Floor Statements

This coming Wednesday, in really the first order of real business of the House, we are voting on health care reform repeal. The new Republican majority has decided that this is the most important issue, even though they know that it's political theater, a charade. It may pass the House, but it won't pass the Senate, and certainly the President would veto it. So this is not becoming law.

At a time when we have so many pressing issues, I am really saddened that the majority wants to conduct this political charade. If there are problems with the health care law, we don't have to repeal it. We could change parts of it. We could tweak it. We could put out of the bill what we don't like and keep in the bill what we do like. But, unfortunately, the attitude and the decision has been made to try to repeal the whole bill.

My constituents understand that as we speak now the Rules Committee is discussing what kind of amendments to allow. And we know no real meaningful amendments, if anything, are going to be allowed. The Republican majority coming in says they're going to have open rules. And we're not going to have really an open rule on the first bill that they're going to attempt to pass, which is a repeal of health care reform. I think that's wrong. I think there are many of us who feel strongly that there ought to be some amendments that we can put in to ensure that the good coverage that we have achieved in the health care bill is kept.

Surely, it's not everything that's wrong with the health care bill which my colleagues oppose. I want to ask them, since they want to repeal the bill, are they against the part of the bill which says that you can keep your child on your health care coverage until age 26? I think my constituents like that, and I think theirs do as well. Do they want to repeal the part that says that an insurance company can no longer deny you coverage because of a so-called preexisting condition? I think that's something that all constituents like and appreciate. Do the people that want to repeal the health care reform bill want to say to insurance companies that it's okay to put caps on people, so when they pay their premium year in and year out and then they finally get sick and ask for coverage, the insurance companies can tell them, Well, sorry. Not only do you have a preexisting condition, but there's also a cap on benefits, either an annual cap or a lifetime cap. So, therefore, we're not going to cover you at all. I don't think anybody's constituents want that part to be repealed.

And what about the doughnut hole for seniors in Medicare part D? Seniors have found it very, very difficult. They get part of their prescription drugs paid for and then there's a doughnut hole which is for a long time. They have to pay for everything themselves while at the same time still paying their monthly premiums to the government. And then, at the end, they get the government to come in and help them. That has put a tremendous burden on seniors. And what the health care bill which was passed by the last Congress does is it eventually removes that doughnut hole for seniors. Seniors can get back money, and it starts right away, where they can get back money to pay for those prescription drugs.

So I think that we hear a lot about the lame-duck session and how we all work together and how the big question of the new Congress is going to be: Is it going to be a stalemate; is it going to be gridlock; or is it going to be people coming together in a bipartisan fashion to try to work together? If the first bill that the Republican majority is putting on the floor is any indication, it seems to me that they have chosen gridlock. And I'm really sorry about that. Because I will admit there are some things in the new health care law that should be changed, and that we should work across the aisle together to make sure that changes. But to repeal the provisions that benefit my constituents and everyone else's constituents all across America, to me makes no sense whatsoever.

The big insurance companies have had it too big, too long. And my Republican colleagues, unfortunately, are right in bed with them. And I think that is something that the American people ought to see. Who do we care about, the big insurance companies? Or do we care about the average American who is struggling day in and day out to get health care coverage? We have almost 50 million Americans without coverage. And it's not only the people who are not covered now, but it's working people who will find out in the days and months ahead if there is no health care bill, that they will be added to the rolls of people who are uncovered, and that people working hard will find out that the 50 million will swell to 60 million, 70 million, and maybe even more.

So it is going to affect all of us because the health care costs have been rising way, way beyond the rate of inflation, and that is why we needed to have health care reform.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's not posture politically. Let's try to put our heads together and work in a bipartisan fashion to do something for the American people. If there is something in the bill that needs to be changed, then we should change it, but repeal is not the answer.

Every major bill, from Social Security, to the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s, to Medicare and Medicaid, all had to be tweaked after they were passed. All had to be changed a little bit. It is the same thing with this bill. We should not repeal it. We should fix it.

I rise in strong support of this bill. This is a fitting way to end the 111th Congress. This is the proudest moment I have had in Congress in 22 years. I believe that our hard work paid off, all of us together on the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee I was proud to help shepherd this bill through the committee process and am proud to speak in support of this legislation yet again on the House floor this year.

Two days ago, I joined New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and other members of the New York delegation, and first responders to urge swift passage of this bill in the Senate.

Madam speaker, it is shameful that we are approaching the 10-year anniversary of 9-11 next year and this bill still has not reached the President for his signature.

Now I am here again today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the package that we are considering today, which rectifies some of the concerns that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed.

This is not a partisan issue, and the package that we consider today reflects that.

People from all over the country joined to help after the attack without concern for their health or wellbeing. Now it is their country's time to step-up in their time of need. Victims of 9-11 continue to suffer from crippling physical ailments. They are dying and have been ignored for almost a decade. The House noticed, once already this year. I am hopeful that we can send a bill to the Senate that will pass.

I look forward to casting my vote in support of the James Zadroga 9/ 11 Health Compensation Act and sending it back to the Senate.

I am proud of the role that we played on the Health Subcommittee and the Energy and Commerce with our hearings and markups in moving this bill through. This is not a New

York issue; this is an American Issue. First responders came from all parts of the country. The Federal Government falsely told everyone it was safe to return and it wasn't.

Today we say thank you to our first responders--it is a fitting way to end the 111th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of my friend and colleague, Stephen Solarz, who passed away last month.

When I first came to Congress in 1989, Congressman Solarz was already a respected Member of this body. He was a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and an inspiration to me as I joined that committee. I enjoyed his advice and counsel. I remember he sat on the top rung of the committee, and that is where I am sitting today.

His speeches on the floor were the kind that made his colleagues stop what they were doing and listen. He was a foreign affairs guru to many of us, and the world will miss his knowledge and expertise.

I remember the dinners he and his wife, Nina, hosted at their home. Among the luminaries I met at these dinners was Abba Eban, the former foreign minister and U.N. ambassador of Israel.

Together, we shared the determination to protect America's relationship with Israel. We both understood that the U.S. must continue to engage on issues of importance around the world.

Like me, Congressman Solarz was a product of New York City's public schools. He emerged from humble beginnings to earn his law degree from Columbia, and later became one of the most influential Members of Congress. We each shared the passion for public service, and I know that I will truly miss his advice and his friendship. I consider myself lucky to have known him all these years.

My heart goes out to his wife, Nina, their children Randy and Lisa, and his mother, Ruth. The rest of the country, and certainly the U.S. House of Representatives, mourns with them.

Madam Speaker, I stand today to commemorate a Bronx institution--Loeser's Deli--which will be celebrating its 50th year in business on January 8, 2011. Fredy Loeser opened the business in 1961 with his father, Ernest, and has spent the last five decades standing behind the counter serving the people of the Bronx. Time has passed and people have come and gone, but Fredy Loeser and Loeser's Deli have stayed right in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx, making some of the best New York deli one can ever have.

To thank his customers, Fredy will be turning back the clock on his anniversary and will be pricing his food as if it was 1961. I dare anyone in this House to find a better hot dog for 50 cents anywhere in the country!

In this day and age, where businesses come and go and when far too many people are struggling to keep their heads above water, it is a pleasure to honor a man who has worked hard for 50 years, keeping a small business afloat and thriving. Fredy has worked many long hours in these last few decades and he continues to work those hours today.

I want to thank him for his hard work and for being a pillar of our Bronx community all these years. I want to wish the best to his family--his wife Elayne, his children (Pamela Loeser-Halpern and her husband Michael, Lisa Loeser-Weiss and her husband Gary, Brett Loeser and his wife Alene, and Scott Loeser and his wife Bonnie), and his 12 grandchildren (Julia, Jesse, Lexa, Emily, Andrew, Gregory, Zachary, Samantha, Abigail, Danielle, Drew and Rachel). The success Fredy has enjoyed not only consists of corned beef and pastrami, but it is reflected in the wonderful family he has raised over the years.

I know I am looking forward to my next sandwich from Loeser's and I hope to be enjoying them for many more years to come.

I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding to me. I want to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his kind words, and also the kind words of the gentleman from Virginia.

I rise today in strong support of my legislation, the Truth in Caller ID Act. This is about as bipartisan as a bill can be. We have passed this bill several times in the House only to have it not move through the other body, and I am delighted that for the first time we have had it passed in the other body. So now when we pass this bill, hopefully the President will sign it into law and we will finally have a stoppage of this fraud which is being perpetrated on the American people.

I originally read an article in the newspaper on a plane talking about what was going on with spoofing, and I remember thinking, This is ridiculous. How could this be legal? How could we just turn a blind eye to it? And then I realized we needed to have legislation.

We have been supported every step of the way, again, bipartisan, by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). We have all worked on this legislation together.

I introduced the bill because we need an immediate change in our laws to help prevent identity theft, to crack down on fraudulent phone calls, and to protect legitimate uses of caller ID technology. We have seen, as my colleagues have mentioned, a large number of cases of caller ID fraud leading to illegal or even violent activities.

Last year, the New York City Police Department uncovered a massive identity theft ring where criminals stole more than $15 million from over 6,000 people. They were able to perpetrate this fraud in many instances by using caller ID spoofing. In another case, a person in New York called a pregnant woman who she viewed as a romantic rival, spoofing the phone number of the woman's pharmacist. She tricked the woman into taking a drug used to cause abortions.

Caller ID fraud has even been used to prank call the constituents of a Member of this body, with the caller ID readout saying it came from that Member's office. Just imagine if people committed this fraud in the days leading up to a close election. You could see it. You spoof a number of your political opponent. You call someone at 3 o'clock in the morning. You say something obnoxious on the phone, and then the constituents are angry and are not going to vote for that person. This is all perfectly legal, up until the passage of this bill.

I have said again and again that one of the most troubling aspects of caller ID spoofing is not simply that it is legal. What disturbs me is how incredibly easy it is to carry out caller ID fraud. Criminals use a tool called a spoof card to change their outgoing caller ID; so you could look at it and see a phone number, any phone number that that person wants to put down, they can do it, and the person getting the call has totally no idea where it is coming from or thinks it is coming from a place where obviously it is not.

This technology can even be used to disguise someone's voice in order to trick people. If it is a man doing it, he can change the voice to sound like a woman, and vice versa. So it can be done completely to trick people.

This can trick people, corporations, or even banks. Imagine senior citizens who see the number of their bank put up when they take a look and see who is calling and it is fraudulent, or their doctor or their pharmacist or a close family member or a close family friend. This is terrible, and this tool is available to anyone with access to a Web browser. So, as was pointed out, the technology has gotten easier and easier for someone to perpetrate this fraud.

This legislation will outlaw caller ID spoofing when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or lawfully obtain anything of value. And, let me say, we have had many, many hearings on this bill.

The reason why this outlaws caller ID spoofing when the intent is to defraud or cause harm, as my colleagues have pointed out, we put that in the bill based on the hearings we had because we don't want some legitimate reasons to use this technology to be outlawed. So it is only outlawed when the intent is to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

We won't be challenging the rulings for legitimate uses of this technology. For example, domestic abuse shelters will still be able to change the number on caller ID to protect the occupants of the shelter. We have some scrambling right here in the Capitol, as a result, to protect very important private numbers. That won't be changed.

So, again, I am pleased this bill passed the House in the 109th and 110th Congress. This is now the 111th. We are about to pass it. The Senate has done it for the first time. So I look forward to the President signing this bill into law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Truth in Caller ID Act to outlaw this type of fraud once and for all. I thank my colleagues again for their support.

Mr. Speaker, the success of the United States military depends on the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform. And yet, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the talents and contributions of our openly gay and lesbian servicemembers are ignored. This is discrimination, plain and simple, and should not stand. What should count is the performance and competence of a member of our armed services, nothing else.

More than nine years after the 9/11 attacks, at a time when troops are being withdrawn from Iraq and increased in Afghanistan, our gay and lesbian servicemembers offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, more than 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged under DADT since 1994. This number includes almost 800 mission-critical troops and nearly 60 Arabic linguists in just the last five years. That is indefensible. And to make matters worse, the financial cost of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2008 was more than $555 million.

Mr. Speaker, Don't Ask, Don't Tell weakens our national security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American principles of fairness, integrity and equality.

We must end this pernicious law, and we must end it now.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. And I, like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, rise in support of this resolution. My colleagues have said it very, very well, and I reiterate it--the only way that peace can be achieved in the Middle East is by having the two parties sit down and negotiate a settlement that can't be an American plan, that can't be an Obama plan, that can't be a U.N. plan. It has to be a plan between the Israelis and Palestinians. So at the end of the day, we come out with a two-state solution--the Jewish State of Israel and a Palestinian State. And both States ought to live with security along recognized borders.

Now, it is bad enough that these countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, unilaterally say that they accept or they recognize a Palestinian State. They talk about a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, which is preposterous. Everyone knows that Israel would never and could never agree with it. Those borders are indefensible, and for that reason Israel would and could not accept it. So, as far as I am concerned, this is just mischief-making. This is the Palestinian leadership not having the guts to sit down and negotiate a difficult situation.

The Palestinian leadership has been throwing all kinds of preconditions out there, saying to Israel, We're not going to sit and negotiate with you unless you do this; we're not going to sit and negotiate with you unless you do that. So the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, agrees to a 10-month moratorium on building any kind of settlements or neighborhoods or anything like that, and the Palestinian leadership decried it. They made fun of it. They said it was nothing. And then they waited 9 of those 10 months to actually sit down and negotiate with Israel. So they sat down for 1 month and then the 10 months expired. And now they are demanding another freeze. Well, I find it very odd that now that this freeze on so-called settlement activities is absolutely necessary in order for the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate, when for 9 months they refused to negotiate when Israel had stopped any kind of new settlements. So this is just a further international attempt to delegitimize Israel and to unilaterally declare statehood for the Palestinians. That will never work.

A little history is important here. Back in 1948, when the United Nations resolution passed, taking what was then historic Palestine and dividing it between an Arab State and a Jewish State, the Jews in the area said yes, accepted it, and the Arabs said no. And they went to war against Israel. And went to war against Israel time and time and time again to wipe out the State of Israel.

So we know we have come a long way. And my colleagues have said this. Back in 2000, back in 2001, Prime Minister Barak, Prime Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Olmert all issued and agreed to have negotiations and to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted; a state of their own. They turned it down. Negotiation is the only step forward, and we should continue on that path.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and continued opposition to the Federal Aviation Administration's airspace redesign plan, and, frankly, it just gets worse and worse and worse. First they say that there will be hundreds of new air flights from Newark Airport flying over my constituents in Rockland County, New York, and now we learn that they have changed the plan and made it even worse. They are now redirecting an additional 100 flights per day from John F. Kennedy International Airport over Rockland County.

The FAA made this decision without consulting me or, to the best of my knowledge, any other elected official whose constituents are affected by the increased air traffic. More so, when we originally requested that the redesign be altered so that the flights would be directed over less populated areas, the FAA had the gall to say that the plan could not be changed because it could then be opened up to lawsuits. Now we find that they have gone and changed the plan anyway to suit their own ends. I find this insulting and hypocritical, typical government agency bureaucracy.

This plan was concocted with zero input from the residents it harms the most, particularly my constituents in Rockland County who would be most adversely affected by the plan. And specifically, in addition to the 300 to 400 planes heading daily to Newark Liberty International Airport, this plan would now direct 100 flights a day from JFK airport. The FAA doesn't seem to mind inconveniencing residents on the ground.

Additionally, there was no consultation or notification to myself or any other elected officials whose constituents are affected by the proposed plan. While several town halls were held throughout the FAA airspace redesign process, they were held throughout the FAA redesign process, a redesign that, again, I strongly oppose. I have not been made aware of any community involvement with this recent decision.

In the past, I was able, after begging, pleading, cajoling and threatening, to get the FAA to hold a town hall meeting in Rockland County, where 1,200 residents attended and spoke in universal opposition to this plan. But, again, the public be damned. The government knows better. The FAA did not listen then, and look where we are now. In this instance, however, we have had no such opportunity.

It's been clear for many years that the FAA has had no intention to listen to the people of Rockland County, and this recent decision only reinforces that. I have spoken to and written letters to the FAA and to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking for reconsideration of their redesign plan, and I am outraged at the decision to direct even more flights over the county. There are other ways to address the problems facing airports and delayed flights without requiring the people of Rockland County to bear this burden.

As my constituents have noted to me, the noise and air pollution in the area will increase. It is unknown how this increase in air pollution will affect a disproportionate rate of childhood asthma in my district.

Another issue not taken into account by the FAA is a lack of preparedness for severe airline emergency in this densely populated area. It is likely that first responders would have to be trained for the event of a catastrophic airplane crash, God forbid, causing added cost to local police, fire, and EMT departments that are already stretched thin.

In addition, while the flight plans will not route commercial aircraft directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant, the proximity could lead to an extremely dangerous scenario. Over 20 million people live within 50 miles of Indian Point.

I believe it is clear this redirection will cause a significant decrease in the quality of life for my constituents in Rockland County. And what for? The expected result of this scheme is the paltry reduction of delays--an average of 3 minutes per flight.

The modernization of our aviation system is necessary to bring it into the 21st century, to keep pace with the increased number of flights, and to also maintain our technological advancements by implementing new equipment to keep our system the safest in the world. However, there are several alternatives to this new plan, including the redirection of these flights over the underutilized airspace over the Atlantic Ocean.

I am outraged by this decision, and I call on the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to not say one thing only to do another, all to the detriment of my constituents in Rockland County. I am against this new move by the FAA and will continue to fight against its implementation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, let me just say, have a little compassion. These children came here. They didn't decide to come here. They know no other country. Some of them can't even speak the language of the country in which they were born, and they deserve to have a right as free Americans.

I am a grandson of four immigrants from Eastern Europe, and my grandparents would be proud to see their grandson as a Member of the U.S. Congress. How many of these other children can flourish and be Members of Congress or do other things?

We do need comprehensive immigration reform in this country. This is not it, so we shouldn't attack it because it's it. We ought to have a little compassion. The sky is not falling if this becomes law. It will be good for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of the Governments of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay for recognizing Palestine as an independent state before there are conclusive negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The Prime Minister of Israel gave a 10-month moratorium on any kind of building of additional settlements or houses or anything like that in exchange for talking with the Palestinians. The Palestinians waited 9 months and didn't talk. In the 10th month, they talked, and now it ran out, and the Palestinians are again placing preconditions and are refusing to talk. The Palestinians must know that a peace agreement with Israel is the only way they can have their Palestinian state. It can't be done unilaterally.

What Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay did, I think, has set back rather than enhanced the negotiations for a two-state solution, which I support. This is something that was wrong and that should be condemned. It gives the Palestinians no incentive to sit down and talk with Israel and bargain in good faith.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the imprisonment of Alan Gross in Cuba. Today, I come to the House floor not in my role as Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee nor as a Congressman interested in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Instead, I come here as a father and a husband to urge the Cuban government to release Alan Gross on humanitarian grounds.

Alan's health continues to deteriorate. He has lost 90 pounds and has developed disc problems that have caused partial paralysis in his leg. This could become permanent if he does not have surgery. He also has developed severe pain in his hips.

Perhaps even more devastating than his own health is Alan's not being able to be with his daughter who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. His daughter has had several surgeries and is now undergoing chemotherapy. As a father to a daughter around the same age, it absolutely breaks my heart that Alan cannot be by his daughter's side to give her the emotional support that she needs.

The United States and Cuba have had a difficult relationship for a long time. But, Alan Gross is not a politician. His work brought him to Cuba because of his passion for the country's Jewish community.

Earlier this year, I met with Judy Gross in the Capitol. She told me that Alan jumped at the chance to work in Cuba, because he loves the Cuban people and wanted them to be able

to communicate better with the rest of the world. She explained that he never would do anything to harm them.

Judy Gross tells me that Alan is a family man. He is a very devoted son who called his mother every morning. She is 88 years old and fears she may never see him again. She is emotionally distraught about Alan's situation, and this is translating into a decline in her physical health.

There are times that we come to the House floor to engage in impassioned policy debates. There are times when we argue amongst ourselves about the right direction for U.S.-Cuba relations. Now is not one of those times.

Madam Speaker, today, on the eve of the one-year anniversary of Alan Gross' imprisonment, I stand in this chamber to plea for Alan's release. Not just for Alan's sake, but for the sake of his wife, his mother and his two daughters, I urge the Cuban government to immediately release Alan Gross.

I thank my fellow New Yorker for yielding.

I rise to support this legislation, this resolution. Everyone has spoken very eloquently, and I concur with everything that has been said. When I was looking at the resolution and the reasons for supporting it, I was absolutely shocked to see that there were still 127,000 Holocaust survivors left in the United States. I would have thought it was much, much less. And, of course, as people are saying many of them are in their eighties and nineties and deserve a little added help.

This great country has been a refuge for so many people throughout the years of this great republic and certainly the Holocaust survivors that came here after the Holocaust have been treated with dignity, have moved into American society. Their children and grandchildren have achieved great heights. But, unfortunately, too many of them today still live alone, are in their eighties and nineties, and need our help.

So I rise to support this resolution. I think this is the most noble thing that we can do. It's a great testimony to our great Nation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

I thank my good friend from New Jersey, the chairman of our subcommittee, who does an excellent job, for yielding to me, and I rise today in support of H. Res. 1690, a resolution supporting the observance of American Diabetes Month. As a member of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus and a cosponsor of this resolution, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res. 1690.

My colleagues may be aware that one in every 10 Americans suffers from diabetes. This is nearly 24 million people. Additionally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 57 million Americans with prediabetes.

Even more troubling is that these staggering numbers will continue to grow if we sit idle and do nothing. We must continue to raise awareness and find new treatments and preventative measures.

In October, the CDC issued a report which states, if current trends continue, as many as one in three American adults could have diabetes by the year 2050. The report also states that the $174 billion currently spent on diabetes will at least double by 2050. These are costs that we cannot afford both financially and physically, and the prospect of these statistics jumping from 1 in 10 to 1 in 3 is frightening, but the good news is that it is also preventable.

That's why, as the chairman mentioned, I introduced the Gestational Diabetes Act, or GeDi. The GeDi Act focuses research resources on reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes, which is a condition that can result in a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during pregnancy for both the mother and child.

The GeDi Act passed the House of Representatives in September. I call upon our colleagues in the other body to pass my legislation in the 111th Congress so we can help turn the tide away from these dire predictions.

While we cannot fight family history, genetic risk factors, or the aging process, we can fight the causes of new cases of diabetes. We in the House of Representatives have the ability and responsibility to raise public awareness about the implications of diabetes and how to prevent it. That is why I stand in strong support of H. Res. 1690.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, decided that there were Nazis running around a competitor news organization. He called the executives at National Public Radio ``Nazis.'' He said, and I quote, ``They are of course Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don't want any other point of view.''

Mr. Ailes also said, after a diatribe against President Obama and against Jon Stewart of Comedy Central, and I quote, ``There are left- wing rabbis who basically don't think that anybody can use the word `Holocaust' on the air.''

Mr. Speaker, I find those words to be very offensive and inappropriate. Relatives of mine were among the millions of Jews and others who died in the Holocaust. At the hands of the Nazis, acts of brutality and mass murder were carried out, the likes of which the world had never seen.

If Mr. Ailes is the president of Fox News and claims to be fair and balanced, he should keep his comments to himself. If he wants to be a commentator, then he should be so. But if he wants to pretend to be a so-called fair and balanced president of a major news organization, he ought to know better than to utter such hateful words.

To use the word ``Holocaust'' in the same sentence that he uses the word ``rabbi,'' although he clearly meant rabbi in another connotation, is doubly offensive. And to use the word ``Holocaust'' cavalierly to connote any situation in which somebody or some group feels aggrieved is offensive again.

Mr. Ailes should apologize for these despicable statements of total insensitivity that should not be connected to a president of a major news organization.

Later today, I will send him a letter demanding that he retract and apologize for these despicable statements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, November 22, 2010, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 332, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.