mr. speaker , today we begin the 109th congress in earnest , and we do so by considering a bill that we do not need to act on for a problem that , in our view and in the view of many of my colleagues , simply does not exist .  we considered this bill today not in the spirit of openness and bipartisanship that should categorize the democratic debate in the house , but with a restrictive rule that did not allow us to have a debate on a key issue : whether one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon citizens of our country for their extraordinary deeds , a congressional gold medal , can be awarded to one individual or more for their collective honorable or heroic actions .  mr. speaker , if this bill passes in its current form , not only would it limit medals to two per year , but it would prevent the house of representatives and the senate from awarding medals in the future to any group of individuals for their collective heroic deeds , such as those of the hundreds of first responders that perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks .  i am puzzled why we would act to impose such limits on our own ability to recognize the accomplishments of the citizens that we are elected to represent .  and i am even more puzzled that we would fix a process that is not broken , that is bipartisan in nature , and that works remarkably well for all members .  the bipartisan process we have in place has allowed us to honor the reverend martin luther king and coretta scott king ; nancy and ronald reagan ; betty and gerald ford ; pope john paul ii ; the little rock nine ; the leaders of brown v. the board of education ; jackie robinson ; civil rights leader dorothy height ; the navajo code talkers ; general henry shelton ; charles schulz ; john cardinal o'connor , archbishop of new york ; father theodore hesburgh ; rosa parks ; nelson mandela ; mother teresa ; frank sinatra ; ruth and billy graham ; ecumenical patriarch bartholomew ; british prime minister tony blair ; and others .  but under this bill , mr. speaker , we may not be able to honor nancy and ronald reagan jointly , nor betty and gerald ford jointly , nor martin luther king and coretta scott king jointly , nor the little rock nine , nor the navajo code talkers .  and under this bill my colleague , the gentlewoman from texas ( ms. jackson-lee )  , will be prevented from honoring the fallen astronauts from the space shuttle columbia .  in the 108th congress the gentlewoman from texas worked hard to gain the requisite two-thirds cosponsorship of the house for a bill that would honor these fallen american heroes posthumously with the congressional gold medal .  it is only right that the rule of the house be honored and that her hard-won efforts be not undone by this bill .  since the majority party gained control of this house in 1995 , 20 gold medals have been enacted into law either to an individual or a group of individuals .  using the process we currently have in place , 10 gold medal bills out of 20 were sponsored by republican members , and 10 were sponsored by democratic members .  how can anyone possibly argue that the existing process does not work ?  we are fixing something that simply is not broken .  unfortunately , the bipartisan spirit that has characterized the house 's consideration of gold medals in the past has not carried over to the debate on this bill .  not only did we do not have an open rule , but today represents the first time this house is debating this issue in any form .  the committee responsible for legislation on this bill , the committee on financial services , on which i serve , has not held a single hearing on this bill , let alone a markup .  the limited debate over this bill on the house floor may culminate in the passing of a bad bill , unless my colleagues join me in voting in favor of sending this bill back to committee , where we can have a meaningful debate , and where we can determine whether limiting gold medals is truly in the interest of the public and in the interest of the house .  mr. speaker , the house has become the 109th congress on a bad note : we are considering a bill with almost no meaningful debate , and it proposes to represent a solution to a problem that simply does not exist , a problem the record shows does not exist .  does this action foretell what lies ahead in terms of the existence of bipartisanship throughout this congress ?  i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing , to vote in favor of my motion to recommit this bill back to the committee on financial services and to allow this house to take a closer look at this legislation to determine whether it really meets the interests of the american people .  