Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this debate must be somewhat confusing for the American public. First of all, almost every one of us stands and says that we want the alternative minimum tax fixed. We want it fixed because of the presumption of the alternative minimum tax, which I support and which I will not vote to repeal unless we pay for it. I want you to know that I speak as the father of three daughters, as the grandfather of three grandchildren, and as the great-grandfather of one great-granddaughter. I have listened to this debate. I am going to speak about this debate, and I am going to refer to history. My friend Mr. Ryan knows what I am going to say because I have said it before, but I believe the American people need to know this.

Let me place it in context. I have served in this body for 26 years. During that time, Republican Presidents have served for 18 of those years. A Democratic President, President Clinton, served for 8 of those years. During the Presidencies of President Reagan, President George Bush and the present President Bush, we have accumulated deficits in America of $4.1 trillion of deficit spending.

Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks. Just one. Not me, not anybody on this floor. We need 217 other people to do that with us. But one person can stop spending in its tracks. And in the 26 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States, no President has had a veto of a spending bill

that spent too much overridden. Not one.

This President has vetoed no spending bills under Republican Congresses. Not one. No matter how much they spent. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen of this House, they spent at twice the rate of growth that the Democrats under President Clinton spent.

Now, Republicans were in charge of Congress, but they were in charge of everything during the first 6 years of this century. Everything. House, Senate, Presidency.

My friend made the observation that neither side had done too well. I would suggest my side has done a lot better. Because under my side in those 8 years of the Clinton administration, we had a $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years, and we didn't have to raise the national debt one time in the last 4 years after we got the deficits created under the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration down, from a $292 billion operating deficit when we took over to surpluses during the last 4 years, and a straight line of reduction every one of the first 4 years of the Clinton administration.

Why? Because we Democrats believe in spend and pay. You simply believe in spend and borrow. You believe that it is a politically wise policy to pursue that ``don't tax the voters, tax the children.'' Tax the children. Delay the ramifications of spending until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, when the children will have to pay the bill, because, after all, they are not voting.

I have heard a lot of wringing of hands about PAYGO. I know you are all waiting to hear me read a quote, so I will read it to you. ``With the other body unable to pass even a budget this year,'' that was referring to a Republican Senate, by the way, ``we were obviously unable to reach an agreement on legislation to extend PAYGO and other budget rules. It is my hope that this can be done next year as part of a normal budget process. I would close by reminding our colleagues and Members that the PAYGO rule contributed to taming of deficits over the past seven years, and it is my hope that a successor to PAYGO can be developed and coupled with caps on discretionary appropriations.'' That quote, of course, comes from Jim Nussle.

As a matter of fact, President Bush's administration also said that they were for PAYGO, until they found out that PAYGO applied to cutting revenues. And because they didn't want to stop buying, I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and you knew that you would be constrained in buying if PAYGO applied to your tax cuts, which I supported for the middle-class but not for the skewing of taxes that I saw in your proposals, that you would have to stop spending, because you couldn't pay for it. So you jettisoned PAYGO, a premise that was overwhelmingly adopted by Republicans and I voted for in the 1997 Budget Act, because I believe in balancing our budget.

I have served in legislative bodies for almost 40 years, and I have found people who like to vote for spending but don't like to vote for paying. It takes no courage whatsoever, I tell my friends, to take my credit card out of my pocket and put it in there, sign the little slip and think I will never have to pay for it, because, by the way, I will be dead and gone by then and my children will have to pay the debt. That has been referred to by Mr. Portman as an immoral policy, Rob Portman, the former Director of the OMB, a former member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support in favor of this tax cut for millions of Americans. Will there be an offset? There will be. And, as I said, I will not vote to fix the AMT unless we pay for it. Because if we fix the AMT without paying for it, what we will say to people like Steny Hoyer and every Member of this House, maybe we have a conflict of interest, because every Member of this House is going to be affected by this if we don't repeal the AMT, for those of us at this income level.

So maybe we have a conflict of interest. Maybe we want to save ourselves a little money, but we don't want to pay for it, because raising revenues takes political courage. There is no courage whatsoever in plunging our country into debt, spending and not paying. It is, as Rob Portman said, an immoral policy, lacking in courage and lacking in fiscal responsibility.

My friends, we need to pass this bill and give millions of Americans a tax cut and ensure that millions of Americans will not get a tax increase. PAYGO is a policy that demands responsibility.

Many of you voted for the bankruptcy bill, as I did. I was criticized by some because we thought that individuals ought to exercise fiscal responsibility in the managing of their finances. I think corporately as a government we ought to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let no one be mistaken. This is precisely what this legislation offered by Chairman Rangel was designed to do, give a tax cut to millions of Americans and preclude millions of Americans from paying more, and asking other Americans to pay their fair share so those at the bottom of the rung don't have to pay more to defend our country, to educate our children, to keep our families healthy.

Mr. Speaker, this tax cut will provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. It will help 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit. It will help 4.5 million families better afford college with tuition deductions. It will save 3.4 million teachers money with deductions for classroom expenses.

My wife was a teacher. She died 10\1/2\ years ago. She was one of the best people that I have ever met in my life, if not the best. Every year, we would spend a couple of hundred dollars, and we could afford it, maybe even a little more than that, to make sure that her kids in her classroom had things that they needed but were not provided. We are going to give teachers a tax cut to do that. Our children will be served and our teachers will be served.

In short, this bill will extend tax credits and deductions that will benefit a wide array of Americans and the American economy. And, yes, this legislation helps to restore tax fairness and once again demonstrates that this Democratic majority is committed to fiscal responsibility.

Let me restate that figure: 18 years of Republican Presidents, $4.1 trillion of deficit spending. Under Bill Clinton, 8 years, $62.9 billion net surplus. No indebtedness. No indebtedness in the last 4 years.

We are now over $9 trillion in debt. This administration has gone from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion. Republicans were in control of everything, and spending escalated at twice the rate it did when Bill Clinton was President.

My friends, this bill is a fair bill. This bill is responsible. This bill gives tax cuts to millions of Americans and asks some few Americans to pay their fair share. Vote for this bill. It is good for America, it is good for our people, it is the right, and as Rob Portman said, the moral thing to do.

I thank the distinguished whip for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will not be in session so that we can observe Veterans Day in honor of those who have sacrificed for our country, served our country so ably and well, and to remember those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms that we enjoy today.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and 9 a.m. on Friday. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills, of course, will be announced by the close of business today.

Under rules, we expect to consider H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, and the conference report on H.R. 1429, Improving Head Start Act. In addition, we hope to be able to consider additional conference reports as they become available. And in light of the fact it's our last week before the Thanksgiving break, if there are other items that come to our attention, we will try to move those forward as well. But we don't have notice of those at this point in time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I can't represent to the gentleman the specific plan because I have not gotten that from Mr. Obey, what his thoughts are on that or what his discussions have been with Senator Byrd or with the subcommittee Chairs in both of the bodies. However, we certainly intend to move that forward, as the gentleman suggests, as quickly as possible.

I thank my friend for that question on the trade bills. We did have a bipartisan vote on the Peru Trade Agreement which incorporated, as we had urged, both worker protections and environmental protections. And with respect to the other three agreements which have been negotiated, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, frankly, we don't yet know. As the gentleman knows, with respect to the agreement with Panama, the complication really doesn't regard the trade agreement as much as it regards the concern that many people have on both sides of the aisle that the Speaker or President of the Panamanian Parliament is under indictment in the United States with an extradition request for the murder of an American soldier. That, obviously, has complicated the consideration of that agreement.

With respect to Colombia, frankly, I want to tell the gentleman, I don't expect Colombia to come up until next year or South Korea to come up before next year. We obviously have, after

next week, we hope, a short time left to go, maybe six, seven legislative days. So it would be unrealistic to expect us to be able to move these agreements within that time frame. But if we could resolve, I think, the issue regarding Panama, that might be possible.

I thank the gentleman for his question. I did say that. He's correct. However, the principal proponents of that resolution, obviously, the relationship with Turkey is a very important one for the United States. It is a critical time in the Middle East. Turkey has been, obviously, a great help in some respects, sometimes. And so the principal sponsors of that resolution have written a letter to the Speaker and myself and asked us not to move forward with that resolution at this time. But it is obviously still a matter of great concern to the Speaker, to myself and, frankly, the majority of this House who are sponsors of this resolution.

But in answer to the gentleman's question, I do not expect it to move forward any time soon.

It is possible. And the reason I say it's possible is because a lot of Members, obviously, would like to get out. It's Thanksgiving week. We're leaving. And I'm not sure whether it's a majority of your side or the majority, but I think there's probably unanimity that if we could see our way clear to finishing the business that we have by Thursday, they would prefer to work Tuesday night than they would prefer to work on Friday day. So I want to say to my friend it's possible, to facilitate the work. We're going to be talking about that later on today, and maybe even over the weekend, where we are. So I want to say to the gentleman, it's possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the committee, for yielding the time.

Madam Chairman, America was regaled today by the President of France, and he talked about America's values. He said that is why the world loves America, because of its values.

Now, whether all the world loves America's actions all the time is another question, but they know that one of our cardinal values was that we believe that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one in America believes that you can pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the opportunity to have employment.

In America, we have discriminated historically against various groups of people. Some because of the color of their skin. Some because of their gender. Some because of their religion. Some because of their ethnic origin. There have been all sorts of reasons throughout our history that we have discriminated against people.

Madam Chairman, for more than 200 years our great Nation has fought for and advanced the timeless values and ideals that are embodied in our constitution: fairness, justice and equality under law.

And today through this bipartisan legislation, the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, we again take a momentous step in breaking down centuries of rank injustice, unthinking prejudice, and unjustified discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.

It could be gays and lesbians, it could be African Americans, it could be Catholics, it could be Baptists like me. We have all been discriminated against

from time to time. It could be a Jew. It could be somebody of any other arbitrary distinction.

What this country really believes is that we should not discriminate against anybody. It so happens this bill describes one somebody, but it really refers to everybody. And it really is saying in this just Nation, we believe in equal opportunity.

When the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it prohibited employment discrimination based on race and gender; discrimination that often was open and far too often regarded as acceptable.

Frankly, my colleagues, as we sit here in this Chamber, hopefully all 435 of us believe that if we had lived in another time a half a century ago or perhaps a century ago, we would have even then thought it was wrong to discriminate against somebody because of the color of their skin. But we know that too many of our predecessors voted to allow and to further discrimination against people because of their color.

I presume that some of those looked back after their service in this body maybe 10 or 20 years later and said, I am historically sorry that I cast that discriminatory vote. I hope that none of my colleagues find themselves in that place today or tomorrow, and tomorrow or 10 years from now.

We have expanded the scope of the law's protection to prohibit employment discrimination based on religion, color, national origin, and disability. Today, through this historic civil rights legislation, we would simply add sexual orientation as a protected class, because even in 2007, there is little doubt that gay and lesbian Americans are too often the object of discrimination, not because of their actions but because of who they are. America believes that's wrong. That's what President Sarkozy was saying today.

Madam Chairman, let us be clear. This legislation is consistent with our values, our ideals, and America's long history of social progress. Thus, the question before us today is not only whether we will choose to do the right thing and pass this bill, but whether we will choose to stand on the right side of history; saying to some of our fellow citizens yes, you may be different than we are, but you are entitled by our Constitution and by our God and by our values to equal treatment under law.

This legislation, in fact, is the logical extension of the law in some 20 States that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. I should note that the Federal Government, we have taken that action. All the people who work for us, we bar discrimination against them based upon sexual orientation.

Madam Chairman, as the lead House sponsor of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, I harbor no illusions that this legislation will topple centuries of prejudice overnight or that we can legislate that prejudice out of existence. That is probably not possible. But what we can do, what we ought to in fairness do this day is say that it is not lawful in the United States to have that prejudice prevent the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of opportunities offered by this great, fair and just Nation.

I urge my colleagues to stand with great pride, to vote against discrimination in this great, just land we call America.

Mr. Speaker, I know this will come as an extraordinary disappointment to all of the Members in the House, but in consultation with my friend the minority whip, and in consultation with Mr. Levin, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Mr. Rangel, and I have not talked to Mr. McCrery and I apologize for that, but I think that the way we will proceed, we will proceed to debate tonight, I'm trying to elongate this announcement because so many times people are so angry at me for scheduling. I think it's one of the few opportunities I get to make people a little bit happy. But we will save 20 minutes of debate. We will do all but 20 minutes of the allocated debate. There are four sides to this. Five, five, five and five, we will save for tomorrow, and we will commence that at the conclusion of the 1-minutes. There are 10 a side. So that will take about 20, 25 minutes, and we will commence the closing of debate, and then we will have the vote on this bill immediately following that debate.

I yield to the gentleman.

I knew this was going to be a good night.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

I am sorry, I may have misunderstood the gentleman. You asked for a recorded vote on the motion to refer to committee?

I withdraw my motion. He wants to have a vote. I call the question.

No. I moved that the resolution be referred to the Judiciary Committee. The gentleman then posed a parliamentary inquiry. He then asked that the votes be tallied on the motion.

Parliamentary Inquiry

No, I move to refer the bill to the committee. This matter is a matter of very serious import.

I move the previous question on the motion to refer.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The previous speaker I have great respect for; I think he's one of the very conscientious, very able Members of this House, and I think he is one of the fiscal conservatives that follows a consistent policy. I don't think that's true

of all his colleagues. I think they talk a fiscally conservative game sometimes, but don't play a fiscally conservative game. But let me tell my friend this: expenditures are both domestic and non-domestic. And my friend is leaving, Mr. Flake. I guess I'm not going to talk to him about it. But the previous speaker spoke about fiscally conservative actions. This President has sent down to us a request for $196.4 billion in expenditures, not in Anchorage, not in Baltimore and not in Mississippi or California, $196.4 billion for Baghdad and Kabul. But, he says, water resources development is too much for America. He doesn't pay for a single cent of that $196.4 billion, not a cent, but he says in order to develop the levees to save New Orleans, it has cost us billions of dollars because they weren't adequate; or to build bridges that don't fall down in Minnesota, he says this is too much money. And I understand that WDRA doesn't cover bridges. But the point is it covers investment in our country.

Mr. Speaker, like most of our House colleagues, I am deeply disappointed that the President has chosen to veto the Water Resources Development Act. It is critical to the health of our people, to economic development in this country, and the safety of our communities.

The WDRA conference report, which passed the House and Senate by overwhelming bipartisan votes, 381 Members of this House said this investment is good for America, and in the Senate, 81 Senators said this investment is good for America, because it makes critical investments in our Nation's water resources and infrastructure.

In short, this conference report will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain our Federal shipping channels, preserving jobs and bolstering the economy. It will allow the Corps to work with States and local communities on necessary environmental restoration projects, and it will permit the Corps to ensure the safety of our citizens by shoring up our aging levees, dams, and reducing the possibility of flooding.

Furthermore, this conference report makes specific investments in the gulf coast, which was so damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I see my friend, Mr. Melancon, on the floor of this House. He knows how critical this funding is for his region and for America. For example, it would restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands, which provide increased hurricane and storm damage protection which ultimately will save us billions of dollars. It would raise and enhance flood protection levees surrounding the City of New Orleans, and it would make improvements to the drainage canals that significantly contributed to the flooding of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Many of us have been there and have seen that damage.

Unfortunately, despite the beneficial investments called for in this conference report, the President has chosen to stand in the way of this bipartisan legislation, this overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation, in an attempt to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Fiscally responsible people invest in their future. Fiscally responsible people maintain their infrastructure. Fiscally responsible people know that clean water and safe harbors aid our commerce and the health of our people. That is conservative investment. Let us be clear, the President wants to make a stand on fiscal responsibility. This is the wrong bill to have done so.

The WRDA conference report is a multi-year authorization through which Congress would appropriate about $2 billion a year for the Corps to undertake important projects. Furthermore, this conference report reflects a backlog of 7 years of project requests because the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses failed to enact a water resources bill.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, let us fulfill our promise to communities all across this Nation, not to Baghdad, not to Kabul, but to the cities and States that I've mentioned. Let us meet our responsibility, the vital fiscally responsible investments in projects that facilitate commerce and economic development, provide eco-system restoration, and protect human life and property.

Let us exercise the responsibility that the Constitution of the United States gives to us, and that is to set policy and invest the resources of our public in a better future for our country.

Vote to override this mistaken veto.

Madam Speaker, I first want thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, David Obey--who also chairs the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education--for his hard work and vision in putting this appropriations conference report together.

I also want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs--Congressman Edwards of Texas--for his outstanding work on this conference report and his unwavering dedication to our Nation's veterans.

This is an excellent, fiscally responsible conference report that makes vital investments in expanding access to health care for our people, in educating our children, in job training, in medical research, and in providing the largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Simply put, this conference report deserves the overwhelming support of members--just as the individual bills did when they were considered in both the House and Senate.

Recall, we passed the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill on a bipartisan vote of 276 to 140, with 53 Republicans joining a nearly unanimous Democratic caucus.

The Senate passed its own version of this bill 75 to 19.

And, both chambers passed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill by overwhelming margins--409 to 2 in the House, and 92 to 1 in the Senate.

This conference report demonstrates our democratic priorities--as well as the President's misguided, shortsighted budget proposals, which would cut funding for Labor, Health and Education programs by $3.6 billion below the enacted funding level in fiscal year 2007.

If the President had his way, he would cut vocational education; eliminate all student aid other than work study and Pell Grants; cut medical research; cut law enforcement grants; cut education for children with disabilities; cut rural health programs; cut clean water programs; and cut the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. The American people do not support such a proposal. And neither do Democrats.

Thus, this conference report provides $9.8 billion above the President's request for Labor, Health and Education programs--which barely keeps pace with inflation and population growth.

Through this conference report, 1.2 million more Americans would have access to community health centers, and we would increase funding for programs that help parents pay for college, for No Child Left Behind programs, for vocational education and Job Corps, and for medical research into life threatening diseases.

Through this conference report, we also will keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans, providing $3.7 billion more than the President requested for veterans' medical care, claims processing personnel, and facility improvements.

The President has said such funding is unnecessary.

We absolutely disagree.

The idea that we cannot find the funds necessary to invest in health care, education and medical research, and in medical care of the men and women who have sacrificed for this country is patently absurd--and it must be rejected.

How is it that the President can demand that this Congress spend another $200 billion of taxpayers' dollars for his failing policy in Iraq while he seeks to shortchange critical programs at home?

His vain attempt to try to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility by threatening to veto this conference report--particularly in light of his disastrous and irresponsible fiscal policies--will fool no one.

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent conference report that reflects the priorities of the American people, and rejects the President's misguided proposals.

Finally, let me say that Mr. Obey effectively dispensed yesterday--in his speech at the National Press Club--with the Republican complaint that this conference report threatens enactment of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill.

Only once in the last 5 years did the Republican Majority send the President a free-standing Military Construction conference report. Three times you packaged that bill with others. And last year, you failed to even enact a Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill.

I urge my colleagues: vote for this fiscally responsible conference report, which makes critical investments in our Nation, our people and our future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most dynamic and important figures in Maryland's history as he prepares to celebrate yet another milestone in a life full of them.

Tomorrow (November 2), William Donald Schaefer, the former Governor and Comptroller of the State of Maryland, former Mayor of Baltimore, and distinguished public servant will celebrate his 86th birthday. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting Governor Schaefer on this momentous occasion.

Throughout his 86 years--nearly 50 of which were spent in public office--William Donald Schaefer has been driven by a burning desire to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. I am confident that this was instilled in him at a young age by his parents, William and Tululu.

Following his service in the U.S. Army during World War II, Schaefer returned to his beloved Baltimore and embarked on what was to become one of the most successful political careers Maryland has ever witnessed.

In 1955, Governor Schaefer first entered public office when he was elected to the Baltimore City Council from the city's 5th District. He served on the council for 16 years, including four years as its president. During his term as President of the City Council, Schaefer was a steadying force during turbulent times, helping direct the National Guard in quelling the riots following the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 1971, Schaefer was elected as Mayor of the City of Baltimore, succeeding Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro III, brother of the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Schaefer was subsequently re-elected three times, never receiving less than 85 percent of the vote.

Schaefer's dedication to his hometown was unmatched then, as it is now. He served as something of a ``Motivator in Chief,'' reigniting a sense of pride in the city's residents. His philosophy was simple--``Do It Now''--cut through the red tape and provide citizens with the basic services they expect: clean neighborhoods, filled potholes, and plowed streets.

His accomplishments as mayor are many and have had a long and lasting impact on the city. He led the redevelopment of Baltimore's Inner Harbor, including the building of the National Aquarium, helping to transform the Harbor into a city center and establishing Baltimore as a significant tourist destination. He oversaw the construction of the Baltimore City Convention Center and the establishment of a subway system in the city. It is not hard to understand why he was repeatedly named the ``Best Mayor in America.''

In 1986, Schaefer demonstrated a commitment to the entire state when he decided to run to become the 58th Governor of Maryland. He was elected by a landslide and was reelected by a wide margin four years later.

As governor, he worked to improve Maryland's public education system, established the Maryland Department of the Environment, made headway in the efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay, improve transportation infrastructure, including the establishment of the MTA's Light Rail Line. He also led the push to establish Oriole Park at Camden Yards and laid the groundwork for what became M&T Bank Stadium, home of the Baltimore Ravens.

When forced by term-limits to retire as governor, newspapers and citizens alike heralded the end of the so-called Schaefer era. But, much to our good fortune, it was not to be. The desire to serve was too strong.

Energetic and as enthusiastic as ever about helping the people of his state, William Donald Schaefer came out of a well deserved retirement in 1998, to be elected as the 32nd Comptroller of the State of Maryland, a position to which he was overwhelmingly reelected in 2002.

Governor Schaefer has now embarked on his second retirement, but we all know that such a man can never truly retire. He cares too much for his fellow Marylanders and continues to serve as an inspiration to all of us for his continued commitment to service.

I think the Baltimore Sun captured it best at the conclusion of his second term as governor. The final paragraph of the paper's editorial reads:

``Mr. Schaefer is no shrinking violet. His larger-than-life personality can be alternately endearing and enraging. But he cares deeply about people. That's the bottom line for him. Helping people. You couldn't ask for more from a public servant.''

No you couldn't.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and express thanks to Geraldine Gennet for her dedicated service as General Counsel of the House of Representatives.

Under the rules of the House, the Office of the General Counsel should provide legal advice and assistance to all Members of Congress, committees, officers, and employees without regard to political affiliation. Since her 1997 appointment by Speaker Newt Gingrich to lead that office, Ms. Gennet has dutifully fulfilled that obligation. Despite the unfortunate partisan tenor within Congress over the past 10 years, the Office of the General Counsel unfailingly has been a professional, nonpartisan advocate for individuals across the ideological spectrum--this is a testament to Ms. Gennet and to her ability to place the long term interests of the institution before parochial concerns and partisanship.

In addition to providing general legal guidance to Members and staff on issues related to subpoenas, requests for information, and tort claims, Ms. Gennet also worked tirelessly to uphold the institutional privileges and immunities of the House of Representatives. Upon my election as Democratic Whip, I became a member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, otherwise known as BLAG. This body is comprised of both Democratic and Republican leadership and is responsible for directing the Office of the General Counsel to file amicus briefs on behalf of the House of Representatives. During my work with BLAG, I had the opportunity to observe first-hand the deep respect Ms. Gennet has for the House of Representatives. Ms. Gennet is a firm believer in the separation of powers and in the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. When it may have been more expedient to relent on these issues, Ms. Gennet fought to preserve the powers and prerogatives of the Congress.

On behalf of myself and the members of my Caucus, I again want to extend my deepest thanks to Geraldine Gennet for her service and I wish her the best with her future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m.

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

On Tuesday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and 9 a.m. on Friday.

We expect to consider H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007; and H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007; the conference report on the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. If the President vetoes the WRDA bill, we will expect to take up that veto as well.

Also, Members should note on Wednesday, President Sarkozy of France will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate. I would like to say to all the Members who are listening, I would hope that they would make a special effort to be here for the address of President Sarkozy.

I would make the observation that the new President of France is someone who, I think, holds great promise for partnership with the United States. I think he has expressed that inclination. I think that is a very significant, positive step forward, and I hope that most of us that will be able to, within the framework of legislative business, be here to hear his address.

As I said in my announcement, it is my expectation that the Labor-HHS conference report will be on the floor next week. I don't know whether it will be Wednesday or Thursday of next week, but I expect it to be on the floor next week.

The conference, much of the work of the conference, as I indicated last week, the preconferencing was occurring, both parties were involved in that preconferencing, and hopefully that has led to what will be a relatively brief conference. I do not have information whether or not they were able to conclude today. I know they met this morning and into this afternoon. I don't know whether they have concluded.

My sense is those were the press reports.

I can neither confirm nor deny, as they say, that that is the case.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

And I know that point has been made, but I want to tell you, very honestly, I hear you make the point, but not only did you package almost all, the majority of bills in 2005 and 2006, but you packaged them in the calendar year, that is to say, 3 months from today, before they were passed. And so that, although that is your desire, and it is my desire, we share that view, you're absolutely right. These bills ought to be considered individually, one at a time, on their merits, sent to the President, and he ought to have the opportunity to veto them or sign them individually.

But I would remind the gentleman that in fiscal year, I believe, I may be wrong on the fiscal year, fiscal year 2005, it was not until February 2005 that that bill was passed, with eight or nine of the bills incorporated in an omnibus. And in either the year before that, or the year after that, in January, eight bills were sent.

Now, I may be off one or two bills on the numbers, but my point is, the gentleman is correct. Unfortunately, that has not been the practice, either under your leadership or our leadership. And I think it's unfortunate, personally. But we're going to move these bills, as I said last week, hopefully as quickly

and effectively as possible; and, hopefully, the President will sign them. They've passed with an average of 285 votes, some closer, some different than that. Averages lie in that respect. But they have passed pretty handily both Houses of the Congress. In the Senate every one has passed with a veto-proof majority. That's not true in the House. But we're hopeful that we can get these bills to the President and signed by the President, whether they're individually or in packages.

Is there any doubt that that's what we're trying to do?

On that point, because I think it's important for our Members to understand and for the public to understand what's going on. The gentleman is correct. You took the Veterans bill out of the Housing bill. We think you liked the Veterans bill. We're not sure you liked the Housing bill, and so you took them apart so you could pass what you liked and leave what you didn't like alone.

As you know, the first 2 months that we came in, we dealt with the eight bills that you had not passed. They were all domestic bills. You passed the Defense bill, the MilCon bill, Homeland Security bill, all of that, broad bipartisan support on our side, your side. Education was left on the table. Health was left on the table. Environment, left on the table. Space, left on the table. Law enforcement, left on the table.

We understand the decoupling. Decoupling is to put us in a position where we don't have any options. You'll take what was passed with 409 votes in this House. It was $4 billion over what the President requested, billions of dollars under what the veterans said they needed.

And now the President says he is going to sign that bill. Why is he going to sign that bill? Because I think he believes it's politically feasible to do it. It's $4 billion over what the President asked for, and he said we shouldn't ask for more than he asked for. We asked for $4 billion more than he asked for for veterans, and he's going to sign it. Overwhelmingly supported here in the House, and we would override his veto. He knows that, so I don't think he's given us much, very frankly.

And we are trying to figure out how we can get Education signed by the President, funding No Child Left Behind signed by the President, NIH, cancer research, heart, lung and blood research, diabetes research signed by the President.

So very frankly, your decoupling was to make sure that you got the bill you liked signed. Our coupling may be to ensure that we get the bill that we like signed. So very frankly, the efforts, I think, are the same. The priorities just may be different.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't have the figure in front of me, but I will find it out. I believe, very frankly, very few substitutes have been brought to the Rules Committee by your side. But that aside, I will get that number so we will know it.

But I take your point. That aside, I take your point.

Let me say that what we intend to do is continue to try to facilitate the work of this House, facilitate passing legislation, and we will continue to try to do that.

Yes, I think I mentioned that.

No, I don't know whether it will be Wednesday, Thursday or

Friday; but it will be one of those three days is my expectation. I know Mr. Rangel wants to move the AMT patch. I'm for moving the AMT patch. I'm for paying for it. But I'm for moving it. The Temporary Tax Relief Act.

Yes, that's what we're referring to. So the answer is, yes, we intend to move that next week.

I don't have that dollar amount, but I know that it's in the $50 billion category to do a temporary patch, which we have done over the last few years. We borrowed the money each time we've done that, but it's about $50 billion. We intend to pay for it.

As you know, we have followed the PAYGO rules since we adopted them, and we intend to hew to that practice. And we think it's the appropriate practice, rather than borrow $50 billion today to give taxpayers relief so that our children can pay for that tax relief in the future. We feel strongly about that and we intend to do that.

We anticipate Friday of next week. And I'm not yet anticipating the 16th, which is Friday, because I'm not sure exactly. The continuing resolution ends on the 16th of November. It is my expectation that we will do another continuing resolution while we continue to try to pass the balance of the appropriation bills, and I expect to do that earlier than the 16th, but we can't give away the 16th at this point in time because we have no intention of shutting down the government and, therefore, we're going to make sure that we provide for making sure the government stays in operation. But if we can conclude our work by the 15th, I'm sure the Members will be happy. But the 16th is still on the schedule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding one more time.

I have not mentioned something, but I do want to mention, so the House knows and, frankly, the public knows as well. As you know, we have been working very hard on the Children's Health Insurance Program, trying to get as many children as possible covered by children's health. I want to thank the whip. I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Boehner. Their staffs have been engaged. Our staffs have been engaged. Senate Democratic and Republican staff and Members have been engaged. We're still working on that.

As you know, Senator Reid attempted to get a delay in the consideration of the bill on the Senate floor. That was objected to by Mr. McConnell, or actually Mr. Lott on behalf of Mr. McConnell, and they took it up today. Mr. Reid asked for another extension. That was objected to by Mr. McConnell this time. So they considered it today.

But I want the whip to know that we are intending to continue to pursue discussions. Obviously the Senate has to send the bill back here. But we want to continue to pursue these discussions to see whether or not we can come to agreement so that we can send a bill to the President that, hopefully, he would sign but, if he doesn't sign, that two-thirds of us on this side of the Capitol and two-thirds on the other side of the Capitol would be prepared to see it move forward.

Well, they have to send it back here as the House of origin, I believe. I'm not sure that it has to be sent back. I may be incorrect in that. But I am not sure how soon the Senate will send the bill down.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Frankly, we have a disagreement on whether you were denied time. We did pass the bill, but we have been pursuing, as the gentleman observed, and I appreciate the participation of those Republicans, one of whom is sitting on the floor, who have participated in numerous meetings, whether or not we can accommodate the interests of both sides in passing legislation to include the children, expanding it to 10 million. But notwithstanding the fact that we passed it, as I explained to the House, we wanted to get that bill to the Senate so that they could have it ready for consideration.

We were in agreement that it ought to be moved over until next week. Senator Reid asked for that so we could continue to work. As I advised Senator Reid, the leader, I advised him that I thought there were good- faith discussions going on. I thought there was an opportunity to move forward. I am still hopeful that that is the case. And as a result, I am hopeful that we will take the additional time, the next day, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, to try to see if we can come to agreement.

As you know, you, Mr. Boehner and I met, and Mr. Boehner's observation was there may be significant numbers that could accrue as a result of the discussions and negotiations. We're hopeful that that is the case. If that's the case, then we would be successful in adding the 4 million children that we seek to add to the President's 6 million plus.

What I wanted to indicate before we close this colloquy is that I am hopeful we will still take that time, and I have indicated to a number of people that I want to pursue, we want to pursue, those discussions with the opportunity to perhaps take some additional action if agreement is possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Nicholas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.