Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, earlier today, the President of the United States, in defiance of bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and in defiance of the will of a great majority of Americans, vetoed fiscally responsible legislation that would ensure that 10 million children in our Nation receive health insurance coverage. That's approximately 4 million more children than are covered under the highly successful Children's Health Insurance Program today.

I remind the Members of the House that that program was adopted in 1997 by a Republican-controlled Congress with strong Democratic support, a bipartisan program. Let us be clear, this is a defining moment for this Congress and for a President who has labeled himself a compassionate conservative.

The President's veto, my colleagues, must not stand. The President wrongly claims that this bipartisan legislation is fiscally irresponsible. But the truth is the Children's Health Insurance Program legislation, forged by Members on both sides of this aisle, is paid for. It does not add to the deficit or to the debt. Moreover, President Bush, whose policies over the last 6 years have instigated record budget deficits and spiraling debt, should not be lecturing anyone on the issue of fiscal discipline. This administration, I suggest to all of us, has pursued and enacted the most fiscally irresponsible policies perhaps in American history. In fact, even as the President vetoed this CHIP legislation, all of it paid for, he has asked Congress to approve another $190 billion to protect Baghdad and its environs. Mr. President, we need to protect the children of Bowie, of New York, of Peoria, of Miami, of California.

In fact, even as the President vetoed, as I said, this legislation, he sent to us a $190 billion request for more money for the war in Iraq, the civil war in Iraq, a place where, very frankly, it is far past time where the people of Iraq took the responsibility to defend and secure their country.

This legislation that the President has vetoed is about securing the health of America's children. With this veto, the President is playing politics, pure and simple.

After running up record deficits in debt, he is now trying to establish his fiscal bona fides with his conservative political base by denying health services to children.

Mr. President, it won't work. Mr. President, it shouldn't work. Mr. President, it is not compassionate, nor is it common sense.

Senator Hatch, no one's idea of a liberal or of a Democratic spinmeister, said on the Senate floor last week, and I quote, ``It is unfortunate that the President has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of the issue.'' That was Senator Hatch.

I hope all of us in this body, Republican and Democrat, decide, when this vote comes up, to determine whether or not the Congress should make policy or whether we will be subservient to the President's veto in protecting children.

I hope all of us, Republican and Democrat, liberal, moderate and conservative, will join together to respond to the children of this country and their families who agonize about not having the health insurance they need so that their children can be kept healthy.

Senator Roberts of Kansas remarked, another leader in the Republican Party, ``I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concern with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto, but bluntly put,'' said Senator Roberts from Kansas, who served in this body, ``the assertions of the President,'' he said, ``are wrong.'' Technically, he said that the premises were inaccurate.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is not only supported by majorities in the House and Senate, it is supported by doctors, nurses, private insurers, children's advocates, 43 Governors. The list goes on and on and on. But most importantly, most importantly, it's supported by the parents of children who are working, working hard every day, playing by the rules. Perhaps both are working, if they're fortunate to have two parents in the home, or a single parent, mom or dad, working hard, but making too little to afford insurance and working for an employer who can't give them insurance. Most of all, that is the constituency, that is the voice we ought to hear, that is why we ought to override this veto.

According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released just this week, 72 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, support this legislation, 69 percent of independents. What is perhaps most stunning of all is that, with this veto, the President has violated his own pledge at the Republican National Convention in 2004. You've heard me say this before, but let me say it again: ``In a new term we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government programs.'' ``We will not allow,'' said the President, ``a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' Mr. President, that is what you have done by this veto, stood between those children and the insurance they need.

I urge my colleagues, override this veto, support this motion, and on October 18 let us vote for the children.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will my friend yield just for a technical matter?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I appreciate what my very close and dear friend and one of the best Members of this Congress, in my opinion, Maurice Hinchey, has just said. Like many Americans, he thinks and many Americans think this doesn't go far enough. From the perspectives of perhaps everybody in the Chamber, it doesn't go far enough towards the position they would like to take. It is not a perfect resolution, but then again none are.

What it does do, however, is try to say that if we are going to make decisions in the House of Representatives on an issue so critically important to our country and to the welfare of our troops that are in harm's way that we have the advice or at least the opinion of the administration as to how actions ought to be taken. Therefore, if there are those of us who believe, as I know my friend from New York does and some others, that we ought to redeploy, change course, redirect our efforts, the best advice and counsel that we could get on how to do that ought to be from our military leaders.

And what this resolution simply says is, and I agree with my friend from Connecticut that we can say, hopefully, with a somewhat unified voice, perhaps not unanimous but somewhat unified voice, if we were to take the position that the gentleman and I shared when we voted for redeployment within a timeframe, tell us how that would be done. Tell us how it would be done consistent with the safety of our troops. Tell us how it would be done consistent with trying to leave behind as stable a government or community as possible in Iraq. Tell us how it could be done to enhance the possibility of political reconciliation in Iraq.

The surge has not accomplished that. If the surge was intended to bring political reconciliation, General Petraeus said it had not. Ambassador Crocker said it had not.

So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and others who have joined in this effort to try to come to a step that will be a positive step. I think this is one of those steps.

And I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever your particular position is, that we ought to have in front of us a considered, considerate plan of how we would accomplish an objective if this House, hopefully, could summon the votes to seek that objective and mandate that objective.

So I thank Mr. Skelton for bringing this to the floor. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I would urge all of my colleagues, understanding full well the concerns that have been expressed so ably by the gentleman from New York, my friend (Mr. Hinchey), that this legislation will send a strong message to many, including the administration, that we want to have the information that we need to make the best decisions that we can make. We may differ on what those decisions ought to be.

But, hopefully, what we will not differ on is that if we can have the best information and advice as to how to obtain an objective, then the legislation we pass will be better, will provide for the safety of our troops and provide, hopefully, for the success of a redeployment within a timeframe that many of us believe is absolutely essential.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important, bipartisan legislation--the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007--which has more than 300 cosponsors.

This bill would greatly strengthen the existing sanctions regime and propose new diplomatic strategies with respect to Iran, which continues to pursue its nuclear agenda in defiance of U.N. sanctions and international pressure.

Let us be clear: The Government of Iran--which is recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism by our State Department and which supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah--believes it can exploit international irresolution. We must not allow it to do so.

It goes without saying that a nuclear-armed Iran constitutes a threat to the national security interests of the United States, as well as the peace and security of the international community. And, we cannot overlook the serious questions raised about Iran's efforts to exploit the civil war in Iraq to its advantage or intelligence information related to its arming of Iraqi insurgents.

Our concerns are only heightened by the inflammatory and irresponsible statements of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stated his hope for a ``world without America'' and his desire ``to wipe Israel off the map.''

Let me say, Ahmadinejad's comments yesterday at Columbia University in New York only confirm the view that he is a dangerous menace, who spins loathsome propaganda while denying that the Holocaust occurred, threatening Israel, and repressing his own people.

I believe the international community must stand as one against Iran, an international lawbreaker whose record of deceit and belligerence leaves no doubt as to its motivations.

Thus, I believe this legislation is an important step forward in demonstrating our bipartisan resolve to address the serious security concerns posed by Iran.

Nothing in this act authorizes the use of force against Iran. However, it would support diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, and calls for enhanced U.N. Security Council efforts to respond to Iran's defiance.

Furthermore, the bill amends the Iran Sanctions Act to remove the President's waiver on sanctions, and expands the types of investments subject to sanctions. It reforms our commercial relationship with this rogue regime by limiting the export of U.S. items to Iran and by prohibiting all imports.

Among other things, the bill also prevents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign oil companies that invest in Iran's oil sector from receiving U.S. tax benefits for oil and gas exploration, and prevents nuclear cooperation between the United States and any country that provides nuclear assistance in Iran.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the staff of the Joint Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal, EOD, Program, which today marks the delivery of the 1000th EOD Man Transportable Robot System, MTRS, to our military. This significant milestone is a testament to the highly skilled, top notch workforce marking this accomplishment today at the Naval EOD Technology Division.

The MTRS is a two-man portable robotic system used in both peacetime and wartime operations by EOD technicians to perform remote reconnaissance of unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive device, IED, incident sites. These EOD Robots are keeping EOD technicians alive and are mitigating the effects of emplaced IEDs and unexploded ordnance encountered in a wide variety of operational environments around the world. By using replaceable robots, EOD operators can effectively conduct and complete highly hazardous missions while remaining in a protected position, minimizing human exposure and time-on-target.

While no machine can replace a trained EOD technician, EOD personnel have embraced the ability of these robots to assist them in carrying out their important mission. Indeed, because of these robots, many of our EOD technicians have significantly reduced or avoided serious risk to themselves and their colleagues in military service.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the brave men and women willing to risk their own lives for this Nation by serving in our active military forces. While we can never fully repay that debt, we can demonstrate our gratitude by providing our military forces with advanced technology to ensure their safe return to their loved ones. Those responsible for delivering MTRS have been working to do just this.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members join me in congratulating this outstanding Navy team as they celebrate the successful delivery of the 1000th Man Transportable Robot System to our deployed military forces.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have served in this body for some period of time, all of us know that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been as focused on health care for all Americans as anybody who's served in this body, with the sole exception, perhaps, of his father. For over half a century, the Dingells have focused on making sure that Americans in the richest land on the face of the Earth had access to health care.

I want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Dingell, and I want to congratulate his partner, Charlie Rangel, one of the senior Members of this House, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has worked collaboratively with Jim McCrery, and I want to congratulate Jim McCrery; I'll congratulate him again while he's listening; who has worked, I think, positively with the chairman, and I thank him for that.

I rise in support of this legislation. Today the Members of this body must answer this fundamental question: Will you stand with millions of American children who, through no fault of their own, but they live in families of limited means, have no health insurance? Or will you stand with the few, including at least now President Bush, although I hope he changes his mind, who are ideologically opposed to this legislation, and thus being willing to leave millions of American children stranded without the health insurance coverage they need and that they deserve?

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: we must not sacrifice the health of our children on the altar of a conservative ideology. We must pass this bill.

The fact is, President Bush himself stated on the campaign trail in 2004, in fact, it was at the Republican Convention, and I would hope all my Republican colleagues would listen to the President's quote, if you haven't already seen it and read it. He said this as he addressed the American people asking them for their vote for a second term, which they gave him. He said this: ``In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.''

President Bush said that as he appealed to the American public for their support for a second term, that he would aggressively pursue a program of adding millions of children, eligible but not included, in the health insurance program.

``We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need.'' That is what President Bush said to the American public from the convention floor in 2004. We, tonight, are going to give him the opportunity to fulfill that promise to the American public.

Unfortunately, the President is threatening to renege on his campaign promise and to veto this legislation. Let's be clear: this fiscally responsible legislation will ensure that some 10 million children will receive health insurance coverage. That's approximately 4 million more than are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program today. And so what we consider today is not young Master Snyder, who was on this floor, or Gemma Frost, with whom we met earlier today. Gemma Frost will be covered. Luckily, Master Snyder's father is covered, as all of us are, under a Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan to which our employer contributes. Gemma Frost was not so lucky.

The truth is, those 4 million additional children are eligible under existing guidelines, not new guidelines that we've created. They are the children that were eligible that President Bush talked about in 2004 that he wanted to vigorously assume inclusion in the program. Millions, he referred to.

This legislation does not change eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIP's financing, increases coverage for low-income children, and improves the quality of care they will receive.

In contrast, under the President's proposal, and I hope my friends would put this fact in juxtaposition to the President's representation in 2004 on the floor of the national convention that you held as your party, his proposal would decrease, by 800,000 children, the numbers that would be covered under CHIP in the future. Now, that's included in the 4 million, so actually it's a net 4 million difference between the proposals.

Ladies and gentlemen, we ought not to retreat from our children's health. We ought not to retreat from working families concerned about the inclusion of their children.

And I suggest to my friends concerned about cost, we ought not to give the answer, they can go to the emergency room. Why not? Because all of us know that is the most expensive intervention in the health care system in America. And so not only do we put our children at risk, but we compound our costs.

It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has received strong support from Members of both sides of the aisle, as well as a wide range of health care providers, including private insurers, doctors and hospitals.

For example, Senator Hatch has already been quoted, but it bears repeating. He said: ``We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage. I think the President had some pretty bad advice on this.''

Don't take that bad advice. Let us join hands; let us be together on this issue. You voted on a prescription drug program far more expensive than this one, and unpaid for.

Senator Grassley stated: ``The President's understanding of our bill is wrong.''

That's the former chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican, senior Member of the United States Senate. He says, ``The President's wrong.'' He urges him, he says, ``I urge him to reconsider his veto message.''

Every one of us, as we vote tonight, can send a strong message that will perhaps help him to reconsider that position.

Now, let me say, those who complain that this bill will induce people with private insurance to drop their coverage and enroll in the CHIP program are simply grasping at straws. Why do I say that? The fact is, even America's health insurance lobbying group supports this bill.

Finally, let me mention two other points. First, I am very pleased that this legislation includes a comprehensive dental benefit that will give low-income children the dental care they need and will provide States with flexibility in how they provide such care.

Why do I bring that up?

Dental care is important. A 12-year-old child who lived approximately 8 miles from this Chamber, Deamonte Driver was his name, he was 12 years of age. He had three siblings. He got a toothache. His mother did not have coverage and tried to get coverage, tried to get dental care, and she could not get dental care, and that toothache became an infection in the brain, and Deamonte Driver died just months ago, just 9 or 10 miles from where we stand. That is one of the reasons, one of the

four million reasons that I stand here to say that we need to pass this legislation.

Secondly, I'm very disappointed that the Senate Republicans insisted that we remove the House-passed provision on Medicare, as well as our provision that would have allowed legal immigrants who pay taxes to be eligible.

Why is that of concern?

Because my granddaughter, 5 years of age, who just started kindergarten, she may sit next to one of those children in her kindergarten class, and that child who is legally in the United States may get sick. But if that child cannot access health care and sits next to my granddaughter, my granddaughter is at risk.

We want everybody in this country to be healthy so that the rest of us can be assured that we operate in a healthy environment. That is why we want that provision.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, Speaker Pelosi was right: I don't believe there's a person in this House that doesn't care about their own children, about their neighbor's children, and about the children of our country. All of us care. We need to come together, however, and see how that care can be transformed into meaningful, tangible help.

Mr. Speaker, we have a rare and wonderful opportunity tonight to do the right thing, to put aside partisanship, to elevate the practical, responsible, and moral solution above the ideological.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's seize this opportunity. Let's do the right thing. Let's stand with America's children. Let us pass this historic legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour business, 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 that night. 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 business, and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business; and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We expect to consider a fiscal year 2008 Continuing Resolution, legislation dealing with the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, and the flood insurance bill.

As you know, the House and Senate have been meeting. The

Senate has not gone to conference on this bill. But we all know that on September 30 the authorization for SCHIP expires, so we are hoping to have a bill on the floor early next week. That bill will incorporate what we believe to be, what we hope to be, what we are working to be a consensus which can pass the House and the Senate. I can't give you all the specifics of that because I don't have all the specifics of that.

The Senate has not gone to conference yet.

That's my representation. There will be nothing, I think, in the bill that was not in the House or Senate bills so, to that extent, it will be like a conference.

We haven't gone to conference. We are having great difficulty, I'll tell my friend, in getting the minority party in the Senate to vote to go to conference. I regret that, but that's the fact of life; and we can either stop doing business until they agree to do so, or we can try to move forward and try to reach some agreement.

I will tell my friend that there were Republican Senators involved in the discussions, as he may know, and he is correct that there will probably be a new bill on the floor, but I tell my friend that that bill will incorporate items that were either in the Senate or House bill and will be items that we believe and hope, as I said, are now agreed between what we hope to be a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate. To that extent, it will be like a conference report because the expectation is it would not be amended in the Senate because, of course, we're facing the September 30 deadline.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I'm sure you are.

Because we don't, under the rules, and you didn't either, have to provide that. Sometimes you did; sometimes you didn't. But in any event, as I said, we will be treating this much like a conference report. We regret that we're not in conference; and therefore it will be treated more like a conference report than it will be a new piece of legislation because I would reiterate to my friend, it is, essentially, not a new piece of legislation. It is a compromise that we have tried to reach with bipartisan participation in the Senate side. Unfortunately, notwithstanding invitations, not on the House side.

The bill will, hopefully, be a bill, as I have said to my friend, that can be agreed upon and sent to the President so that we can provide for the Children's Health Insurance Program to continue and, obviously, to expand, as we hope it will.

Will my friend yield?

I understand your angst because we shared that angst. We had a lot of angst, as you recall, and I asked the majority leader on a number of occasions when they were going to have conferences that were called, that had conferees, to which our conferees were never invited, some the most senior Members of this Congress, namely Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel, who were not invited to conferences. So I understand the gentleman's angst. I really do.

But having said that, I think it is unfair to say a bill that has not been seen. I would again reiterate to my friend that, as I understand it, there will be nothing in the bill that we will hope to consider early next week that was not included in either the Senate bill or the House bill, both of which passed respective bodies. But we haven't been able to get to conference. Meetings have obviously been held. We hope agreements have been reached which would be acceptable to both bodies so that we can move those bills as if a conference had been held. But because a conference hasn't been held, this is the alternative available to us.

My expectation is we will have a continuing resolution on the floor next week. We don't intend to shut down government. I know that a number of Members on your side have indicated it's not their intention to shut down government. We, therefore, need to provide for an alternative which will provide for government to continue because, again, we are experiencing the same frustration you had, as you know, that while we have passed all 12 appropriation bills, that has not been the case in the Senate. The Senate has passed four of their appropriations bills. We haven't conferenced them yet, so that we are going to need a CR to continue government in operations, and I expect to have that on the floor next week.

I don't want to commit myself to a time frame, but I can tell you, in discussions with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he wants a longer term than a shorter term. In other words, I don't think he is looking for a week-to-week. It will be a longer term than that. I don't think I want to prejudge his decision which he may not yet have made, but my expectation is, I tell my friend, that it will be a longer term than shorter term, and by that I mean more than a couple of weeks.

I think you ought to anticipate some Iraq legislation coming to the floor, not necessarily next week, although that is a possibility. But, certainly, within the next couple of weeks or 3 weeks, I would think we will have various components coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I know it's a very important one for his Members and ours.

We had hoped, as you know, when I inherited or succeeded, however one looks at it, to the scheduling authority from Mr. Boehner, Mr. Boehner had scheduled October 3, I believe, it may have been the 6th, October 3 or 6 as the ending date. I would have hoped Mr. Boehner was accurate in that assessment, but I thought it was not realistic at that point in time. So I was more pessimistic but apparently not pessimistic enough.

I scheduled October 26 as our target date for adjournment. It seems that we are not going to make that. I am very hopeful, and I'm not going to bet on it, but I'm going to plan on November 16 being our last day.

Senator Reid, the leader of the Senate, has indicated that they will be out the last 2 weeks of November. From my experience serving here, it doesn't get better just because you get into December, that we would be able to adjourn sine die until the second session of the Congress, probably to begin the 3rd week in January, although the Speaker and I need to discuss that, and I want to discuss it also with you and Mr. Boehner. But my thought would be that we would come back the 3rd week in January.

In addition to that, because we are not going to adjourn sine die on the 26th of October, which I had hoped but which is not realistic at this point in time, I had scheduled the four Fridays of October to meet. I want all the Members to know, and I discussed this with the whip earlier in the week, that we will not be meeting on the 5th of October, that Friday, nor will we be meeting on the 19th so that, because of Columbus Day, the Members will have from Thursday late afternoon, and I don't commit to any particular time on Thursday, the 4th, until Tuesday the 9th at 6:30 p.m. before we come back.

October 12?

That Friday is currently scheduled. We are obviously in a position where we are not going to hold Members here for Friday simply to be here on Friday. It has been made clear to me that most Members on both sides of the aisle don't think that's a sensible policy. I agree with that. As a matter of fact, I think my friend has made that observation to me as well.

But we have to find out the workload. As you well know, as you get down towards the end, if we are going to have any shot at adjourning on the 16th of November, when the Senate is scheduled to leave for the last 2 weeks, if we have any shot of doing that, it will be because we complete that work which we think must be done, should be done prior to that. And, therefore, I am reserving those Fridays, and if we have work, we will be working. And the logical follow-on is that if we don't have work, although we won't give the kind of notice we are giving for the 5th and 19th, we will try not to have Members here simply watching the other body.

We are notifying Members now that they will not be in session on those days, voting sessions.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't want to be specific on that because I don't want to anticipate where the Senate might be at that point in time. The leader in the Senate, although he had represented that they perhaps might be there in December, he has indicated now that his hope and plan is that they will not be there in December so that hopefully he is focused as well and the Senate is focused as well on the 16th of November as the adjournment date. If that is not and we have not done what we need to do by that time, hopefully we will be able to accommodate that certainly by late October and letting the Members know what we are going to do.

We will not be here, clearly, the week of Thanksgiving. That is a guarantee. I would not want at this juncture, because there is still a lot to happen over the next 6 weeks, to be definitive about what other weeks we would not be here.

As someone who has served here a long time and who has, unfortunately, been here on the 23rd and 24th, I believe, at least 1 year, I hesitate to say that. But my Members will be very unhappy with me if we are here Christmas week. I will tell you we have 233 Members, and if we meet on Christmas, I will guarantee you there are 233 Members on this side who will be very unhappy with me, and I will be in that rank.

That information is new to me. I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something.

I'm not sure I want to encourage the Senate except to do the work that we have sent over to them. They have a lot of work on their table. But I haven't looked at that resolution.

I will say to my friend, he has seen me quoted as being not in agreement with and disappointed with the particular ad that appeared. But having said that, I don't have any intent, at this point in time, to bring up that resolution. I haven't seen it, so I have no intention of scheduling that resolution at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I want to say, on behalf of myself and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of my caucus, perhaps every Member of my caucus, we have great respect for General Petraeus. It does not help, in my opinion, the debate to impugn the integrity of those who are serving our country in uniform in harm's way.

I believe that General Petraeus is an honorable man of great integrity who has served our country well. I may disagree with him; he may disagree with me on issues. But that does not in any way, any more than you and I might disagree and we are good friends, undermine our respect for each other's opinion.

And as I say, I want to articulate, because you bring up the issue, that I believe that that impugning of his integrity and of his patriotism and of his commitment to this country was inappropriate.

If the gentleman would yield, the good news for you is my presumption is they are going to be in the Record.

I thank the gentleman.

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 the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great patriot, I dedicated public servant, and passionate pioneer whose contributions to scientific discovery and public health have improved the health of millions throughout the world: Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Yesterday, the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation announced the selection of Dr. Fauci to receive the Mary Woodard Lasker Award for Public Service. Dr. Fauci is being honored in recognition of his leadership in engineering two major U.S. governmental programs addressing HIV and biodefense.

The Mary Woodard Lasker Award for Public Service is awarded biannually in recognition of extraordinary achievements. Mary Lasker is widely recognized for her singular contribution to the growth of the National Institutes of Health, and her strong commitment to eradicate disease and disability through medical research. Dr. Fauci's commitment to this Nation through his accomplished career reflects well on this award's namesake.

Since coming to the National Institutes of Health in 1968, Dr. Fauci has pushed the frontiers of scientific discovery in the field of immunology. In 1980, Dr. Fauci was named Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation, a position he continues to hold. Four years later, Dr. Fauci was named Director of NIAID, where he oversees an extensive research program to prevent, diagnose, and treat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, and illnesses from potential agents of bioterrorism. Over the years, Dr. Fauci has been an excellent steward of this multi-billion dollar investment in infectious disease research.

Dr. Fauci has served for over 20 years as a key advisor to the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on global AIDS issues, and on initiatives to bolster medical and public health preparedness to fight against emerging threats of infectious disease. He has assisted four Presidents in shaping the research priorities and public health demands of these formidable challenges.

Dr. Fauci has made enormous contributions to basic and clinical research. In 2003, an Institute for Scientific Information study indicated that over 20 years, Dr. Fauci was the 13th most-cited scientist among close to 3 million international authors in all disciplines. He has made seminal contributions to the understanding of the AIDS virus, and he has been instrumental in developing effective therapy strategies for those afflicted with this disease.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no individual more deserving of this recognition than Dr. Fauci. I am pleased to join with my colleagues and a grateful Nation in extending congratulations to Dr. Anthony Fauci for this well-deserved honor and thanking him for his unwavering commitment to scientific discovery and his role in spearheading the efforts to combat disease and undermine the threat of bioterrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 643) recognizing September 11 as a day of remembrance, extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families, honoring the heroic actions of our Nation's first responders and Armed Forces, and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 643.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the Members who rise tonight to speak on this important legislation do so not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as one, as Americans united in the defense of the great Nation and the ideals for which it stands: Freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law.

Six years ago, as all of us know, on September 11, 2001, it is a day, Mr. Speaker, that none of us will ever forget as long as we live. September 11 is seared into the American consciousness, much like December 7, 1941, and November 22, 1963, as a day of infamy, a day of unspeakable horror, a day of unmitigated evil, and yes, a day of incredible heroism.

On this eve of the sixth anniversary of September 11, this resolution, jointly introduced by myself as the majority leader and by Mr. Boehner as the Republican leader, recognizes this as a day of remembrance and resolve.

We remember the nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children who lost their lives on September 11. And we extend, once again, our sympathies to their families, friends, and loved ones.

We honor the courage and heroic actions, service and sacrifice of our first responders; firemen, policemen, medical personnel, as well as our valiant servicemen and women who now are in harm's way thousands of miles from this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall with me that 343 members of the New York Fire Department lost their lives on that day, in addition to the thousands of people who lost their lives in the two towers. Twenty- three New York policemen lost their lives, and 37 officers of the Port Authority of New York lost their lives on that day.

We must remember, however, that what they did, along with their colleagues in the fire department, the police department and the Port Authority Police, was saved tens of thousands of people who got out of the buildings before they collapsed. We lost people, of course, in the Pentagon as well, people from my district and districts throughout this country.

Today, we reaffirm our commitment to defending the American people against any and all future challenges. I mentioned the Pentagon. I mentioned

the World Trade Center. But a plane that perhaps, Mr. Speaker, was flying towards this Capitol, or perhaps the White House, was taken down by some brave Americans who learned what was happening that day through their cell phones. And they resolved, on that day, to give the last measure of devotion to their country by giving their lives that that plane might not reach its target but crash in the fields of Pennsylvania.

As this resolution states, Mr. Speaker, we remain steadfast in our determination to disrupt, dismantle and defeat terrorist organizations, and we will harness all elements of our national power: military, economic, diplomatic, and, yes, moral, to effect that defeat.

In the aftermath of September 11, Americans, awakened to the threat of international terrorism, collectively declared, Never again. And, over the last 6 years, thousands of Americans have worked tirelessly to improve our Nation's security and to protect our people.

Have we done enough? No. Do we need to do more? Yes. However, this Congress has passed, and the President has signed, numerous laws to assist victims, combat terrorism, protect our homeland and to support the members of our Armed Forces who defend our interests at home and abroad.

Perhaps none of these measures has been more important than the passage this year of H.R. 1, legislation implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Among other things, this legislation requires 100 percent screening of cargo on passenger aircraft and 100 percent screening of seaborne cargo before it gets to U.S. ports. It ensures that first responders can communicate with each other, improves rail and mass transit security, and seeks to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 will help us harden our defenses and combat terrorism. However, no one should be mistaken: legislation alone cannot immunize our Nation from attack.

In fact, as the Chairs of the 9/11 Commission wrote just yesterday in The Washington Post: ``Six years later, we are safer in a narrow sense: we have not been attacked, and our defenses are better.'' But, as they point out, Mr. Speaker: ``We still have a long way to go.''

It is therefore appropriate that we pass this resolution of remembrance. But it also must be a resolution of resolve that we will not allow the situation that existed on 9/11 to be maintained and, in fact, we have not. We are stronger; but as Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kean pointed out, not yet strong enough.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, let us recognize September 11 as a solemn reminder of our vulnerability. Let us also be reminded that we are part of something much larger than ourselves. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and the terrorists who sought to break our spirit only clarified our purpose and steeled our resolve. Mr. Speaker, may God continue to bless our great country.

I have talked to a reporter just a few minutes ago. That reporter, Max Cacas, was listening to Leader Gephardt and Speaker Hastert on that September 11, 2001, on the Capitol steps, state our resolve. Then, Mr. Speaker, you may recall, the Members spontaneously sang ``God Bless America.'' It was a prayer and it was a resolve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee might manage the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, as you know, we will not be in session tomorrow night.

Many of us remember some 6 years ago when we first had a meeting in the Capitol Police headquarters, many of us, after the traumatic morning and afternoon; and we resolved that we would show to the country a unity and a resolve that the terrorist attack would neither cow us nor deter us from the defense of freedom and liberty and our country and its people.

We are now, of course, 6 years later and continue to be involved in a battle to defeat those who by terror would intimidate us and hurt our people and our country and our way of life.

In a moment we will be led by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner to the front steps of the Capitol. We will have a brief ceremony to again show to the country and, indeed, to the world that while we may have differences in debate, there are no differences in our unity of purpose to defend our country, our Constitution, and our people, and to ensure that the friends of liberty around the world will know that they have a friend in the United States of America.

So I would ask all of you to join us as Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner lead us out to the front steps on the House side. We will organize there, stand, and we will be led in the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' by the United States Marine Corps Band. We will have some comments by the Speaker and by the leader, and then we will conclude, as we did on that evening 6 years ago, with the singing of ``God Bless America.'' I think that was one of the most moving moments in my service in the House of Representatives. I am sure that many of you feel the same way.

So, Mr. Speaker, the House will remain in session, but we would ask all Members to join, as I said, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Boehner, and myself on the front steps of the Capitol. We will proceed now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. In addition to several bills under suspension of the rules, a list of those bills of course will be made available by the close of business today, we will consider a resolution in commemoration of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. in a pro forma session. There will be no votes. No legislative business or votes are expected. The tragic loss of Mr. Gillmor saddened us all. His funeral is on that day, and many Members will be attending. It will take place that morning in Ohio.

There will later in the day, when those who are going to Ohio return, on the steps of the Capitol at 4:30 p.m. be a meeting of the Members who are here from both the Senate and the House in remembrance of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, in that tragic and vicious attack on our country and on so many innocent people.

The House will not meet on Wednesday or Thursday in observance of Rosh Hashanah and will meet at 10 a.m. in pro forma session on Friday, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Would the gentleman yield?

Yes, that is our intention. There will be suspension votes so that we do not have a lot of controversy.

I will say, however, as the gentleman well knows, that Monday will be a very important day because General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be on Capitol Hill on the House side testifying on their report to the Congress and to the American people with respect to their analysis of the present situation in Iraq and the present situation of our troops and the security and stability of that country.

So it will be a very important day, but the gentleman is correct, we will not be scheduling other than suspension votes for that Monday, and there will be no votes on Tuesday in recognition of the funeral and that so many Members will be attending the funeral.

Would the gentleman yield?

That is correct. We will be starting legislative business on the floor a little after noon. So there will be work on the floor proceeding.

It is my understanding, however, as the gentleman may know, that the hearing is in the Cannon Caucus Room. So we'll accommodate both media and the public, and as we all know, some of the most important hearings in history have been held in that room. So we certainly recognize the importance of this hearing, the gravity of the information that we will be receiving, and we have attempted to accommodate that.

That's my understanding, yes, sir.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We believe the TRIA bill is a very, very important bill. Chairman Frank has been very involved in this, as have bipartisan Members of the Financial Services Committee been involved in this. The gentleman is correct. As a result of what has happened for next week, we determined that both the FHA bill and the TRIA bill, which were both scheduled for the beginning of next week, would be moved until hopefully the following week.

We believe for TRIA and FHA, in light of the subprime issues, that Chairman Frank is working with the administration. I know he has talked to Secretary Paulson with respect to their proposals and ours on ways to respond to the subprime crisis, the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

So we want to put those bills back on as soon as we can.

The TRIA bill, as you observed, has raised an issue of PAYGO, as to whether or not there is a financial consequence of the legislation. The CBO has made an estimate. Clearly, however, there is no payout if a terrorist attack doesn't happen, so there is a contingency it would have to happen. We are trying to address that, which we did not anticipate, frankly. As a result, however, we are trying to look at this to see whether or not we can both move the legislation as quickly as possible as well as accommodate the issue of PAYGO.

As the gentleman well knows, there are four trade agreements that are the subject of consideration by the administration, and four of our trading partners: Peru, Panama, Colombia, as you point out, and South Korea. Those have not been transmitted to the Congress, but it does start the clock.

And in discussions with the chairman, I know the chairman has been focused. As you know, he visited Peru and Panama. I am not sure he visited Panama, I just talked with the Panamanians. Surely those two groups are the focus of the committee at this point, on Colombia, focused, as well as South Korea.

As I discussed with my friend earlier in the day, I am hopeful that the chairman, the chairman believes that Peru will be the first of those to move. We are hopeful that those, that that agreement will move, and then we will have to see the scheduling for the other three. But I do expect Peru to move, hopefully, within the next 30 days, or about, somewhere probably early next month.

I will tell the gentleman that I am not very good on long term. We found a lot of contingencies coming up.

That's right.

The House, as the gentleman knows, has passed all 12 appropriation bills. I might say we did so, for the most part, with bipartisan votes, significant bipartisan votes, not necessarily a majority on each side, but significant bipartisan votes.

The Senate, as you point out, has passed two, although I understand that we just read across the desk, the military construction bill was just reported with a request to go to conference. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass other bills within the near term.

It's my understanding that the Senate does expect to be moving a number

of the appropriation bills in the next 2 weeks.

The fiscal year ends, of course, September 30. If we have not passed those appropriation bills, we will have to make an accommodation to keep the government running. We usually do that in the form of a continuing resolution, a CR, as we call it, which simply provides for the continuation of funding of government at present levels until such time as we can complete the appropriation process.

We are hopeful that we will complete the appropriation process in the near term. I won't define the near term, but we are hopeful that it will be nearer rather than further apart; but we are looking at all the alternatives that will be necessary to keep government operating as the American public expect and as we expect it.

The Members already have a fall schedule. It's the Senate that wants a winter schedule, and I am somewhat concerned about that.

As you know, initially Mr. Boehner, my predecessor as the majority leader, had projected October 3 or thereabouts, 4th or 5th. When I became the majority leader, it was my responsibility to address the schedule.

I thought we would need at least another 3 weeks, so I added on to, I believe, the 26th of October, which is a Friday.

Since that time, of course, the leader of the Senate has announced the schedule that you just observed, with a week off at Columbus Day. We do not have that, of course. We have Columbus Day, returning Tuesday at 6:30. That has not been modified at this point in time and, frankly, I don't expect to modify it.

It doesn't mean it won't be, but I have no plans to modify that expectation at this point in time. Frankly, I would like to see us do as much work as we possibly can by the October 26 date that we have projected as our date. We will see where the Senate is at that point in time.

But in answer to your question about the fall schedule, sometime in the next 2 weeks, probably not this coming week, because we are not going to be here most of the time, but the following week, in discussions with the Senate, we intend to have some discussions with the Senate leadership with Mr. Reid, the majority leader, next week, to determine more precisely what he anticipates being able to do, and, therefore, what our responsibilities will be to be here to respond to what the Senate does.

As I say, we put all the appropriations bills on their plate, if you will. We need to pass those, or, in some form, pass funding for the various agencies.

So the answer to your question, Mr. Whip, is that we expect to have some more precise formulation for the fall and hopefully not winter schedule by the, not next week, but the following week.

We are aware of the fact, and I used to hear from everybody, now I am hearing from everybody on both sides of the aisle, they understandably want some certainty in the scheduling so they can schedule their work in their districts.

I understand that. We are going to try to accommodate that.

I want to thank my friend for joining in discussions on that issue before we came to the floor today. I think the gentleman is correct. I think Members would find that useful. If we can accommodate that, I would like to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, September 14; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 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, September 19, 2007.