Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who've known John for a long time and who have loved and cherished him, this is a very tragic and difficult occasion. I hope that Shelley and his boys know, in the depths of their grief, the breadth of love and respect for John that people feel tonight. His loss is tragic beyond words, but we can, for a moment, celebrate a victory over tragedy tonight that one person in 51 brief years could touch the lives and achieve the achievements that John Adler did in his life. His life was far too short, but it was rich, it was filled with laughter and achievement, and those of us who have been touched by his friendship count ourselves richer for the benefit of that. May God bless his family and rest his soul.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I think that we need to reiterate that we just had a very principled statement from the gentleman from Texas, and I think we have a chance to rise above the normal partisanship. The gentleman from Texas on the majority side just said he agrees with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional, and I would urge Members, Madam Speaker, to listen to that example of principle. We don't agree on all things, but we should all rise to honor our oath of office and to oppose this bill based purely upon constitutional grounds.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from South Carolina. Madam Speaker, there was some good news today, finally, that 214,000 Americans went to work last month. That is not nearly good enough. There is a lot more work to do. One of the ways to do that work is to come to a responsible agreement on the Federal budget. I am hopeful there will be such an agreement next week that sensibly reduces spending but protects education; that leaves to another day fights over whether to repeal health care. We believe we shouldn't; the other side believes we should. Whether or not to defund planned parenthood. We believe we shouldn't; most of the other side believes that we should. Leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning, because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even if there is a government shutdown. They pay even if they don't get the services. So what are we doing this afternoon? What we are doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that on its face is unconstitutional. And the reason we are looking at this bill is so that Members of the majority side, who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week, can say they did something. Well, doing something that is unconstitutional is wrong. As Mr. Clyburn read, article I, section 7 says: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President.'' Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says, ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'' ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'' What is wrong with this bill is that one House, our House, is determining the rules of the other House's, the Senate's, proceedings. You can't do that. It is a pretty simple concept. I have heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. I have heard all the twisted rationalizations. It comes down to this: If this afternoon the Senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority side don't like and said, if our friends on the majority side don't pass that budget in a week it becomes law, they wouldn't agree to that, because they would know that it is unconstitutional. This is the same thing. It is ironic that with great fanfare on the first week of this session, after running a campaign saying they would produce jobs, what the majority produced was a reading of the Constitution on this floor. I thought it was appropriate. I thought it was actually moving and the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceeding.'' We can't determine the rules of proceeding for the Senate. They can't determine the rules of proceeding for us. This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Would the gentleman say that people who are FBI or DEA agents are sucking money out of the Treasury that could be used for private sector jobs?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, and I thank him for his passion. I thought I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that every job created in the public sector sucks away money that could create a private sector job. Did the gentleman say that?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as the week ends, there is the welcomed news that American employers added 216,000 jobs. But this is still a night for 15 million people where they didn't get one of those jobs, and it is going to be another sleepless night, another Friday without a paycheck. And what did the majority in the House of Representatives do about that this week? Well, early in the week they took a bill to cancel out a program that helps people that are trying to keep their homes and pay their bills out of foreclosure. Then we spent a day pretending we were the District of Columbia board of education debating about how the D.C. schools should be organized. Today is going to be capped off by debating a bill that any fifth grader would understand is unconstitutional because it does not require the House and the Senate to act. There are serious discussions going on about what we ought to do in this country, but the most serious thing we ought to do is work together to create an environment so that entrepreneurs, large and small, could create jobs. Instead, what we are doing is wasting yet another week, this is week 14, yet another day, yet another session, having a fairly superficial political discussion about a bill that simply isn't constitutional and doesn't make any sense. Why don't we put on the floor a bill that reduces the deficit, cuts the subsidies to the oil companies, and puts some of the money into putting Americans back to work building clean water systems and roads and schools? Why don't we do that? At a minimum, what we are going to do today is vote for something I do support. If there is a government shutdown, and I sure hope there isn't, we shouldn't get paid either. We can agree on that. Let's put that on the floor. But, for goodness' sake, can't there come a day in this House when we actually work together on a jobs bill, instead of another week of failure?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask him if he would apply that definition to our people in the military.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I appreciate my friend. I would just, with all due respect, say it is not an instruction book; it's an owner's manual. And the owner's manual, the Constitution, says for a bill to become law, the House has to pass it and the Senate has to pass it. That is why this bill is unconstitutional.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eve Biskind Klothen for her outstanding accomplishments as Assistant Dean for Pro Bono and Public Interest Programs at Rutgers School of Law--Camden. Dean Klothen was honored by Philadelphia VIP for her contributions to the non-profit legal community on March 9, 2011. Philadelphia VIP is a regional legal organization that provides free legal services to low income clients by recruiting and training volunteer lawyers to handle pro bono cases. Dean Klothen earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and her J.D. from the Vanderbilt University School of Law. Prior to joining the staff of Rutgers, she worked in legal services in Georgia and as a federal agency fraud litigator in Washington, D.C. Dean Klothen also served as the founding director of Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent and as director of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation. Since 2002, Dean Klothen has advanced and expanded the portfolio of pro bono and public interest programs at the Rutgers School of Law-- Camden. Under her tenure, Rutgers--Camden law students and recent graduates have earned national accolades for their work in public interest law, including fellowships from Equal Justice Works, the Independence Foundation, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Her other professional activities include appointments to the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Civil Justice Advisory Committee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court. Dean Klothen is also a member, and served a year as chair of the University of Pennsylvania Law School Public Service Advisory Committee. She also serves on the boards of City Year Greater Philadelphia and MAZON: a Jewish Response to Hunger. Dean Klothen's tireless efforts on behalf of the greater Philadelphia community have not gone unrecognized. Among the variety of awards she has been presented with are the Father Robert Drinan Award for Outstanding Public Service by the AALS; the Pro Bono Coordinator of the Year Award by the National Association of Pro Bono Coordinators, the Equal Justice Award by Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, the Outstanding Service Award by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and the Excellence Award by Pennsylvania Legal Services. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Eve Biskind Klothen and thank her for her pro bono and public service accomplishments on behalf of the greater Philadelphia community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, some of the 15 million unemployed Americans no doubt got together with some of their friends this morning around a kitchen table and talked about another fruitless day of job searching, another sleepless night, another paycheckless Friday that's coming. And I wonder, Madam Speaker, what they would think about what's going on on the floor of this House today. At a time when there are 15 million Americans out of work, the House majority has decided to pretend that it is the District of Columbia Board of Education. Now, there are profound issues about the quality of schools for children in the District of Columbia. I would be guided by their elected representative, Ms. Holmes Norton, who speaks for them but tragically does not have the right to vote on their behalf. She should have that right. But beyond that, what are we doing? This is a time when Americans are struggling and suffering and losing their homes. What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans and Democrats, on this floor to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses can create jobs for the American people. We have a proposal on the floor right now that would say the following: Let's stop China from unfairly manipulating its currency that puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage. It is estimated that 1 million manufacturing jobs could be added in this country if the Chinese were made to stop their unfair practice of discriminating and manipulating currency. Now, you may think that's a good idea or a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But why don't we take a vote on that instead of how to run the District of Columbia Public Schools? That's a question that the voters of the District of Columbia should decide for themselves. What we ought to decide is to get our act together and get Americans back to work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. One of the previous speakers said that he wanted to empower the parents of the District of Columbia. I agree. I think we should empower the parents of the District of Columbia to elect a representative who has a vote in this Chamber. Why don't we start with that? The irony of the proposition that this bill is allegedly about empowerment of adults in the District of Columbia and their children comes from people who, I assume, would resist the notion that the representative of the District of Columbia should have a vote in this Chamber. And let me bring up some very recent history. Under our majority, votes in the Committee of the Whole were, in fact, accorded to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. On the first day of the new majority, it repealed her right and the rights of others from the territories to vote on matters in the Committee of the Whole. There is one issue in this bill: Taxation without representation is tyranny. Decisionmaking without representation is wrong. The duly- elected representative of the people of the District of Columbia supports this amendment and opposes this bill. So do I for that reason. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we should consider a bill reorganizing the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio, because we have just about as much prerogative to do that as we do this. Support the amendment. Defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, for at least 15 million Americans, this is another day without a job, and tomorrow will be another Friday without a paycheck. What are we doing? After 11 consecutive weeks of this majority producing not a word, not a bill, not one idea about how to create jobs, what we're doing this morning is debating whether or not to defund and get rid of National Public Radio. Now, the excuse that we've heard is that, well, this will save money. A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office says this will save zero. So what we are doing is spending the time of the country on whether to defund National Public Radio. Here is what we should do instead: With gasoline prices approaching $4 a gallon at the pump, why don't we cancel out $40 billion in giveaways to the oil industry. Why don't we take most of that money and use it to reduce the deficit, and why don't we take some of that money and use it to put Americans back to work, building clean water systems, schools, roads, research facilities, and other things that we need? Why aren't we debating that bill? Now, Members of Congress can say they disagree with that bill. They could amend it. They could vote for it or against it. Why don't we debate that bill instead of whether or not to pull the plug on National Public Radio? Eleven weeks, not one idea on jobs, not one word of debate on jobs, and abandonment of the issue Americans care most about. I am hopeful that the leader on our side of the Rules Committee will give us a chance to vote on a real bill to create jobs for the American people.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor George E. Norcross, III for his service to Cooper University Hospital and the health care community of South Jersey. Mr. Norcross, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Cooper Health System, was named the ``2011 Healthcare System Trustee of the Year'' by the New Jersey Hospital Association. A member of the Board of Trustees of the Cooper Health System since 1990, and Chairman since 2006, Mr. Norcross has brought significant improvements to the South Jersey health care community. Among his accomplishments are the expansion of the South Jersey and Camden Health Sciences Campus and the establishment of the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, which plans to open its doors in 2012. Through his strong leadership and dedication to Cooper University Hospital, Mr. Norcross has helped influence development of the surrounding neighborhoods, including new and revitalized housing, the establishment of three parks and aesthetic improvements to streets and landscaping. In addition to his work on the Board of Trustees of Cooper University Hospital, Mr. Norcross serves as Chairman of the Annual Cooper Norcross Run the Bridge, a 10k race that supports the Larc School in New Jersey, a school for children with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Norcross on his receipt of the ``2011 Healthcare System Trustee of the Year'' award and thank him for the service he has provided to Cooper University Hospital and the residents of South Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce much-needed legislation to benefit one of the most deserving groups of workers in our nation. The National Guard Technician Equity Act will go a long way toward correcting many wrongs in several outdated laws that harm the men and women who serve our country. National Guard dual-status technicians are a unique group of workers. They are civilian employees of the National Guard in all 50 states and each territory. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they also must serve in either the Air or Army National Guard. These men and women serve the National Guard in a variety of capacities, from helicopter, airplane, and tank mechanics to clerical and support workers. National Guard technicians also serve their country on the military side of their jobs--during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and on state active duty in events such as Hurricane Katrina, forest fires, and floods. The primary law that covers National Guard dual-status technicians is the Technician Act of 1968. Because of many outdated and unfair provisions in this law, technicians receive the worst of both worlds-- on the civilian and military side of their jobs. My legislation, the National Guard Technician Equity Act, will correct these injustices. First, the Technician Act requires that if a technician is no longer fit for military duty, then that person must be fired from their technician position, even if they are fully capable of performing their civilian duties. In a time in our nation with record unemployment, we should not be losing experienced, expert employees like this. My legislation would allow technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of creditable service as a dual-status technician. This not only will retain some of our best and brightest, but also will clear the way for other National Guard members to advance in the military ranks. Second, the Technician Act bars technicians from having the same appeal rights as most other federal employees--including their counterparts in other Defense Department positions. Federal employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance in the event of an adverse action (typically a long suspension or termination of their employment), and then proceed to arbitration; otherwise, they have the right to file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, a neutral federal agency. While technicians can file a grievance, they can only appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, not to any neutral third-party. My legislation will allow National Guard technicians the same right to appeal their case to a neutral party that most other federal workers have. Third, most National Guard members are able to enroll in the TRICARE Reserve Select program, a key health benefit. However, despite the requirement that National Guard dual-status technicians must join the Air or Army National Guard, they are ineligible for TRICARE or TRICARE Reserve Select. Instead, technicians can only participate in the FEHBP program. FEHBP plans are generally significantly more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select. My legislation takes the common-sense step of studying the feasibility of including National Guard technicians in the TRICARE or TRICARE Reserve Select programs. Fourth, National Guard technicians also receive the worst of both worlds--military and civilian--when it comes to retirement. The FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision to provide technicians who started work after 1996 to have ``special category'' civilian retirement. This means that they can retire somewhat earlier than most other federal workers, due to the dangerous nature of their jobs. However, technicians who were already working for the National Guard on or before 1996 were exempted from this improved retirement. My legislation will ensure all National Guard technicians--regardless of when they started work--will have the same retirement. Further, although active duty members of the military can retire after 20 years of service at any age, National Guard members, including technicians, must wait to retire until they are 60 years old for full military retirement. A provision in the FY 08 NDAA allows National Guard members to retire 3 months early for every year of service, but that provision does not go far enough. Since technicians can be fired from their civilian position if they cannot meet their military requirements, many of them depend on their civilian and military retirement if this occurs. Therefore, my legislation will ensure technicians--and all other members of the National Guard--receive a fairer military retirement by reducing the age of normal military retirement from age 60 to age 55. Finally, my legislation corrects other injustices that harm technicians and treat them differently than their civilian and/or military counterparts. They include: requiring the federal government to pay FEHBP premiums during Emergency State Active Duty; doubling the amount of military leave for all federal employees in the National Guard; giving technicians the same right during a reduction in force that other federal workers have; giving technicians the same access to enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and student loan repayment benefits that other National Guard members receive; and the right to receive overtime pay for overtime worked. National Guard dual-status technicians have waited 43 years for Congress to correct these inequities and injustices. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation that benefits the brave men and women who so proudly serve our nation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Freeholder Riletta Cream for her contributions to New Jersey as an educator and as a Camden County Freeholder. A native of Camden City, Freeholder Cream has devoted her life to improving Camden County. Freeholder Cream began her career in education, rising from teacher to principal during her 37 years in Camden County Schools. Since 1994 she has also worked as an adjunct professor at Rowan and Rutgers Universities instructing student teachers. On January 3, 1991, the Riletta Twyne Cream Family School opened its doors to the next generation of Camden's children. In 1994, Riletta Cream was appointed to the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and was re-elected three times. In her capacity as Freeholder, she served as a liaison to the Departments of Buildings and Operations and Education. She also worked to restore the Camden City Council Chambers, implement the construction of two new libraries, and install computers in every classroom in the city. Working as an Educator and Freeholder of Camden County, Riletta was a steadfast public servant. After announcing her retirement, Riletta said that her time in service has been a joy. Speaking as a former Freeholder, I share in her joy and commend her for her accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Freeholder Cream has served Camden as a passionate civic leader and am confident that her service will continue to set an example for all citizens of New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend. I want to agree with my friend from Texas that investing in transportation construction creates jobs. We agree with him. And I would ask the gentleman if he would support our Build America bill that offsets the deficit by cutting job outsources and creates more transportation construction jobs. Would he agree to put that on the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, we'll give the gentleman a chance on the previous question motion, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we began this week, there were 15 million unemployed Americans looking for this Congress to work together to try to get something done for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs. What has the Congress done? Yesterday, the majority managed, only with the help of a few dozen Democrats, to keep the government running for the next 3 weeks because they couldn't agree among themselves as to what to do with the budget. Today, they're taking up this bill that, rather than fixing a flawed program, they rip it up from the roots and throw it out. Tomorrow, they're going to pull the plug on National Public Radio. Now, I would suggest if you're like some of those 15 million Americans who are spending the day at the public library in front of Monster.com or looking at the want ads in the newspapers, wearing out your shoe leather to figure out where your next job is going to come from, this has not been a great week. Eleven weeks the majority has been in control--no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no jobs idea. Not one word, not one bill, not one minute. The priorities of this majority are wrong. Republicans and Democrats should come together, work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for the American people. Eleven weeks--no jobs, no sense of priorities. That's the record of this majority.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there are 15 million unemployed Americans as we meet this afternoon, and this is the 11th consecutive week that the majority has not brought to the floor a bill for us to work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs could create jobs for our country. Now, I do agree with the proposition that one of the ways that we could have jobs created by small businesses and entrepreneurs is to improve the country's fiscal standing and give us low long-term interest rates in the long run; and reducing our deficit is a key part of doing that. So I think the issue is not if we reduce spending; it's how we reduce spending. And I do think we should stop sending money to the Brazilian Cotton Institute. I think we shouldn't spend $1.5 billion for the Police Department in Baghdad when American cities are laying police officers off around our country. And I certainly don't think we should be giving $40 billion in subsidies to the oil companies that made $77 billion in profit last year and are raising gasoline to four or five bucks at the pump. I think those are areas we ought to agree on and get this budget done. But 11 consecutive weeks without a bill that helps small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs is 11 weeks too many. I do, however, Mr. Speaker want to compliment the majority on a good decision I think they've made in this bill. There's an argument in this country about whether to repeal the health care bill or not. We think that would be a surrender to the insurance industry and hurt the American people, and we're against that repeal. And there's an argument in this country about whether Planned Parenthood should continue to get funding for women's health services. Most of us think it should, and many on the other side think it should not. These are legitimate debates. They are not debates that should result in a shutdown of the Federal Government, however. The right thing to do is to agree on the budget and then agree to disagree on repealing the health care bill and funding for Planned Parenthood later down the road. And I would commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Rules Committee for putting on the floor this afternoon an extension that does not defund the health care bill, that leaves it in place, and an extension that does not defund Planned Parenthood, that leaves the funding for that in place. I think that's the result that we should have in the long run. I think the budget that we adopt between now and September 30 should continue to fund the health care bill, as this bill does, and should continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as this bill does. But I commend the majority for its decision to leave those issues out of this bill so that these issues are not wrapped up in this.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman. Look, there is a significant national debate about whether insurance companies should be able to deny someone health coverage because they have leukemia or diabetes. We think they shouldn't be able to do that because of preexisting conditions. Others disagree with us. We think that if a young woman needs counseling and services on her gynecological health, that there should be a Planned Parenthood clinic available to her. Others disagree with that, and we respect that debate. But to tie up the operation of the Marine Corps and the FBI and the other aspects of this government over those social policy disputes is a big mistake. It's a mistake the majority has avoided in this resolution that's before us today, and I think that's a wise choice. I hope that the majority continues to avoid that choice. Let's agree on a budget that creates the conditions to help small businesses and entrepreneurs put America back to work, and let's leave the political debates out.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady. What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans and Democrats, to cut spending, to find ways to sensibly cut spending. Many of us on the floor, for instance, 2 weeks ago voted to not send $1.5 billion to Iraq to fund their police department. Many of us voted not to spend a substantial amount of money for the Brazilian Cotton Institute. Many of us voted to say that if you make over a quarter of a million dollars a year as a farmer you shouldn't get a crop subsidy. These are areas that we agreed upon to reduce spending. Let's work to sensibly reduce spending but let's not cut education and let's not undermine jobs. By all means, let's bring to the floor a bill that says to my friend that runs the music production company, we will help train the workers that you need; that says to my friend that wishes he were a homebuilder, we will talk to these banks that have record amounts of money in their balance sheets and get them lending money again so people can buy a home; and says to our friend that's running the small biotech company, you don't have to worry that there's going to be gaping cuts in the research budget of the National Institutes of Health, we're going to fund them, and they're going to continue to pay people to be the best and the brightest and find cures to diseases, and you can hire those two more people. Ten weeks, no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no cooperation to produce an environment where small business and entrepreneurs can put America back to work. Let's put aside our differences. Let's get to work on solving the real problems of our country.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the gentlelady from Illinois who just spoke, who said what the American people want is jobs. I agree with her. And when we assess the record of the new majority on this issue, I think we have to assess that it's found very wanting. This is the 10th week of the new majority. In 10 weeks, they found a way to shut down women's health clinics by defunding Planned Parenthood. They've found a way to essentially repeal 30 years' worth of protections for our drinking water and our air and our land. They've found a way to pass a budget that cuts education, that saps strength and energy from our job creators in this country, but they haven't found one bill, 1 minute, one debate over a plan to work together to create jobs for the American people. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people want Republicans and Democrats to come together and figure out an environment that will encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs for our country. The majority has, frankly, done everything but that. And today is yet another bill that I think is a wasted opportunity in that regard. I view today's debate through the eyes of three constituents I interacted with at home this weekend. One was a gentleman who runs a music distribution company. They produce CDs for people who have written and recorded music and don't have a label yet so they can get their music out to the rest of the world. He employs 500 people, and he wants to grow. And in order to grow, he needs people who are facile with various software and other technologies that will help his company grow. He depends upon graduates from our community colleges and our 4- year colleges and universities. And he didn't understand why the majority wants to cut the maximum college scholarship under Pell Grants by $845, thereby taking employees away, conceivably, from him by taking them out of school. It's the homebuilder that I met who really can't call himself a homebuilder anymore because he's not building any homes, and he wonders what we're doing to try to restore faith and confidence to the real estate market so that Americans will feel secure and confident enough to buy a home and put him and his workers back to work. He wonders what we're doing. It was the gentleman I met yesterday who runs a biotech company that has two employees, and he depends on contracts from the National Institutes of Health to do research on various pharmaceutical products. He wants to double the size of his company, put just two more people to work, but he won't hire them as long as the threat of a government shutdown is imminent. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time on the floor.