Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Madam Speaker, I plan to use the first two-thirds of my time to focus on events in the Middle East and then the final third to focus on our economy. I would invite my colleagues who wish to address these subjects to come to the floor. I can yield them a few minutes, but if I don't have any company, I'm capable of speaking for a full hour, as some of my more bored colleagues have already seen proven.

Now, even in an hour-long presentation, I am not going to be able to present all of the facts to support my position, and so I invite my colleagues to visit Brad.Sherman@mail.house.gov.

Now, focusing on the Middle East, we all want peace, we all want a sustainable cease-fire. But, instead, our televisions show us blood and carnage. Who is to blame? What do we do to cause it to stop?

Now, as to the issue of who is to blame, the press has a remarkably silly approach. They take pictures of casualties, and they decide whatever side has suffered the most casualties must be in the right. I would point out that if this is the standard we use, America has been in the wrong in every war we have fought since 1812. It is absolutely preposterous to say that whichever side suffers the greater casualties has morality on their side.

Part of this is a misreading of the just war theory that so many modern philosophers have put together, and one of its key elements is proportionality. The press, skimming rather than reading these philosophical texts, comes up with the idea that there must be proportionality of one side's casualties to the other side's casualties. A true reading of just war theory indicates that the proportionality doctrine is that there must be proportionality between the objective that the just side is seeking and the casualties which are unfortunately borne by both sides.

Well, what is the objective that Israel is seeking? First and foremost, the objective is to end a situation where 1 million Israelis every day and every night face daily attempts to kill and maim as many of them as possible. By this standard, this is a just effort by the Israeli Government to safeguard its people.

Now, Hamas has sent, since 2005, well over 6,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel. Now, I want to clarify one issue as to the number, because often you will hear a figure roughly half of 6,000. That is the correct figure for the number of rockets or for the number of mortars. But if you add together the rockets and the mortars since the year 2005, the number stands well over 6,000.

Why do we pick 2005? That is because that is the time when Israel withdrew completely, unilaterally, without concession, without compensation, from the Gaza Strip, leaving behind valuable assets, which were trampled on rather than used by Hamas extremists.

So we see some 6,000 rockets and mortars from a territory that is hardly under Israeli occupation. We are told that, well, Hamas should be regarded as morally virtuous because so few of these rockets hit their target. It is true that the vast majority of these 6,000 projectiles have failed in their attempts to kill Israeli women and children and civilians, but that doesn't mean that Hamas has good morality. It simply indicates that Hamas has bad aim or, more specifically, that they are using ordnance, which is very difficult for them to aim.

Every one of those rockets and mortars had a single objective, kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Not a single one of them was targeted at the Israeli military. So we are told, well, let us count only the casualties. Let us ignore the over 6,000 attempts at murder from Hamas. We cannot ignore those missiles. From a moral standpoint, it is just as wrong to fire a missile that fails to hit its civilian target as one that does hit its civilian target.

Now, earlier today, the House passed H. Res. 34. The vote was 95 percent in favor, 1 percent against, the remaining percent either voted present or wasn't present, 95 percent to 1 percent. Let us review some of the provisions of that resolution. I will read some, and then I will comment.

``Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;

``Whereas Hamas has been designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;

``Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with the Quartet's,'' and here we are referring to the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations, that Quartet's ``requirements that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist.''

Then it goes on to say that Hamas has launched thousands of rockets against Israel's population centers since 2001 and has launched more than 6,000 such rockets and mortars into Israel since Israel withdrew both its military and civilians from Gaza in 2005.

The resolution also states that in June, 2006, after that withdrawal, Hamas illegally crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces, and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today. The resolution then points out that Hamas is getting some very substantial support from Iran, and I will address that later, and is using innocent civilians as human shields.

Let me give one illustration of that, and that is Nizar Rayyan, perhaps one of Hamas' top 5 leaders.

He stored weapons at his home, sophisticated communications designed to act as a communications center for Hamas. So what did Israel do? They called him at his home. They told him that in order to avoid civilian casualties, they were giving him 10 or 15 minutes notice, that's enough time for people to leave the area, but that it was important to Israel to destroy those weapons, to destroy that communications equipment.

What did Mr. Rayyan do? Having boasted that he wanted to die as a martyr, he not only stayed in the house, but he kept with him several of his wives and children. That is the use of innocent human shields at its worst, a man doing everything possible to lead to the death or cause the death of his four wives, of many of his children, all so he could claim that Israel was responsible for the deaths of those civilians.

Let us continue to look at key provisions of the resolution that passed the House.

``Whereas Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks carrying humanitarian assistance . . . ''

Let me provide the specifics. Just today some 89 humanitarian shipments went from Israel to Gaza, including 2,227 tons of food, medicine, plus 315,000

liters of heavy-duty diesel so that Gaza can operate its power generation station and 143 tons of gas for domestic use. That is what Israel made sure, at risk to its own people, would reach Gaza just today.

Well, how does that compare with combatants in other wars? Look at World War I and World War II.

In each of those wars, the British Navy used its total mastery of the surface of the oceans to blockade Germany. Not a single ship of medicine was allowed to pass across the Atlantic to Germany, not a single ship of food, and, of course, prior to both World War I and World War II, Germany was a major food importer from the western hemisphere.

What did Germany do? They deployed their submarines with the stated purpose of starving the British in both World War I and World War II by sinking as many ships as possible, laden with food, purchased in the new world. So in World War I and in World War II, both combatants from the first day of the war did everything possible to stop a single ship of humanitarian assistance, to use modern nomenclature, to stop a single ship with food or medicine from reaching its destination. Compare Israel to both sides in World War II, risking its own soldiers and civilians in order to help those trucks get through.

The resolution continues with a quotation from Secretary Rice where she said, on January, 2009, January 6, hundreds of thousands of Israelis lived under daily threat of rocket attack and, frankly, no country would be willing to tolerate such a circumstance. Moreover, the people of Gaza watched as insecurity and lawlessness increased and their living conditions grew more dire because of Hamas' actions, which began with the illegal coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. A cease-fire that returns to those circumstances is unacceptable and will not last, will not last.

The U.N. Security Council, passed a resolution last night calling for a sustainable cease-fire. But a cease-fire that returns Hamas to the situation that existed in December is, in the words of our own Secretary of State, unacceptable, because it will not last. The U.N. has called not for a temporary cease-fire, but for a sustainable cease- fire.

Now, the resolution goes on in its resolved clauses to make a number of points. For example, the resolution, in subparagraph 3, ``encourages the Administration to work actively to support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure, including the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel.''

Paragraph 5 ``calls on all nations--

``(A) to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders, and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians.''

In paragraph 8, the resolution ``calls for the immediate release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been illegally held in Gaza since June 2006.'' I would point out that I, at least, believe that no cease-fire can be regarded as adequate unless it includes the return of Gilad Shalit.

So these are the provisions, and I haven't had a chance to quote them all, but these are what I think are the most important provisions of the resolution passed by this House by a vote of 95 percent to 1 percent. I want to commend Chairman Berman and Speaker Pelosi for introducing and writing this resolution, and I was proud to be one of its original cosponsors.

So let us try to review some of the elements that we see on the ground in the Middle East.

Hamas claims to be beleaguered, but it has rejected the U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution passed last night. Hamas has done everything to increase civilian casualties, including the actions of Mr. Rayyan and including the use of human shields.

Yet in spite of all of Hamas' efforts to increase civilian casualties on both sides, U.N. estimates state that over two-thirds of the Palestinian casualties have been gun-toting militant terrorists, and other estimates put that number at well over three-quarters. It is a testament to everything Israel has done, risking the lives of its own soldiers in order to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, that well over half, well over two-thirds of the Palestinian casualties, are indeed the militants, not the civilians.

When Hamas launches rockets from a neighborhood, an Israeli sergeant has seconds to decide whether to return fire. Now, there is always a comfortable pundit talking head on television in an air-conditioned studio ready to vilify that decision. But the decision has to be made in seconds by an Israeli sergeant under fire. The moral culpability for civilian casualties cannot be put at the feet of any sergeant. Moral culpability for the horrors of war lies with politicians who seek extreme and unjust ends through violent means.

While Israel seeks to live in peace alongside a Palestinian state, Hamas and its political leaders have as their clearly stated objective to kill or expel every Jew from the Middle East. Hamas proudly waives the banner of genocide and ethnic cleansing. So where do we lay the blame for the casualties that continue? I believe it is not at the feet of the sergeant who is under fire, but rather it is at the feet of the political leaders who insist upon continuing to seek such unjust and extreme ends through violent means.

Now, I have discussed this conflict as if it is a conflict between just Israel and Hamas. It is in fact a conflict of wider significance, a conflict between the government of Iran and the people and allies of the United States.

The fighting in Gaza has demonstrated Iran's ability and desire to wage war on America and its allies. Hamas is a terrorist organization seeking the destruction of Israel in favor of an Islamic Palestinian state, but it is also a proxy for the Iranian Government. As such, what we see in the Middle East is part of a regional war being waged by the Iranian regime against the United States and its allies.

Many of Hamas' weapons are made in Iran. Many top Hamas military leaders and experts who launched the missiles into Israel were trained in Iran. Iran provides the lion's share of Hamas' funding. It is unlikely that Hamas would be able to achieve its status as the premier Palestinian terrorist organization without backing from Iran.

Iran backed Hamas like Iran backed Hezbollah. It shoots rockets at Israel's civilians from deep inside their own densely populated civilian areas, knowing that any Israeli attempt to defend itself will kill or at least endanger Palestinian civilians. Through Hamas and Hezbollah and through its operatives in Iraq, Iran and its government are able to stir up crises in the Middle East, thus injuring American prestige while helping to achieve Iran's own aims.

We know that Iran is working hard to possess a nuclear bomb. With all that Iran is doing now, with all that it has done as far from its own country as blowing up the Jewish center in the city of Buenos Aires, what will Iran be like if it has nuclear weapons? It will act with impunity. We will go from crisis to crisis between the U.S. and its allies and Iran, and each time we will be staring at a hostile nuclear power.

Now, it is true that the last time we went eyeball-to-eyeball with a hostile nuclear power, namely the Soviet Union, best exemplified by the Cuban missile crisis, we lived to tell about it. But imagine going eyeball-to-eyeball with a regime that is considerably less sane than Mr. Khrushchev, and not having one Cuban missile crisis, but a crisis every time Iran decides to test us, every time it engages in international terrorism? This is a risk Americans should not take.

Finally, what happens if, as so many of us pray, this regime in Tehran feels that it is going to be swept out of power? They may decide to nuke Tel Aviv in an effort to regain popularity among those on the street in Iran, or they may decide to smuggle a weapon into the United States, feeling that if they are going to go out, they would just as soon go out with a bang. So it is unacceptable for America to sleep while the centrifuges spin at Natanz.

Now, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon is still possible if the new administration reorients our foreign policy to make that its chief objective. The good news is that the tools we have available, the diplomatic tools, the economic tools to isolate the government in Tehran, have only been

used to the extent of 1 or 2 percent. We still have a lot of tools in the tool box. The bad news is for this entire administration, even after 9/11, even after it was revealed by an Iranian dissident group all the details proving that Iran was making considerable progress to a nuclear bomb, even after all that, this administration has left most of the tools in the tool box.

I will detail some of those tools in the time that remains to me, and the rest, of course, are available for my colleagues to view at Bradsherman.house.gov.

First, we can begin the effort at economic isolation. I think incoming President-elect Obama has a strong record. He voted for the Lautenberg amendment in 2005, which unfortunately didn't pass because a majority of Senators voted against it. That amendment would simply have prevented U.S. oil companies from doing business with Iran through their foreign subsidiaries. Furthermore, then Senator Obama authored the bill in the last Congress which would have encouraged divestment from firms doing business with Iran. I hope very much that in its first days, the Obama administration comes to Congress and urges us to pass these two pieces of legislation that were so strongly supported by Senator Obama.

We then need to ask the administration, and it is an odd constitutional circumstance where we have to ask that laws be enforced, but we should ask the administration to begin enforcing the Iran Sanctions Act as the current administration and even the prior administration refused to do.

We need at the diplomatic level to demand that the World Bank stop disbursing funds to Iran in the form of concessionary loans. We basically acquiesced in the decisions of the World Bank to make those loans. Fortunately, only half the funds have been disbursed, and we must make it clear to the World Bank that our continued participation in that organization requires the immediate cessation of disbursements from the World Bank to the government of Iran.

We need to deny Nuclear Cooperation Agreements to countries that provide technologies to Iran, and by ``technologies'' I mean those technologies that help Iran develop nuclear weapons.

And we need to organize the world to hit one of Iran's Achilles heels, and that is the fact that it needs to import gasoline, because although Iran is oil rich, it does not have refinery capacity. Almost half of its gasoline needs to be imported.

As to this effort, I have the opportunity to report to the House that we have had some success. It has been reported that a major Indian refinery, RIL, has agreed to stop sending refined petroleum products to Iran. This is a success for the U.S. Government, and particularly for the Congress of the United States. Why? Because this very refinery in India was seeking funding from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, one of our major funding institutions, to fund the construction of infrastructure around the world, and we do that chiefly because it is U.S. products being used in that infrastructure. So RIL was seeking a U.S. Export- Import Bank loan or loan guarantee, and several Members of Congress joined with me in sending a letter to that institution saying that Ex- Im Bank should not provide such financing unless the refinery stopped shipping gasoline to Iran.

So I look forward to using these and other tools to convince the Iranian people and Iranian elites that their policy, the policy of their government in supporting terrorism and building nuclear weapons, is going to lead to their economic and diplomatic isolation.

I think we also owe a special debt of gratitude to the mullahs who run the Iranian Government, because their incredible corruption and inefficiency has left the Iranian economy very susceptible to these pressures, very fragile. This economy in Iran was fragile even when oil was selling for roughly $150 a barrel, and they are far more fragile now that oil is selling between $40 and $50 a barrel.

Let me review just a few of the other things that this government and this Congress can do in order to get the message across to Iranian elites and the Iranian people that they face economic and diplomatic isolation if they continue to support terrorism and develop nuclear weapons.

The first of these is to urge Americans to divest from ownership of stock in companies that are investing in the Iranian oil sector. How can we do this?

First, we need to make it clear, and this is legislation that passed the House, unfortunately, I believe it did not--I know it did not make it through the Senate, to simply tell pension plans and other trustees that they are free to divest without the risk of lawsuits from some crazy investor or beneficiary who somehow would claim that the fund could make more money if it did invest in companies doing business in Iran. We've got to make it plain that no one has a fiduciary duty to invest in terrorism.

Second, we would want to change our tax laws so that those selling stock in a company, usually a foreign oil company that is investing in the Iranian oil sector and investing in the stock of a different company, that those who engage in such a transaction are not immediately taxed. Rather, they should get to what tax professionals call a carry-over basis, and then, when they divest, when they sell the stock of the new company, the company that's doing good things, that would be the time when they would recognize their capital gain, because divestiture of companies doing business with Iran in a way so as to bolster its energy sector, divestment should not result in lawsuits. It should not result in taxation. It should result in accolades and thanks from this Congress to see that American pension plans, both public and private, and American individuals, are willing to step forward and put some economic pressure on the Iranian government.

In addition, I think that we have to examine our relationship with Russia and China with a lens of looking at how Russia and China deal with Iran. Too often these two super powers or former super powers, or future super powers, whatever term you would use for Russia and China, these two powerful countries use their seat at the U.N. Security Council to defend Iran from any meaningful sanctions.

Why do they do this?

First and foremost, they do it because they can, knowing full well that our policy toward China or Russia on the issues they care about will not be affected by what they choose to do on Iran. This failure of linkage needs to end with the end of this administration. We need a State Department and a President and a foreign policy that makes it plain to Russia that when we look at Georgia, when we look at Trans- Dniester Moldova, when we look at disputes involving the pricing of natural gas, when we look at whether we're putting missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, when we're looking at any issue important to Moscow, our first question will be what has Russia done to hinder or help the Iranian nuclear program.

Nothing illustrates this better than our plan to put missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland, justified by the current administration on the theory that we need that because Iran may have nuclear ICBMs.

Now, how crazy is this?

We anger Russia by putting the missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland. What instead we should do is agree not to build that missile defense if Russia will help us prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, which was the theoretical reason we needed the missile defense.

Keep in mind that missile defense is not going to safeguard Poland or the Czech Republic from Iranian nuclear weapons. First, it probably won't work. But even if it did, Iranian missiles are not aimed at Krakow or Prague. Iranian missiles would probably not be the mechanism that Iran would use to deliver nuclear weapons. You see, to develop an ICBM you have to be a damn good rocket scientist or actually have a bunch of damn good rocket scientists. But you do not have to be a rocket scientist to get a nuclear weapon into an American city.

A nuclear weapon is about the size of a person, and of course those sizes vary, as do nuclear weapons. But it is not that hard to smuggle something the size of a person into the United States. In fact, our efforts along the U.S./Mexican border have raised the price that smugglers charge for that

very activity from $1,000 dollars up to $1,500. That may deter some who would cross the border illegally for economic reasons. That may deter poor people from Latin America, but it obviously isn't going to deter any country with nuclear weapons.

Likewise, I could point out that we do not have a single border officer on the entire Alaska/Canadian border, not one. So if you think that oh, well, we're going to defend Los Angeles and Chicago because we have this incredible border effort, we have zero on that border. And so Iran could easily, could smuggle a weapon into Anchorage, even more easily than to smuggle one into Los Angeles or Washington or New York.

So why are we building missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland and by doing so, angering Moscow and making it more difficult for us to pass appropriate resolutions sanctioning Iran through the United Nations Security Council?

First, myopia has marked so much of the foreign policy of the current administration.

And second, a peculiar belief that by building missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland, we are somehow tying those two countries to us and continuing the Cold War against Russia.

We should be building missile defense only if we think it will work. It will not work against Iran.

And there's a second reason. Iran will choose to smuggle nuclear weapons, rather than use Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles because they will have more confidence in their ability to smuggle. Even if they have an ICBM, they're not sure it works. They're certainly not sure that it hits the target within 5 miles or within half a mile of what they're trying to achieve. They know they can smuggle a nuclear weapon to precisely the location they want right outside the security perimeter of this Capitol, right outside the front gate of the White House.

And, in addition, Iran would prefer to have plausible deniability. Why should they make it so clear that the bomb came from the Iranian government? If, instead, it is delivered by a terrorist they can always say, oh, you dare not retaliate; it wasn't our fault. So Iran would prefer plausible deniability, just as bin Ladin denied then admitted then denied responsibility for 9/11.

So we are building missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland for no reason that enhances American security and at great cost to our effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Likewise, we have made it all too clear to Beijing that our attitudes toward their currency manipulation will not be affected in the slightest by what they do with regard to Iran, particularly at the United Nations. Why would we take the Number 1 threat to our national security and tell the Chinese, we won't link it to anything you care about?

Again, this has been an ineffective foreign policy of the outgoing administration. So I look forward to a diplomatic policy that gives the highest priority to putting U.N. sanctions on Iran as long as it develops nuclear weapons and supports terror. I look forward to using all of the economic sanctions available to us. And I look forward to being able to use our broadcasting resources to inform the Iranian government and people that they face true isolation, economically and diplomatically, if they continue down the same path.

At this point, I want to move from foreign policy to our economic situation. Next week, this Congress will consider a bill amending the TARP program. TARP is the program that is known as the $700 billion bailout bill. $350 billion has been spent by this administration. The other $350 billion remains available to the next administration.

Now, that second $350 billion will not be available to the new administration until the administration makes a request and until we have a chance in a privileged resolution to vote on a resolution of disapproval. But I should point out that it would be virtually impossible for this Congress to prevent any administration making such a formal request from getting the second $350 billion. That is because any resolution of disapproval would have to pass both Houses of Congress, then sustain a presidential veto, and both Houses would have to override that veto. So the second $350 billion is likely to become available to the Executive Branch.

Before that we should strengthen the requirements for expenditure of the second $350 billion. Now, there are a variety of ways to strengthen the requirements. There are three that I have focused on most directly. Chairman Frank has focused on quite a number of other ways to strengthen the TARP program, and I agree with most of what he will be trying to do.

I should point out that I'm speaking on the basis of the outline posted on the Speaker's web page and I believe on the web page of the Financial Services Committee as well.

We do not yet have the bill's text. But from that outline, we see one major improvement focusing on one of the three issues that I have focused on, and that is a requirement that when we invest in a financial institution, we receive at least a minimum number of warrants. Now, frankly, we should be getting a lot more warrants than the minimum that would be established by Chairman Frank's legislation. But the current TARP bill has no minimum at all. So if we can raise that to a 15 percent minimum and make it plain to the Department of the Treasury that the minimum is a floor, not a ceiling, and that the taxpayers of this country deserve warrants commensurate with the risk that we are taking, then we will be in a much stronger position, because, let's face it, we're investing in the preferred stock of quite a number of these banks of different sizes, and some of those investments will fail. So if we don't make a profit on the good ones, our kids are going to be paying for an enormous increase in the Federal deficit as a result of the bad investments we have made.

The way to do this is to set 15 percent as the floor, but to expect that where substantial risks are taken, that we get warrants worth 20, 30, 40, 50, or 80 percent of the amount that the Federal Government is investing.

There is a second area that I have focused on in all of the TARP discussions, and that is my concern that we will be bailing out foreign entities, not just American entities; that this would take the form of buying bad bonds that were invested in and owned, not by U.S. entities, but by big banks in Shanghai and Riyadh and London.

Now, up until now, contrary to the plan that Secretary Paulson presented to this House, he has not spent a single penny buying bad bonds from anybody.

Of course, he told us that was the only thing he was going to use the money for. He changed his mind by the moment he passed the bill, but the new administration may, indeed, decide to buy troubled assets/bad bonds from those who invested in them. If this is the case, they should only buy such bonds if they were held by an American entity on September 20, 2008, which is the day that all of this bubbled up to the surface, the day of Secretary Paulson's original proposal.

When I say an ``American investor,'' I include as American investors those entities incorporated in the United States, or doing business in the United States, even if they are owned by foreign entities. So, if Fireman's Fund happens to be owned by an entity outside the United States, they are still very much a part of the business activity here in the United States, and if the bond was actually owned by the U.S. entity, it should be eligible for purchase under TARP. But it is a very different thing to allow what I call the China two-step.

The China two-step works like this: The Bank of Shanghai made some bad investments. You know, everybody around the world bought our bad bonds or mortgage-backed securities, whatever you want to call them. They bought some really bad bonds. Shanghai transfers those to some U.S. entity on Monday, and then the Treasury buys them on Tuesday. The China two-step.

We need to put into the statute that, before any bond is purchased, before any troubled asset is purchased, we know that it was owned by a U.S. investor, including those entities that may have foreign parents, but was owned by a U.S. investor on September 20.

The third issue that I'm concerned about and that now, I think, all of my

colleagues or our colleagues are concerned about is the issue of executive compensation and perks. Now, the outline--and I'm only working from the outline that's posted on the Web page--does say that those who receive bailout moneys cannot own or lease private jets, but it leaves it clear that they can charter the private jets. Better we should take the private jet provision out of the law entirely than we commit a fraud on the American people and say that the executives at companies which needed a bailout are not going to have private jets, and lo and behold, instead of owning jets, they charter them.

We should make it clear that chartered luxury aircraft cannot be used by those who receive bailouts, and we should provide an exception. We should provide an exception where the destination is a place very far from scheduled air service. We should focus not only on perks, but on the total compensation package.

Now, the automobile bailout bill that passed this House, but did not pass the Senate, did provide limits on bonuses paid to the executives of the bailed-out firm. What we need to make clear is that any grant of a stock option is covered whether or not called a ``bonus,'' because the creativity of the corporate world is enormous.

AIG said, when they paid millions of dollars to executives just last month, those weren't bonuses; those were retention payments. So, given the ability of some in the corporate world to say it's not a bonus just because it quacks like a bonus or walks like a bonus, you can be sure that there are those in the corporate world who think that granting a stock option is not a bonus.

Why are stock options so important? Because the stock prices of the bailed-out entities are currently trading very low. That's why they need a bailout. So, if you give an executive the right to buy thousands and thousands of shares of his company and to buy each share for today's $1 or $2 price, you are, perhaps, providing that executive with tens of millions or with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of options. It is, therefore, important that we not allow stock options to be granted or allow stock to be granted--either one--to executives at firms that receive a bailout.

Some will ask: What about those companies that took money from Paulson and didn't know that there would be tough restrictions? The answer is simple: Give us back the money. No firm should be required to live under these tough provisions if it no longer wants to hold taxpayers' money, but if they've got taxpayer money, they ought to either live under the restrictions or return it to us.

In addition to bonuses and stock options, in addition to chartered aircraft, I should point out that Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that is holding our bailout money, paid a quarter of a million dollars last year for a luxury limo for just one executive. So there are some other perks for us to limit. But in addition to perks and bonuses, we ought to look at salaries because some of these executives are getting $1 million-a-month salaries.

I think, if a company is receiving TARP funds, they should limit the total compensation package of every executive to a mere $1 million, and when I say total compensation package, that has got to count everything. That counts the salary, the bonus, the pension plan contributions, and the stock options.

Now, I'm not certain that everything I'm suggesting here will be in the bill we consider next week. My fear is that the bill will prohibit bonuses but will be a little unclear about stock options, that it will prohibit leasing the corporate jets, but will allow the companies to charter the corporate jets, and that it will put limits on bonuses but no limits on salaries.

The question then is a difficult one for those of us who were skeptical about the initial bill. Do we vote to put in some additional restrictions knowing that they are insufficient or do we vote against it? I will be analyzing that issue carefully, but I will say this:

If we pass a bill next week that imposes additional restrictions, I hope we do so to a bill that is considered under regular order. Let us mark up the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and if the amendments that I've alluded to here fail to pass the committee or the House, I'll be happy to vote for the bill knowing that these issues have at least been discussed, but if we are confronted with a bill that is a step forward but is not considered in regular order, as to which there is no markup in committee, and we are not allowed to consider amendments, substantive amendments on this floor, then it will be more difficult to support a bill even if that bill is a step forward.

If we pass a bill that strengthens the TARP program but insufficiently, I will then introduce legislation to deal with the issues that I've brought up in this speech, and we will hopefully, one way or another, pass even stronger restrictions than those that are currently outlined on the Web page of the Financial Services Committee, hopefully as part of the one bill we will consider next week, possibly as part of other legislation that will be considered before the day when we authorize or when we vote on whether to disapprove the disbursement of the second $350 billion. So I look forward to improving the TARP bill.

I think, of course, the greatest improvement is that I am far less skeptical of the incoming administration than I am of the outgoing administration, and that high skepticism of the current administration is justified by the fact that not one penny has been spent yet by Paulson to do anything that he told us that he would spend all of the money on. So a certain degree of skepticism of the current Treasury Secretary has been borne out by his remarkable departure from that which he was very clear was his promise to this House, right up until the minute when we passed the bill that he wanted.

Finally, let's take a look at the stimulus bill. I just want to comment on a few of the tax provisions. One of those that is being put forward by the administration that, I think, a number of those, including Senator Kerry, have some concerns with is the idea of providing employers with a $3,000-per-hire tax credit for each new person they hire. Let me illustrate the concern I have with this proposal.

Imagine two restaurants. One has been there for years and is desperately trying to hold on, is desperately trying to keep its 25 staff members employed. Then somebody else opens a new restaurant right across the street. It's going to hire 25 new people. Well, under the provision as I understand it--and there is no legislative language yet available; although the bill will probably be voted on within a few weeks--the new restaurant gets a huge credit. It receives $3,000 for every one of its 25 employees, thereby putting it in a position to put out of business the existing restaurant across the street.

Now, there are some tax provisions being suggested by the Transition Team that, I think, make a lot of sense. These involve giving businesses tax deductions in 2009 that they were otherwise going to reap in 2011 or in 2012 or in 2013 anyway.

The chief reason I support these provisions is they give us a lot of bang for the buck. They put a lot of money in the hands of businesses today, but when you look at the Federal deficit over the next 10 years, they increase that Federal deficit only a little bit. Why is that? Because the money we're giving these businesses today is money they're going to owe us in future years. So we're not giving them new tax deductions. We're simply letting them take the tax deductions sooner. Two provisions particularly meet this standard.

One is allowing operating loss carry-backs for 5 years rather than for 2 years by allowing those with operating loss deductions to be used now. We give money to the companies now, but we deprive the companies of those deductions in future years.

Second, what is called ``accelerated,'' sometimes called ``bonus depreciation'' where we allow small companies to write off up to $250,000 of new investment immediately rather than taking depreciation deductions over a number of years.

Another element that ought to be part of the stimulus package is aid to States and localities. There is nothing worse to do in the middle of a deep recession than to fire a bunch of police officers and a bunch of teachers.

First, that means their work is not being done; our kids aren't being educated, and at the worst possible time, our neighborhoods are less safe. Second, it has an immediate negative effect on employment and on the cash

available to consumers. So we ought to be providing enough aid to all of the States to make sure that they can, if anything, increase employment on those areas of public employment that are truly useful to their citizens.

What we may need to do also is provide some formula by which we can provide the money to local governments rather than just to the State governments. I would suggest payments to each school district based on the number of full-time students and payments to whichever entity of local government provides police protection based on the number of residents they are protecting.

I want to thank this House for giving me an hour of time to express these views. Even with all of this time, as I've said, I have not presented all of the evidence in support of these positions. That's why I hope my colleagues will visit Bradsherman.house.gov to look at the additional arguments in favor of these positions.

I yield back to the Chair.

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

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I rise in strong support of House Resolution 34, recognizing Israel's right to defend herself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel.

Madam Speaker, the conflict between Israel and violent Palestinian extremist groups is not, to paraphrase Chamberlain, a quarrel in a faraway country between people of which we know nothing. This conflict is one part of a broader struggle that we're all engaged in, a struggle between liberty and tyranny, between democracy and violent Islamic extremism, between those who love life and those who preach death.

It is a struggle Israel did not seek but one which she must, nonetheless, fight and win. For 8 years, while Israel has sought just and lasting peace and security, Hamas and other Islamic militants have launched thousands of rockets from Gaza against innocents in southern Israel. Israel, a democratic state, chose to exercise remarkable restraint.

Finally, on December 19, Hamas unilaterally broke the calm, the so- called calm, and began launching scores of rockets against Israel. Israel chose to protect itself and her people. Israel has made every effort to prevent civilian casualties and has provided significant humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians. Meanwhile, Hamas has again committed war crimes by placing its militants and its weapons in or at schools, in hospitals, in private homes, and in other civilian buildings.

How has much of the world reacted? Too many states and too many officials in the United Nations have responded by blaming Israel and only Israel. The U.N. swung into action, holding four Security Council meetings in less than 2 weeks, including last night, when it passed a resolution that did not even mention rocket attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, that did not even mention Hamas and its war crimes, and it called for an immediate cease-fire, not a sustainable cease- fire.

Sadly, these officials do not recognize that only Israel would consider itself bound by such an agreement. Hamas would continue to pursue Israel's destruction, and such a devil's bargain without holding Hamas and its state sponsors of terror accountable will only embolden these Islamic extremists to intensify their destructive agenda.

The desire to stop all violence now is understandable. We all desire peace. We all regret the loss of innocent lives on both sides of the conflict, but as the ancient rabbis have stated, those who are merciful to the cruel, as the U.N. has been, will end up being cruel to the merciful, in this case, Israel.

The right way forward is not easy; it is not pleasant, but upon it rests the security of the Israelis, of the Palestinians, of the Americans, and of all freedom-loving people.

The following is my full statement for the Record: Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 34, recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States's strong support for Israel.

Madam Speaker, the conflict between Israel and violent Palestinian extremist groups is not, to paraphrase former British leader Neville Chamberlain, a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of which we know nothing.

On the contrary, this conflict is one part of a broader struggle that we are all engaged in--a struggle between liberty and tyranny; between democracy and violent Islamist extremism; between those who love life and those who preach death.

It is a struggle which the United States and Israel did not seek, but which we must, nonetheless, fight and win.

On the outcome, rests our freedom, our security, and our very existence.

Today, this House sends a strong and unequivocal signal that America stands with Israel in its fight to exist.

To some of the ``high-minded'' who feel comfortably removed from this struggle, such language is old-fashioned, or out of style, or undiplomatic.

In the United States, Madam Speaker, we prefer to call it the truth.

For 8 years, while Israel has sought just and lasting peace and security, Hamas and other Islamist militants have launched over 8,000 rockets from Gaza against innocents in southern Israel.

Even after Israel took the risk of withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, Hamas rejected peace and chose to use its new sanctuary to plan and carry out more attacks against the Jewish state and its people.

Six months ago, Hamas agreed to a so-called state of ``calm,'' then proceeded to break it repeatedly by using other groups to do its dirty work and fire rockets.

Israel, a democratic state, chose to exercise remarkable restraint.

Finally, on December 19, Hamas unilaterally broke the ``calm'' and began launching scores of rockets into Israel.

Israel chose to protect its people and defend itself.

Hamas and its fellow violent hate-mongers do not seek a few more square miles of land. They do not seek a Palestinian state.

They seek to destroy Israel, impose an Islamist dictatorship in its place, and fight on throughout the world.

Such an outcome is unacceptable to Israel.

It is unacceptable to the United States.

It must be unacceptable to all other responsible nations--because in a compromise between good and evil, only evil benefits.

Israel has made every effort to prevent civilian casualties, and has provided significant humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians.

Meanwhile, Hamas has again committed war crimes by placing its militants and weapons, in or near schools, hospitals, private homes, and other civilian buildings.

In the real world, Hamas's use of civilians as human shields would provoke international condemnation and action to stop this menace.

But how has much of the world reacted?

Too many states, and too many officials at the United Nations, have responded by blaming Israel and only Israel.

Let us remember that in the months and years before Israel started its defensive operation on December 27, the U.N. did not make any meaningful effort to stop the relentless attacks by Hamas or diminish the threat posed by its state sponsors.

But once Israel rose to protect its citizens, the U.N. swung into action, holding four Security Council meetings in less than two weeks, including last night, when it passed a resolution--that did not even mention rocket attacks against Israeli civilians; that did not even mention Hamas and its war crimes; and that called for an immediate ceasefire, not a sustainable ceasefire.

This Security Council resolution and other developments throughout the U.N. system, reflect the short-sightedness and bias that pervade that body.

The so-called President of the U.N. General Assembly called Israel's behavior a ``monstrosity,'' and the Secretary-General called for an immediate cease-fire.

Sadly, they do not recognize: that only Israel would consider itself bound by such an agreement; that Hamas would continue to pursue Israel's destruction; and that such a devil's bargain without holding Hamas and its state-sponsors accountable would only embolden these Islamist extremists to intensify their destructive agenda.

The desire to stop all violence now is understandable.

We all desire peace and regret the loss of innocent lives on both sides of the conflict.

But as the ancient rabbis stated, those who are merciful to the cruel (as the U.N. has been) will end up being cruel to the merciful (in this case, Israel).

If the U.N. wants to regain its credibility, it should advance peace and security by moving to compel Hamas and their state sponsors to: immediately stop their attacks, shut down their militant infrastructure, and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Madam Speaker, we've been here before.

In 2006, the violent extremist group Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers and fired rockets relentlessly against northern Israel.

In response, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire between Israel and the violent extremist group Hezbollah, which would supposedly strengthen the ability of a U.N. force in Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.

In the last 2\1/2\ years, Israel has held up its end of the deal, while a legitimized Hezbollah has rapidly re-armed under the U.N.'s nose and has, along with its state-sponsors Iran and Syria, increased its control in Lebanon.

As a result, U.S. interests in the region have been damaged.

If we act the same way this time, we will get the same result or worse, and we are running out of second chances. Not again, Madam Speaker.

We must support Israel's right to defend itself by rooting out the Islamist militant infrastructure in Gaza and by ending--not reducing, not postponing, but ending--the threat Hamas poses to Israel's existence; to regional stability; and to global peace and security.

Then, and only then, Madam Speaker, can a ceasefire work.

Consistent with the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, we should also tighten U.S. and international sanctions against Hamas.

Additionally, the U.S. and our allies must seek to stop Iran and Syria from providing financial and other support to Hamas and other violent Islamist extremist groups.

The right way forward is not easy or pleasant, but upon it rests the security of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and all other peoples.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas who says, ``That's just the way it is,'' Judge Poe.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our distinguished Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our distinguished Republican Conference chairman.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make five simple points that get to the heart of what is happening right now.

First, Israel is a democratic Jewish state that respects human rights and desires peace with its neighbors, innocent civilians, innocent Palestinians included. The jihadists in Gaza continue to terrify thousands of innocent Israelis with their attack, while Israel continues to facilitate the transfer of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Second, Hamas is a hate filled, violent, Islamic militant group that is backed by Iran and Syria regimes and seeks Israel's destruction.

Third, like any sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend herself, her existence and to protect her citizens from attack, whether by Hamas or Hezbollah or other radical Islamists.

I have been to Sderot, and I have watched as air raid warnings forced the entire population, including children, to hide from an incoming attack.

Fourth, the actions and aims of violent Islamist extremists and their state sponsors is not just a threat to the Middle East peace and security, but to global peace and security. Today it's Hamas, tomorrow Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and so on.

Fifth, the U.S. and Israel are in this together. We have a saying in Spanish about close alliances that describes the U.S. and Israel friendship perfectly, we are two wings of one bird.

We depend on each other for our security and our existence. America and Israel are engaged in a broader conflict throughout the world, a struggle between liberty and tyranny, between those who love life and those who preach death. We did not seek this struggle, but we must win it.

As we stand at this important day in our living history, let us remember the consequences of inaction in the face of evil. For many years, responsible nations turned the other way, refused to accept the reality of what Israel was subjected to.

But no responsible nation could stand by and allow such attacks to continue, allow thousands and hundreds of its people to continue to live in constant fear of being murdered at any moment. No responsible nation could defer its security of its people to entrenched bureaucrats, the European Union, the United Nations, who constantly chastise Israel for taking all necessary actions to protect her own people.

Despite the U.N.'s rhetoric, there is no moral or legal equivalent between militant Islamic extremists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting them. This false moral equivalence only persuades militants to persist in the unlawful action against civilians.

So, Madam Speaker, I hope that the House will carefully consider this resolution, will look at the actual language of the United Nations' resolution that points no finger at Hamas and its violent action and only points its finger at the democratic State of Israel. It's an unbalanced resolution. The United States was correct in not voting in favor of it.

Israel must not abide by it. We all want peace, but Israel wants peace with security as well.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 12) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed to end the discriminatory practices of paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that women and men should be paid based upon their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.

Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace earned 59 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Things have gotten better since the passage of the act, but we still see that women earn only 78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.

It is also very disturbing that African American women earn only 66 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts in the workplace. This wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages, and it will follow them right into retirement in the form of smaller pensions and reduced Social Security benefits. It will make their health care even more expensive.

Today, this House will take a critical step forward to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise. Over 12 years ago, our colleague, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. In those 12 years, she was unable to get a hearing in this Congress. But she has now received a hearing, and later today she will receive passage of this legislation that will greatly strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.

Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he or she provides the difference of pay is based upon any factor other than gender, even factors unrelated to the job. That is just unacceptable. An excuse for equal pay that is not related to the job is no excuse at all. H.R. 12 will ensure that employers either provide equal pay for equal work, or provide a real business justification for not doing so. They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job- related, not based on or derived from gender-based differential and is consistent with business necessity.

H.R. 12 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay. Many employers have policies forbidding employees from talking about their pay. This was the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the subject of the previous legislation that we just considered here this morning.

For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be allowed to do that.

Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them.

The bill will also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and workers may do under section 1981 for race and national origin discrimination.

If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under the current law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates a program designed to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Any pay gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough economic times. Single women who are head of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single men.

For families, especially those working under or near the poverty line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in their economic well-being.

Allowing wage discrimination to continue will hold down women and their families while further harming the American economy.

And, again, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her passionate advocacy of this legislation and her introduction of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a member of the committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds here just to say that I am about to recognize, to speak on this legislation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. I think all of us in the House, whether we agree or disagree with this legislation, recognize the incredible advocacy that she has brought to this issue of equal pay for equal work, of paycheck fairness, of women's rights at work, and the protection of low-income American families throughout her entire career in the Congress.

As I had mentioned earlier in this debate, she introduced this legislation some 12 years ago and has been unable to get a hearing on the legislation. We provided that hearing, and I think it

was compelling to almost all of the members of the committee that this wage disparity and these actions could not continue and deny women their full opportunity to participate in the American economy on equal footing.

So it's with a lot of pride and a great sense of honor just to recognize her to speak on behalf of this legislation which she has introduced and she is the primary author of.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this motion is a little bit unbelievable in the sense that it suggests that we should be setting the attorneys' fees, even though the amount that the gentleman is asking us to set far exceeds what would be ordinary hourly wages fees in these kinds of cases across the Nation. At the same time, it makes no differentiation for geography, complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or even the number of firms that may be. We don't know if this applies to all of the attorneys in the case with multiple plaintiffs; whether this applies across the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm are on a single case if it's a complicated case and, in many cases, these are very complicated cases because they go in to business practices that are disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of equal pay.

I find it rather interesting that the supporters of this amendment across the aisle all stood up and talked about how they support the idea of equal pay, how they want their daughters and their granddaughters to be treated equally, how they want to make sure that they're treated fairly in the workplace and they really support the concept; they just don't support this bill which would make that the law.

But then what did they decide to do? They decided when those granddaughters aren't treated fairly in the workplace, they will discriminate against them in an ability to have an attorney. They will discriminate against them because they will say that their attorneys' fees are going to be capped according to this law, as opposed to letting the judge and the Court work out what are reasonable fees in that court case.

Why do they discriminate against them? The gentleman is jumping to his feet. Because there's no cap on the attorneys' fees of the people who discriminated against them, on the employer who made the conscious decision to pay this person less in the workplace, to treat them in a discriminatory fashion, to not recognize their inherent value and the comparability of their skills and their talent. They've decided that those employers can pay $5,000 an hour, $25,000 an hour, or $250,000 and they can hire as many firms as they want, New York firms, Chicago firms, Los Angeles firms. They can do whatever they want. But your daughter, granddaughter, wife, they're limited. They're limited with the kind of legal talent they can get.

How about in a large case in this country today where regional vice presidents, there's 39 of them in the organization, 10 percent of them are women, the men were paid $41,900. The women were paid $27,900. The district managers, the men were paid $23,900. The women were paid $17,000. You think you ought to have the right to go to court and have a good attorney and have the Court determine what are reasonable fees? You ought to be able to prosecute your case in the face of an employer that may have multiple law firms on permanent retainers to deal with this, as many of these defendants do?

Yes, I think you should, and so do the people of this country and I hope so do the Members of this Congress.

I would like to yield to Mr. Andrews, the subcommittee Chair.

I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, to keep the purpose and the intent and the constitutionality of the underlying legislation, and that we should now pass, after many, many years of waiting, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

And I ask a ``no'' vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 34) recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

When a nation's towns and villages are attacked without provocation by nearly 9,000 rockets over the span of 8 years, there could hardly be a more solid case for the use of force in self-defense. At least 700,000 Israelis, 10 percent of that small nation, are now within range of missiles and rockets operated by an Islamist terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction.

I have no trouble justifying the war Israel is undertaking, but I am deeply troubled by the suffering, destruction and loss of innocent life that war inevitably entails, in this case, a war forced upon Israel by a terrorist enemy that not only targets Israeli civilians but that also bases itself among Gazan Palestinian homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals in order to use innocent civilians as human shields and as tools of a propaganda war. It is imperative that a way be found to stop the killing on both sides but in a manner that will ensure that this round will be the last round.

I know the U.S. and several other nations are working on developing such a plan. Our ally Egypt should be particularly commended for its serious efforts in this regard.

What we need is not merely a cease-fire but a transformative cease- fire. We need to ensure not just that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel; we need to make sure that it stops receiving weapons and weapons parts and that it stops smuggling them into the Gaza Strip. We should support Egyptian efforts to prevent this illegal arms trade from crossing the Sinai toward the Gaza border.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Speaker and the bipartisan leadership for authoring this important resolution. It provides a sensible way of understanding how we got to the current situation and of how we should move forward. This is why I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize the chief sponsor and author of this resolution, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the European Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), who is very active on these issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader for the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the subcommittee that covers the jurisdiction of terrorism and arms and human rights, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 6 minutes of debate on the resolution under consideration and that it be equally divided between both sides.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire about the time remaining on each side?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Engel.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, I am pleased to yield to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Susan Davis.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, to close the debate, I am pleased to yield to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Madam Speaker, When a nation's towns and villages are attacked, without provocation, by nearly 9,000 rockets over the span of 8 years, there could hardly be a more solid case for the use of force in self-defense. At least 700,000 Israelis--10 percent of that small nation--are now within range of missiles and rockets operated by an Islamist terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction.

I have no trouble justifying the war Israel has undertaken. I am deeply troubled, however, by the suffering, destruction, and loss of innocent life that war inevitably entails--in this case, a war forced upon Israel by a terrorist enemy that not only targets Israeli civilians but also bases itself among Gazan Palestinian

homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals in order to use innocent civilians as human shields and as tools of a propaganda war.

It is imperative that a way be found to stop the killing on both sides--but in a manner that will ensure that this round will be the last round.

I know the United States and several other nations are working on developing such a plan. Our ally Egypt should be particularly commended for its serious efforts in this regard.

What we need is not merely a cease-fire but a transformative cease- fire. We need to ensure not just that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel; we need to make sure that it stops receiving weapons and weapons parts and stops smuggling them into the Gaza Strip. We should support Egyptian efforts to prevent this illegal arms trade from crossing the Sinai toward the Gaza border.

Ideally, the legitimate Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas should be restored to its role as the effective authority in Gaza in the aftermath of any cease-fire. The Palestinian Authority was illegally expelled from Gaza by Hamas in June 2007, and it should be restored to its rightful role.

As for Hamas, it has no prospect of legitimization in the international community unless it renounces violence and disarms, recognizes Israel, and accepts the validity of all previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

Our resolution supports Israel's right to defend itself against unprovoked terror and re-affirms this body's unwavering commitment to Israel's security and survival as a democratic, Jewish state. It condemns Hamas for its 8-year artillery war against Israel and appropriately assigns Hamas responsibility for the destructive consequences of the ongoing war in Gaza. And it insists that a cease- fire be established that is durable and sustainable and that prevents Hamas from acquiring more arms and provoking another round of fighting.

I commend the Speaker and the bipartisan leadership for authoring this important resolution. It provides a sensible way of understanding how we got to the current situation and of how we should move forward. That is why I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Madam Speaker, Israel is a strong ally of our country and has a right to defend itself and I have voted on a number of times--along with a large majority of my colleagues in the House--to make clear our support of that right. According to one estimate, as many as one million Israelis live in range of rockets that have been fired from Gaza by militants. No one questions the responsibility or right of a sovereign nation to protect its people.

However, the deaths of innocent civilians wherever they may occur concerns me. I join my colleagues in condemning all acts of violence and hostilities against civilians and acts of terrorism. While Hamas may be indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis as a result of its actions, the rest of the world must not share that indifference.

It is distressing to see this volatile region again paralyzed by a new chapter of a seemingly endless cycle of retributive violence in which no side really wins and innocent civilians lose the most. We must push to break this destructive cycle. The U.S. regional actors, and the international community all need to move quickly to defuse this situation and help to reach a cease-fire by all sides while addressing the security and humanitarian issues that cannot be allowed to continue to fester.

The unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the firing of rockets into Israel do not serve the best interest of anyone truly concerned with securing permanent peace in the region. That is why it is even more important that this House take up a resolution that makes a serious call for and helps strongly support ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring an

end to the violence, demands greater U.S. leadership and engagement in those efforts, and recognizes the great loss suffered by the Israeli and Palestinian people as a result of the violence and urges a swift end to that violence. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is not such a resolution.

Hamas' own actions time and time again show that it is a threat to regional and international peace. This is not in dispute. The House has rightly condemned Hamas time and time again including passage last March of H. Res. 951--which I supported.

However, I have several concerns about other aspects of the resolution before us today. At a time of increasing international concern about the situation in Gaza highlighted by diplomatic efforts under way at the UN, by the EU, and the Arab League--particularly a proposal put forth by Egypt and France--and the passage just last night by the UN Security Council of a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, I fear that his may be the wrong time for a resolution that does little to support efforts to halt the conflict.

The Security Council resolution called urgently for an ``immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.'' I am disappointed that the resolution before the House today does not support the UN's call for an immediate and verifiable cease-fire by both sides.

When a clear international consensus and diplomatic efforts are beginning to coalesce and work towards a solution, why would the U.S. Congress want to consider a resolution that takes a sharply different tack?

The resolution before us also differs in a number of ways even from a similar resolution that the Senate passed just yesterday. That Senate resolution takes a much more serious approach and puts a greater and much needed emphasis on the proactive role the U.S. needs to play to bring this latest crisis to a close. The U.S. has a vast array of diplomatic and other tools that are at the disposal of the President and his foreign policy advisers to help resolve international crises such as this. Now is the time to open that toolbox and actively use those tools.

If anything has been clear from the last eight years it is that when U.S. does not lead and stay in engaged in regional diplomacy, the situation in the region will not get better.

The EU, the UN, the Arab League all recognize that Israel's military operations must be supplemented and supplanted by a diplomatic resolution that will last. That is why the Egyptians and the French are expending considerable efforts--in the absence of U.S. leadership--to forge a cease-fire agreement that meets Israel's needs, namely ending the firing of rockets into Israel and preventing Hamas from rearming while also addressing the humanitarian needs of Gazans. Just yesterday, Secretary Rice expressed verbal support for this initiative, stating that these efforts ``should not just be applauded, but must be supported'' by the international community. But the resolution fails to even bring it up.

The resolution before the House today also expresses support for ``diminishing the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories and strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace.'' However, this resolution by its lack of a call for U.S. engagement and lack of recognition of the suffering of civilians actually undermines this goal--one that I have long advocated and supported--both in its tone and substance. The resolution ignores or fails to apprehend the tremendous damage that is being done to the efforts of moderates--either presently or in the future--by the ongoing conflict that according to one report has generated ``incredible bitterness and anger'' in the region. To expect our moderate friends in the Middle East to succeed in such an environment is foolhardy at best.

A cease-fire does not diminish or hinder Israel's right to defend itself. It does help get us back on the path to finding a political and diplomatic solution that will address Israel's security needs and lead to long-term security and peace. A cease-fire is not an end itself but is desirable as a means to halt violence and chaos in the immediate term while creating room to assure humanitarian aid and for renewed and sustained multilateral negotiations for a sustainable peace.

Congress must speak out to help stop this latest crisis in the Middle East but in a way that our message is fair, tough, and smart and that makes clear that the U.S.--while supporting Israel's right to self- defense-- can be and is an honest broker in the region. I fear that this resolution fails to meet that standard.

The best support that we can give our close friend and ally Israel is by being an impartial and honest broker that can work with all interested parties in the region, Israelis and Palestinians alike. I am wary about continuing to take actions that hinder the ability for the U.S. to be seen as such a mediator and which may throw more obstacles in the way of the incoming administration foreign policy aims.

The ongoing military operations by Israel cannot and should not substitute for a credible long-term diplomatic solution reached with the help of the international agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians that meets the needs and aspirations of both sides that will prevent the return to an endless cycle of violence that guarantees that ``security'' and peace remains elusive.

Innocent people on both sides want nothing more than to live normal lives with peace and dignity. While I cannot support this resolution in its current form, I strongly encourage the administration and the international community to undertake robust diplomacy to mediate a cross-border cease-fire and to continue to engage in constructive activities, statements, and resolutions will help bring peace to the region and address Israel's real security needs.