But I want to make it very clear: We don't have to wait for anybody. Having said that, the judgment of the chairman, in concert with the administration, is that we do want to see what developments occur in the very near term. And I think that's what I meant. Hopefully that's what I said. The gentleman's accurate; we don't have to wait, certainly for Russia or China or for anybody else, to take the action we deem to be appropriate.

As the gentleman probably knows, I have also indicated I thought General McChrystal ought to come to the Congress and testify, not only before the committees, but perhaps brief a bipartisan session. I don't mean an address to it, but a bipartisan briefing, either in the Armed Services Committee or on the floor here or in the auditorium. I think that's appropriate. As the gentleman knows, the President has been involved in very extensive consultation with the Cabinet members that deal with the national security issues, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen; General Jones, the National Security Advisor; Secretary Clinton; the Vice

President and others who are dealing with this issue.

As you know, there has been no specific request directed to the Congress at this point in time, either by General McChrystal, Secretary Gates, or the President, so that it may well be an issue of timing as to when they're ready to come to the Congress to lay out the specific plans that they believe we ought to pursue. But I think that everyone shares the conviction that this is a critical issue with which the Congress is going to deal, and that General McChrystal, who is the commander on the ground in Afghanistan, needs to come before the Congress and give us his best judgment as to how we can be successful.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And he's correct: we do have a different perspective on this. Of course, the gentleman supported economic policies in 2001 and 2003 that of course produced the worst job performance of any administration since Herbert Hoover. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the last 14 months of the Bush administration, lost an average of 680,000 jobs during the last 3 months of the administration that President Obama was faced with.

We acted decisively and boldly, in my opinion, under the President's leadership. In point of fact, we reduced the average of some 680,000 in the last 3 months of the Bush administration to, over the last 3 months, 350,000 and only 216,000 jobs lost. I say ``only.'' That relates to 741,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration. That is a half a million fewer jobs. It's not where we want to be, but it is certainly a lot better.

Many economists in our party and, frankly, in your party, Mr. Zandi we refer to, estimate that we have over a million jobs more than we would have had had we not passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There has been a 1.3 percent rise in consumer spending in August. It was the biggest increase since the 2.8 surge in October of 2001. The Labor Department released a report last week showing that during the previous week, the number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell for the third straight week, evidence that layoffs are continuing to ease at the earliest stages of the economic recovery.

Without going into a lot more statistics, we do have a substantive difference as to whether or not our economy is getting better. The good news, from my perspective, is most economists agree with us that we've bottomed out and we're starting to come up. We're going to have unemployment figures tomorrow that will be announced. Hopefully, they're down even further.

The stock market, I will tell my friend, in the Recovery and Reinvestment he thinks hasn't worked is up from about 7,200-7,300 up to about 9,700. I will tell you that every American that opens their 401(k) or retirement plan thinks that progress has been made. I know I do when I open mine. I am very pleased to see that.

So we do differ. We differ not only on the success of the economic plan that was pursued for 8 years that led to the deepest recession that we have had in 75 years.

But the gentleman stands and asked me a question about adopting more of those policies, and with all due respect, my friend, we didn't think those policies were going to work, we don't think they did work, and, in fact, the policies that your party voted against to a person in 1993 produced exactly the opposite results: high employment, low deficits; in fact, a net surplus at the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and a reduction in spending which you doubled in terms of percentage, 3.5 under the Clinton years and 7 percent under President Bush's years. So, yes, we have a difference of opinion.

We think we have pursued vigorously policies to create jobs, create economic stability, create growth in our economy, and we think it's working.