Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, last fall, at the urging of President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, Congress took extraordinary action to stabilize America's financial markets and limit the scope of an economic crisis. I know that the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was one of the most difficult votes that anyone in this Chamber had ever taken. But passing that bill was the right thing to do--and even with all of the turmoil of the past months, my mind hasn't changed.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone in this Chamber is happy with TARP, either. As it has done so many times in the last 8 years, the Bush administration failed to follow congressional intent when it came to executing a law. The administration has failed to fight the wave of foreclosures at the source of this crisis, and it did too little to maximize the effectiveness of TARP funds in helping to restore our economy's flow of credit. Nor did the administration adequately track how taxpayer money was spent to ensure that banks were using it for the intended purposes.

We cannot in good conscience approve another $350 billion request without confidence that those failures will be remedied.

This bill strengthens accountability and oversight measures, so that we can get necessary loans flowing again to families and businesses. It requires detailed reports from recipients of TARP funds and ensures that those funds un-thaw credit. It provides even stronger limits on executive compensation, so that taxpayers can be sure their money is not funding million-dollar Park Avenue apartments for CEOs. It clarifies the Treasury Department's authority to use TARP funds to benefit small financial institutions, auto companies, consumers, and municipalities. And it insists that Treasury immediately commit $100 billion to fight foreclosures and help Americans keep their homes.

President-elect Obama has promised that ``we are going to fundamentally change some of the practices in using this next phase of the program.'' I agree wholeheartedly, and this bill is a strong first step toward that change. But I also want to make clear that the same high standards of oversight ought to apply to any administration, Republican or Democratic. TARP funds must be watched with the same diligence we would expect from any lender--and how much more so when the source of the funds is the American taxpayer, when the principal runs into twelve digits, and when the stakes are so high?

Mr. Chair, Lyndon Johnson said--in words I've quoted before on this floor and I'm sure I'll quote again--``It's not hard to do the right thing. It's hard to know what the right thing is.''

In this crisis, the problems are as complex as our end goal is simple: Businesses hiring, families thriving, America growing once again. But I am convinced that passing this bill is the right thing today. I hope and trust that my colleagues will see it the same way.

I thank my friend, the Republican whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. Monday is the Federal holiday to celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. I might observe, as I am sure all the Members know, that today is in fact Martin Luther King's birthday, January 15. Extraordinary life. His bust is in the Rotunda. It is a real honor to be able to honor his birth and his message and his vision on Monday.

This is a particularly auspicious recognition of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. How proud he would be to know that the day after we recognize his birth and his message and his contribution to our country, we will inaugurate the 44th President of the United States of America, an African American; a statement that the dream, although not clearly still fully recognized, nevertheless is a dream shared by all of America.

On Wednesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business with votes no earlier than 3 p.m. Let me reiterate that. We will be meeting on Wednesday at 12 p.m., with votes not expected before 3 p.m. Obviously, with the inaugural day, we don't want to have people have to come in too early, not necessarily because of anything they may be doing the night before, but because of scheduling they may or may not be here the night before.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected.

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

In addition, Madam Speaker, we will complete consideration of H.R. 384, the bill we were just considering, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, we expect to complete. We also expect to consider a privileged resolution relating to the disapproval of the obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

If the gentleman will yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate his observation.

I did say we were going to try to give 48 hours. I may have said we were going to give 48 hours, but we did not give 48 hours, the gentleman is correct. The gentleman probably knows the reason we didn't give 48 hours is because we hadn't gotten a CBO scoring, so we were unable to finalize the bill until we got that scoring. We did give approximately 24 hours.

But I say to the gentleman, with all due respect, yes, it was a lengthy bill, but of course the bill had been passed almost in exactly the same form either in the CHAMP bill or in the SCHIP bill itself, so that clearly the overwhelming majority of the text of the bill and the provisions of the bill have been available essentially for over a year.

But having said that, I want you to know and I want to reiterate my intention to give the maximum amount of notice; 48 hours I think is clearly a target that we want to set. I don't want to make a commitment that we will not bring a bill without 48 hours notice. The gentleman, if you would confer with your predecessor--his predecessors, I would say--sometimes it's very difficult to do that.

But the gentleman is absolutely correct, not only new Members, but all Members are certainly entitled to have the respect for their view and their opportunity to represent their constituents, to have appropriate notice, and we will certainly strive for that. I've reiterated to the committee Chairs and to our leadership that I want to follow regular order to the extent possible. And when I say the extent possible, we're in extraordinary times. This did not necessarily relate to the SCHIP bill, other than we had clearly considered that twice, had it voted upon numerous times in this House, and the overwhelming majority, I don't know the percentage, but I would say 95 percent of the bill was exactly as we had passed it in either the CHAMP bill or the SCHIP bill. But I am aware of the gentleman's concerns, and I want to tell him I share his concerns, and we will be working toward the end that he seeks to achieve.

I understand the gentleman's concern. As you know, we are now considering a bill which has both Republican and Democratic amendments, very important bill, conditions for accountability and transparency and dealing with mortgage failures in the present bill that's on the floor. And certainly that will be my objective.

I would hope and expect the text to be available by the end of business tomorrow. I'm very hopeful that that will be the case.

Again, you understand the practical problems as they are now drafting all of the agreement. But we want it available, and hopefully the text will be available by the end of the week.

I cannot give the gentleman that assurance given the time frame that Mr. Obey is on. Obviously, as you know, the President and I think

in a bipartisan way this administration, without reference to the specific stimulus package or recovery and reinvestment package that we're talking about, believes that we need to act with dispatch. We need to act carefully. We need to act correctly. But we also need to act with dispatch.

I have just been told, by the way, that the text of the bill is online as we speak. So what I was going to say is that we need to act with dispatch, and as you can see, we're apparently doing that.

We have a crisis that confronts us. We have lost over 2.5 million jobs. We lost a million jobs in the last 2 months. People are hurting. We have and I know of you have a sense of urgency. We have worked with this administration to try to respond to the economic crisis that confronts us. Very frankly, Democrats worked in a very bipartisan way and a very supportive way with this President and the Secretary of Treasury in trying to respond to this crisis. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that Democrats were more responsive to the President's request and Secretary Paulson's request than some Members of his own party.

But that aside, we believe we need to act, as I said, with dispatch. We are doing that. I'm glad that this is online because now the committee will have Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. Clearly while one may not be able to get into the Capitol, although I would be surprised if the Appropriations staff could not get in the Capitol, and I don't want to adopt that premise because I don't know that to be the case, but in any event, the text will be obviously available to anybody all over the country to look at, to comment on, and to be prepared to act on at the appropriate time. In addition to that, every Member now will have at least 1\1/2\ weeks to review the text of this before it comes to the floor.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I didn't know you were going to ask that question; so I don't have the specific facts in front of me. But it is my belief that the Ways and Means Committee has historically had a ratio, when your side of the aisle was in charge and my side of the aisle has been in charge, that did not reflect the exact ratio of the House. That's also true on a couple of other committees as well.

Generally speaking, however, in the discussions between Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, the ratios were within a point or 2, I think, of the existing ratio. I know that we recently accommodated a request from the leader, from your leader, on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I thought was appropriate for us to do. But I think, generally speaking, it reflects pretty closely the ratios between the parties in the House. But I think if you will look historically, and again I regret that I did not look it up, but I think historically the Ways and Means Committee has generally reflected a greater majority membership than the specific ratio of the parties on the floor of the House.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is correct. In the legislation which was passed pursuant to the request of President Bush and Secretary Paulson authorizing the TARP, they had asked for, as you know, $700 billion in one lump sum. We believe, the majority on both sides of the aisle believe, that that ought to be at least in two tranches, two segments of $350 billion. The legislation provided that for the second tranche to go forward, the President would have to ask for it. President Bush has now asked for that $350 billion, and that the Congress would have immediately before it within 3 days the introduction of a resolution of disapproval of the request and that that would have to be considered. Any Member 6 days thereafter could ask that that resolution be brought to the floor. Now, in this case 6 days thereafter would have been Sunday; so that would have been not appropriate or practical; so we put, as you know, in the rule the ability of the majority leader to call it up next week.

The legislation does not provide for the issue becoming moot. Now, what I mean by that is I don't know whether the Senate has voted--they may vote tomorrow. They obviously began procedurally on their resolution of disapproval today. If that resolution is not passed, then our action would be essentially without meaning but not necessarily without importance to the Members who want to vote on it, so that sometime next week, Wednesday or Thursday, my expectation is that we have Members who will want to vote on it. I will be discussing it with your side. I will discuss it with you and discuss it with our side bringing that to a vote, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate may make such a vote not a meaningful act in that President Bush's request would have already been sanctioned because both Houses need to disapprove and if the Senate didn't disapprove, our action will not effect a disapproval.

My expectation is we're going to have it on the floor next week. Members on both sides want to vote on it, but as I said, it will not have any legal effect if the Senate defeats the resolution of disapproval.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow; and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20.

I must say, following the last speaker, I think the last speaker is absolutely wrong. I think he misrepresented very substantially the facts of this bill, which strengthens verification.

This administration, the Bush administration, will tell you that, and the governors will tell you that the current verification system is not working, and that, in fact, we strengthen, in this bill, the verification. And of course, although he made it clear that illegal immigrants are not included and are very specifically not included, this bill will make it easier and more facilitate ensuring that objective than the present law.

Very briefly.

If, in fact, in other sections the verification process has not been strengthened, that may be accurate. I haven't seen the CBO report to which you refer. However, the strengthening will preclude that objective from happening, in my opinion.

Madam Speaker, I want you to hear the story of Deamonte Driver. This is from the Washington Post from February 28, 2007.

``12-year-old Deamonte Driver died today of a toothache.'' 12 years of age. ``A routine $80 tooth extraction might have saved him. But by the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than 6 weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County 12-year-old died.''

If you want a picture of American health care, in all its excellence and in its failures, there it is: The best doctors, the latest technology, 6 weeks of hospital care for a sick boy, at the cost of $250,000, in a country that can't find $80 to fix a toothache.

To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, American health care swallows tigers whole, but it can choke to death on a gnat. We couldn't find $80, and in the end it cost us a quarter of a million dollars. More importantly, it cost us the life of a young man. A system that makes such errors on a regular basis is both financially foolhardy and morally insupportable.

Yes, on a regular basis, Deamonte Driver's case may be extreme, but it was hardly unique. Every day, uninsured parents are foregoing much cheaper preventive care and using the emergency room as the first line of defense for their children's health. Ironically, the President of the United States, when he vetoed this bill, said that's exactly what they could do, intervene in the most expensive, last ditch intervention in health care. We're all paying for that. We are subsidizing those ER visits, we are dealing with the overburdened hospitals, and we are creating a sicker, less productive work force.

Fixing American health care will take much longer than an afternoon, but if I could pass just one bill today, if I could find the most efficient use of our health care dollars, I'd ensure more children. I think 80 percent of Americans agree with us on that.

One of the previous speakers, a physician on the other side of the aisle, was recognized to speak. I spent, Mr. Dingell spent, Mr. Bachus spent, Mr. Rockefeller spent, Mr. Grassley spent some 30 hours in meetings with that doctor trying to reach a compromise. There were a number of other people in that room. Ultimately, there was no, notwithstanding the changes we made in the bill, there was no willingness to compromise to ensure the children.

There's no more medically pivotal time in life than that of a child. Make it through childhood without checkups, without a doctor's care, and you're still facing a lifetime of endangered health. Every other developed nation in the world seems to get that. Every other developed nation in the world provides its children with health care. Every developed nation makes sure all of its children are covered, with the exception of the United States of America.

This bill brings into the State Children's Health Insurance Program 4 million children not covered today because the President vetoed the CHIP bill, and we could not get 15 additional people in this body to override the veto. We got 45 on the Republican side of the aisle, and all the Democrats, but we couldn't get those extra 15. This bill brings in those 4 million children. It does what President Bush promised to do when he ran for re-election in 2004.

Accepting the Republican nomination in 2004, President Bush said this: ``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.'' That's what he promised.

That's what the House and Senate have been pushing to do, what we passed legislation to do, and what the overwhelming majority of Americans have wanted to do for years.

Madam Speaker, we've tried. President Bush vetoed similar bills twice. But we are confident that President-elect Obama sees the issue differently. The American people saw the issue differently. They wanted change. This bill is going to reflect their desire for and vote for change.

This bill gives States permission to waive an arbitrary waiting period of 5 years to enroll immigrant children who are here legally.

Is there anyone here who wants to check on a sick child and say, we know you're here legally, but you've got to wait 5 years? A 1-year-old or a 2-year-old, that's two or three times their lifetime. It doesn't make moral sense to deny those children health services when their parents already pay payroll taxes. It doesn't make public health sense to keep those kids from getting the basic care they need.

As a parent, as a grandfather, and as a great grandfather, very frankly, I want my child in school with healthy children, from wherever they come. And it doesn't make economic sense to subsidize unnecessary emergency room visits.

Madam Speaker, we all know that we're in a severe recession, and it makes this bill more vital than ever, because when we considered this bill last year, we hadn't lost millions of jobs. Millions of parents had not yet lost their health insurance. This legislation is more necessary than ever. More and more Americans are out of work.

More and more family budgets are strained to the breaking point. Today, health coverage for kids could make the difference between a family's economic ruin and economic stability.

As Yale University's Jacob S. Hacker writes, ``access to affordable health care could be an immediate lifeline for working families.''

It is in our power to throw that lifeline today. It's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for our children. It's the right thing to do for our families. It's the right thing to do for our economy, and it is the morally correct thing to do.

Pass this rule, pass this bill, let us send it to President Obama, and he will add the 4 million children, with our help, to health care in the richest land on the face of the Earth.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank Chairman Miller from California. I thank my friend Mr. McKeon as well for the consideration of this debate.

We've passed this bill before, properly so. Unfortunately, it didn't pass the Senate. It wasn't signed by the President. That will not happen this time. We will pass this bill. My belief is the Senate will pass this bill, and the President of the United States will sign it. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

I listened to my friend in his conversation, but frankly, it somewhat belies the fact that there came a case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court had to rule on the case, and the Supreme Court ruled on the statute of limitation.

The value of work, of course, Madam Speaker, lies in a job well done, not in the gender of the worker. I don't think there is a man or a woman in this Chamber who would disagree, but all too often in America, sexism, frankly, cheats women out of equal pay and equal worth. It still robs women of their equal right to earn a livelihood, to provide for their families and to secure the dignity of their labor. It does much of its worst work in the dark.

Frankly, women in this body all know that they make the same thing as the men in this body. Why? Because it's public information, but if it were secret information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a number of women vote against this the last time it was up, I would be shocked that they would do so again if they were put in the position of making $25,000 less than those of us who are males, doing exactly the same job. That is the position, of course, Lilly Ledbetter found herself in.

So many of us know by now that Lilly Ledbetter was precluded from recovery. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a hardworking tire plant supervisor. For much of her career, she suffered from two kinds of discrimination simultaneously--from sexual harassment when a manager said to her face that women didn't belong in a factory to the supervisor who tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter. There was pay discrimination as well. There's no doubt about that. Now, she couldn't recover for it because the Supreme Court said she hadn't acted. By the end of her career, she was making nearly $7,000 less than the lowest paid man in the same position.

Both kinds of discrimination were founded on the belief that women in the workplace are second-class citizens. I hope there are no women in America who believe that, and I would hope there are no men in America who believe that. I say that as a father of three women, as the grandfather of two granddaughters and as the great grandfather of a 2- year-old young woman.

Of the two, the unfair pay may have been the most damaging, between the sexual discrimination and the pay discrimination. The sexual discrimination, obviously, is abhorrent, but the pay discrimination diminished Lilly Ledbetter's opportunities in our country.

There has been a lot said on this floor about ``it's their money, and they know how to spend it better,'' and we've talked about that in terms of tax bills. ``It's their money, and they know how to spend it better.'' If that's the case, then I would hope that this bill would pass unanimously to make sure that their money, which they earn fairly, is paid to them so they then can use it as they see fit.

Ms. Ledbetter might have been in the dark to this day; they may have kept it a secret because people, particularly in the private sector, don't go around, saying, ``Well, I make X and you make Y.'' In fact, a lot of employers tell their employees, ``Don't tell people what you make.'' Lilly Ledbetter didn't know how badly she was being discriminated against.

A coworker, however, gave her proof of what her employer was doing to her. Such silent discrimination is surprisingly common because it is so difficult to identify. After all, how many of us know what the salaries of our coworkers are? As I said, we do. My friend from California knows that she makes the same thing as Mr. Miller makes, and that's appropriate. They are both elected; they both have the same job; they both work hard, and they're paid the same.

Lilly Ledbetter took her employer to court, but the Supreme Court finally ruled against her. So, apparently, there is a problem somewhere, not because she was making it all up but because she had failed to file suit 180 days after her first unfair paycheck. Now, that adopts the premise that the subsequent paychecks somehow were not in violation of the law. They were. Every time she was paid discriminatorily, it was another violation of the law. In fact, the 180 days should have run from the last violation of the law, which, of course, was the last time she was paid in a discriminatory fashion. You have 6 months to find out you're being paid unfairly or you're out of luck for a lifetime.

The Supreme Court's flawed ruling ignored the real-world facts of discrimination, and it has the potential to harm thousands of women, indeed, hundreds of thousands and millions of women and their children and their families and our communities and society, leaving victims of pay discrimination without any recourse.

As Justice Ginsburg said--and she put it in as a strong dissent-- ``Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee's view . . . Small, initial discrepancies may not be seen to meet the Federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.''

That's what Justice Ginsburg said. So, apparently, Justice Ginsburg thought there was a problem to which we ought to respond, which is what is happening today.

``The ball,'' Justice Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress' court . . . The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious reading.''

That is what we are doing today. That is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for women. It is the right thing to do for our families, and that is the aim of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This bill gives employees a fair time limit to take action against discrimination. A 180-day limit will still stand, but the clock is reset after each violation of the law, as it should be, not simply after the first one, and that change fits our commonsense understanding of pay discrimination. It is not a single act but an ongoing practice that is renewed every time the employer signs an unfair paycheck.

Madam Speaker, pay discrimination anywhere is an attack on the dignity of every woman in every workplace in America. When workers face unfair pay, they should find us standing by their side, not throwing up technicalities and roadblocks on the way to equality.

For that reason, I urge every one of my colleagues, male and female, Representatives of all of the people who ought to have equal opportunity under the law. This accomplishes that objective. Vote for this important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and before getting into the schedule let me follow up on his remarks.

As all of the Members of this House know, Mr. Cantor's predecessor, Mr. Blunt, and I are very good friends and worked closely together. We often disagree on policy, but we have had a long-term ability to work together closely on behalf of the institution, on behalf of the House. The relationship I think was one that was to the benefit of the House of Representatives and to our Members.

I want to thank Mr. Cantor for visiting with me and talking about how we go forward working together on behalf of the American people and on behalf of this institution. We know that we'll disagree, perhaps more times than not, on major issues, but we also know that the objective that he has and the objective I have and the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle have is a stronger country, with greater opportunity for our people.

I want to congratulate him on his selection as the Republican whip and reiterate his comment that I look forward to working with him in a constructive and positive way.

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

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

We will also consider a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We will also consider a House resolution requiring committees to hold hearings upon receipt of certain reports from an inspector general or the Comptroller General of the United States. The President-elect has made it very clear he wants to look at programs and ensure that the money is being spent effectively and that the programs the money supports are effective.

In addition, we will consider the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, which we hope will set parameters, accountability, transparency and expectations for help with the mortgages for any legislation that might be submitted either by the Bush administration or the Obama administration as it relates to the second phase, the second $350 billion previously authorized in the Troubled Asset Recovery Program.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I believe we will have a rule that will certainly allow amendments. As you know, that's Mr. Frank's practice. We believe, I believe, it's a good practice.

Whether or not he will have a markup will depend upon the timeframe. The problem is, as the gentleman probably knows, the American public and the Congress on both sides of the aisle are very concerned that if we have to consider within a constricted timeframe the request, either of the Bush administration during the latter days of its term, or the beginning of the Obama administration, we get to have a second request for the second phase of the TARP funding. We want to have in place conditions for the expenditure of that money similar to what we have imposed or the administration imposed, but we also legislatively imposed, it didn't pass, on the automobile companies for the receipt of money.

So the answer to your question is we may not have the time to do the markup, because we are not sure when that second request is coming down. I don't expect it to come down before we consider this legislation, but it may come down shortly thereafter.

No, it will not. Obviously the legislation provides for a resolution of disapproval, provides a tight timeframe in which that resolution should be considered, and nothing in this bill will impact on that.

The answer to that is I think not. The bill, however, will be very, very much like, perhaps not exactly, because some of the costs have changed and some of the numbers may need to be adjusted, but very much like the bill that we passed, in a bipartisan way, with very substantial votes, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 270 votes through this House, just some 6, 7 months ago. We believe the President-elect is very concerned that, particularly as the economic times confront us, we saw another 525,000 jobs lost this past month. That's more than 1 million jobs lost over the last 60 days.

Obviously we all know that one of the aspects of losing a job is, in many instances, losing your health insurance as well. We are very concerned that we will have a lot of children vulnerable in America.

I think there is certainly a majority opinion. Indeed, President Bush expressed his own thoughts on that as to wanting to include children. So we think this is another matter that we need to move very quickly. But it will be almost exactly like, not exactly like, but very, very much like, very, from a substantive standpoint, very little different than the bill that we passed overwhelmingly in the House. And, of course, two-thirds of the Senate voted for it as well.

The bill will come under a rule. That rule, I haven't talked to the committee Chair, I haven't talked to Mr. Waxman, nor have I talked to Ms. Slaughter about the rule, so I don't want to represent what form the rule will be in. But it will not be a suspension bill.

Furthermore, I think the gentleman's observation is a valid observation. We have many new Members who did not consider it. We are hopeful and working towards having that bill online available on Monday for a full 48 hours before we would bring it forward on the floor for Members to see and the public to see and all the Members of the House to see.

It's hard to predict what every week will look like, as the gentleman will soon find out. If you talk to your leaders and the majority, they will tell you it is more daunting than it first appears.

Having said that, obviously, the schedule has been submitted to all the Members, all the Members know what we have scheduled in terms of days to be in session. Hopefully they have notice of that, they are cognizant of that, particularly their schedulers are cognizant of that.

We have provided, we believe, sufficient days in which to do the work that the American public expects us to get done and that we expect that needs to be done. If there are more days, we will add days.

Having said that, we are in, obviously, the first weeks of the session. A lot has been going on, which is not on the floor, simply in getting organized, the committees getting organized, getting committee members appointed by both the Republican and the Democratic sides so that much has been going on, notwithstanding the fact there have been long days on the floor. But in the early days of the session, obviously, much is going on to get ready for future floor action.

I thank the gentleman for his question. As you know, the President-elect was here this week to discuss and has discussed, gave a speech regarding the recovery package. Obviously that is an important item that we will be considering.

You have heard the agenda for next week. We also need to do the omnibus at some point in time in the near term. We will hopefully do that before the President's break.

We will have other legislation, but they will be the two major items that we will be focused on, the recovery package and the omnibus appropriation bill. Clearly, as you know, there are nine appropriation bills which were not completed last year that need to be completed so that agencies will have the funding they need to accomplish the objectives we have given them.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentleman from California and I thank the gentlelady from Florida for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Today the House will stand in support of Israel as it faces enemies bent on its destruction.

For 8 years, Hamas, aided by Iran and others, has sent deadly rockets and mortars into Israel; so many have already talked about that. In 2005, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its military from Gaza, and still the rockets came, more than 6,000, as has been related, since Israel's withdrawal.

I was in Israel on August 15 of 2005 with a delegation, a meeting with Ariel Sharon. It was a courageous act that the Israelis took; it was a controversial act that the Israelis took. It took great political courage to do what the Israelis did. And there were many citizens in that democracy that demonstrated against that action because they feared what would happen is what is happening now. Each one of them, the rockets that have been sent, those 6,000--intended to kill the maximum number of civilians and falling indiscriminately on southern Israel cities and towns--was a war crime by any definition. Mr. Royce spoke of that, as to what our response would be if Mexico or Canada-- which obviously has not done so nor would they--but if they did that, what our own citizens would demand of us. Mexico would not exist, nor would Canada, quite simply put. We would not tolerate, and no amount of criticism leveled on us would in any way modify our response.

The harm of these missiles is undeniable, I've seen it firsthand. When I traveled to the southern Israel town of Sderot, I met families whose children had lost the ability to speak, who no longer had control of their bodily functions. That is the profound and ever-present fear that covers much of Israel today.

Let us be quick to intone, however, our sympathy for the children and for the families of the Palestinians living in Gaza. Let us not forget that the problem with these conflicts is that it is the innocent who suffer the most. How tragic it is, I believe, that for over six decades the Palestinian people have been led by those who rationalize the use of terror and rationalize the premise of the destruction of Israel, established by the United Nations of the world. How tragic it is that the Palestinians have not had among their number a Gandhi, a Mandela, a Martin Luther King, Jr., who said the way to solve this problem is not through terror and violence, but the way to solve this problem is through reason and an appeal to moral suasion in the world community. How tragic it is that the Palestinian children and the Israeli children and their families--men, women, older people--on both sides have been subjected to the terror sold by Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. But the reality exists today that Hamas is in control and is threatening, and that is the danger that Israel nor any nation could endure.

As Secretary Rice said last week, and I quote, ``Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage ever since their illegal coup against the legitimate President of the Palestinian people.'' To the Hamas terrorists, the ordinary people of Gaza are not fellow citizens, but all too often propaganda props.

As reporter Jeffrey Goldberg writes, and I quote, ``Hamas terrorists unblinkingly and ostentatiously use their own civilians as human shields. I have seen this up close, and it's repulsive.''

For Hamas, the lives of Palestinians are valued as cheaply as the lives of Israelis. How sad it is for both those people. Having exhausted diplomatic options and confronted with an enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has been given no choice but to take military action in order to relieve the threat against its people.

How sad it is, my fellow colleagues, that the international community responds strongly today, but has failed to respond strongly to the decades of terrorism visited on Israel--and yes, visited on the United States--by those who employ terror and destruction and murder against innocence.

By offering this resolution, we recognize Israel's right to act in self-defense as we claim for ourselves and for every nation of the world--that same right claimed by America and any other sovereign nation when faced with a similar threat.

We urge both sides to protect the lives of civilians. I believe the Israelis are trying to do that, and they have always tried to do that. It is demonstrably true that that is not true of Hamas or Hezbollah or other similar terrorist organizations.

We urge the administration to work towards a durable--and that is the operative word, ``a durable,'' not a temporary cessation, not a 5- minute or 5-day or even 5-month cessation from terror--but a durable, sustained cessation of the terror, a durable cease-fire that puts an end to the fighting and to its cause--Hamas' ability to threaten Israel and to produce the weapons of terror.

Only when Israel's enemies forswear violence and recognize Israel's right to exist will we be any closer to a just and lasting peace, which the people need. And when I say the people need that, I don't mean the Palestinian people or the Israeli people, but the people need on both sides of the line, but which Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other such terrorist groups have refused for decades now to take place, a peace in which the Palestinian and Israeli people can live in their own states side by side. That is our objective, that is the objective of this resolution. Let us stand with Israel's right to defend itself and its people and defeat terror.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Suitland High School head football coach David ``Nick'' Lynch, who was killed in a car accident last week, at the age of 43. Nick Lynch was one of the most respected football coaches in Maryland, leading the Suitland High team for 12 years and taking it to two state championships.

More than his coaching success, though, Coach Lynch was set apart by his devotion to his players and outsized role in the Prince George's County community. As Suitland Principal Mark Fossett said, ``He's had an impact on so many people's lives--not only football players, but students in general. It wasn't like Nick was just the head coach of football. This is a devastating loss to our community, to our family.'' Many of his current and former players echoed that thought, speaking of Coach Lynch's commitment to shaping the lives of his players off the field, inviting them to church and meals, and acting as the caring authority figure that many of them had lacked. Keith Brown, one of Suitland's players, put it simply after Coach Lynch's memorial service: ``That's my father.''

At a service in which some mourners squeezed into stairways or sat in aisles, nearly 3,000 members of the Prince George's community gathered to honor Nick Lynch's impact on the lives of so many young men. Though Coach Lynch is gone, his influence will no doubt endure in all the lives he touched.

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the support staff that keeps the House up and running year-

round and regardless of which party is in power. Specifically, I would like to pay tribute to Steve and Sharon Rusnak, a truly unique couple who will both be retired within the next few months after serving ``behind the scenes'' in the House of Representatives for a truly remarkable combined service of 70 years.

Most of our colleagues, along with countless numbers of our constituents, have been on the other side of Steve's camera lens and have benefited from the skill, talent, and quiet dignity that he has brought to his work in the Office of Photography for the past 32 years. Steve joined the staff of the House in January of 1977 and has been witness to and chronicled the tremendous changes that have occurred within the Congress and the Nation for more than three decades.

After attending Ohio State University, Steve began his career as a lab technician and just retired from the House as senior photographer, having also served as acting manager for the Office of Photography last year. Through his skill, hard work, and long hours Steve has made an important contribution to the archives of the House, providing a visual recorded history and account of the House's work for these many years.

In addition to being on hand to photograph the annual State of the Union Address and other official events inside and outside of the House chamber, Steve has traveled the four corners of the world to record on film the work of Members of the House. And for so many years he has rushed from office to office and to the steps of the House chamber, in all kinds of weather, to photograph the visits made by our constituents and other groups to Washington.

In addition to the professionalism and ability he brings to his job as an official House photographer, his kind manner and ready smile have put many people at ease and given them a visual reminder of their visit to Capitol Hill which for many is a once in a lifetime opportunity. There is no telling how many people Steve has photographed and touched in such a unique way. Steve worked long hours and missed many lunches to do his job and to do it so well, and he was supported throughout the process by a woman who is no stranger to the long hours and unique workplace that exists here in the ``people's House.''

Sharon Rusnak began her service in the House in 1967, as a summer intern to the late Congressman Carl D. Perkins, D-KY. After graduating from Berea College, she worked in his official office and went on to serve as executive assistant for him, and after his death, for his son Carl C. Perkins until 1993. In addition to maintaining a very full Hill schedule, Sharon earned a master's degree in education from George Washington University.

After serving as office manager to former Representative Lynn Schenk, D-CA, Sharon joined the staff of former Congressman E ``Kika'' de la Garza, D-TX, and served as scheduler for the House Committee on Agriculture until Kika's retirement in 1996. For the next 8 years, she served as office manager for the committee's ranking minority member, former Congressman Charlie Stenholm, D-TX. Sharon is currently serving as chief administrative officer for the Agriculture Committee chaired by Congressman Collin C. Peterson, D-MN, and will remain in that position for the next few months.

Despite the long hours and hectic schedules, Steve and Sharon Rusnak have enjoyed a happy and productive life away from the halls of Congress. They married in 1973 and raised two daughters, Shelley Brooke and Stacey LeeAnn, and took an active hand in helping nurture their children's educational and athletic abilities. Steve served as a youth basketball coach, youth soccer coach, and little league coach. A soccer player in her own right, Sharon also coached youth soccer, worked as a referee, and has experience as a liturgical dancer.

Steve and Sharon's commitment to their children is clear. Shelley graduated from Christopher Newport University and Stacey took her first degree from Virginia Tech, subsequently earning a nursing degree from Marymount University in Arlington, VA.

There is an expression that ``slow and steady wins the race.'' For more than three decades the House of Representatives has benefited from the tireless service of these very capable civil servants. You won't see their names on the election ballot every 2 years, but the work of this body would be impossible without individuals such as Steve and Sharon Rusnak. Their dedication to their jobs, their country and their family are an inspiration to us all and I would like to thank and commend them for their selfless service to this body. And I hasten to wish them a long, happy, and healthy retirement. They have certainly earned it.

Madam Speaker, today, I want to thank one of my former staffers, David Ransom, who recently left the Majority Leader's Office to join one of our Nation's premier law firms, for his 9 years of service as my principal speechwriter, as a key member of my communications team, and as a senior advisor who always offered strong recommendations based on solid reasoning.

There are few people who have served on my staff who know my position on issues better than David does.

At a going-away luncheon for David, I told the assembled staff that I needed them to step up as David had, and to give me their best advice and counsel--even if that meant that on occasion they might be disagreeing with me or other staff. As a good lawyer, David clearly appreciates the importance of making a compelling argument. But he also recognizes the necessity of anticipating and considering opposing points of view and policy positions.

This approach not only has made David a valued member of my staff, but also has enabled me to better serve my constituents in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, this great institution and our Nation.

During his more than 9 years on my staff, David demonstrated that he is a team player and problem solver who has exceptional analytical, writing, and communication skills. Over that period, he drafted everything from short statements, to countless Floor statements, to major speeches, to substantive policy documents, to advocacy materials for members of the Democratic Caucus.

While I am certainly sad to lose a trusted, valued member of my staff, I am very pleased that David has joined such a great law firm-- McDermott Will & Emery, one of the top law firms in America. There's no question that his insight into the congressional leadership and the Members who serve here will be of great value to McDermott Will & Emery's clients.

I wish David and his family--his wife, Lori, and two children--all the best in the future, and again thank him for his efforts on my behalf.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, there will be no votes for the balance of the day, and there will be no votes tomorrow.

There will be a joint session tomorrow. We will meet for the counting and for the report of the electoral college votes of the November 4 election.

There will be votes on Friday, and I will be trying to get you additional information on the calendar for Friday. Clearly there will be at least two bills on the floor--there may be others--the Pay Equity bill that already passed the House last year, and the so-called Ledbetter bill are two items that have been currently already noticed, but there may be other items that we're working in conjunction with the minority on whether or not we can move those forward.

But I wanted to let Members know that there would be no further votes today that we contemplate no votes tomorrow. But there will be votes on Friday.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 111th Congress, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 111th Congress, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material within the permitted limit in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''