Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 623 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides that certain specified measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the legislative day of Saturday, December 17, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has set forth a positive legislative agenda for the remainder of this week and the balance of the first session of the 109th Congress. The goal of this plan is to address a number of outstanding issues remaining on Congress's calendar before we adjourn that maintain our commitment to improving America's economy and national security.

Over the past year, we have passed a number of important new education, health care, tax, trade and national security bills that will keep Americans safer and healthier, create new jobs and improve our economy. This rule will allow the House to consider a number of additional bills today under suspension of the rules that will ensure that Congress can complete some additional important work before we adjourn for the holidays.

This rule makes in order the consideration of nine bills under suspension

of the rules. These bills accomplish necessary and noncontroversial goals, such as extending funding for the operation of State high-risk health insurance pools, providing for collection of human cord blood stem cells for medical treatment and research, and improving the proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.

The suspension authority will also allow us to consideration legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice, improve medical benefits for patients, extend important educational programs and help NASA to continue its human space flight, aeronautics and science programs.

Perhaps most notably, it provides for consideration of the conference report to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Extending TRIA is a goal upon which I have worked very closely with my friends and fellow House conferees, Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker, and I commend them for their hard work in preparing this bill for President Bush's signature.

This legislation represents a fiscally responsible response to the threats that acts of terrorism pose to the American economy. It also includes important taxpayer protections and will ensure that this important program does not expire and leave the marketplace for terrorism insurance in uncertainty.

After the tragedy of September 11, the marketplace for terrorism insurance largely disappeared. This lack of terrorism coverage terminated or delayed billions of dollars in commercial property financing, threatening business operations and development and job creation and our overall economy.

TRIA has proven its ability to stabilize the market, and it will continue to provide essential protection for businesses of all sizes in our country. I urge my colleagues to take the opportunity later today to follow up on this program's successful record and to reauthorize TRIA so that the program does not lapse and hurt businesses and policyholders around this great Nation.

Like TRIA, all of the bills scheduled for consideration by the Republican House leadership on behalf of all Americans enjoy broad support from Members of both the majority and the minority parties. This rule simply provides us with the tools needed to ensure that all of the important work is completed before we adjourn to our families and communities to celebrate for the holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this uncontroversial and balanced rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, like my wonderful colleague, Mr. Hastings, am here doing the work of the American people. We are proud of what we are doing. It is just 1 week before Christmas, and we have a lot of work left to do. That is why we are here. We are here to work.

There are a number of my colleagues who showed up for work today prepared and ready. We know they miss their family and friends. Nathan Deal of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia, and John Shimkus of Illinois are just an example of three Members of Congress who, even on a weekend and even a week before Christmas, show up.

So it is my hope that this same spirit we all talk about today, of accomplishing our work on behalf of the American people, the importance of completing our work because we said we would do it, to be responsible to the people of this whole country, all the people, that that spirit will carry through because that is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has very appropriately talked about this important act, this TRIA legislation; and I would like to take time to thank the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts) for not only his work for a long time on this bill but for working clearly and closely with industry and consumer groups to make sure that what we had control over of here in the House that we passed.

I do admit that there is frustration. There is frustration on my part, too, as the gentleman is well aware. And I will tell you that the process that has taken place may not be perfect, but I want to thank the gentleman not only for his support of the work that we were able to accomplish but for sticking with it.

The good part is there will be a process here today and the gentleman will be able to speak very clearly about his thoughts on that, and we will move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their thoughtful comments this morning about the circumstances, as we are here on December 17, almost a week before Christmas. I would like to thank all my colleagues for coming down and speaking clearly.

There is a lot of frustration, but I believe the process is important for us to follow through. I am proud of what we are doing. We can accomplish it all together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was struck by the gentleman from Texas crediting his fellow Republicans for showing up. Because if it were not for the combination of institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that dominates the Republican Party, none of us would have had to be here. So I guess we all deserve recognition as victims of that.

I actually think this motion should have been retitled. It should have been called Subversion of the Rules, not Suspension of the Rules, because that is what is happening. We are being at almost gunpoint, the metaphorical, parliamentary equivalent of gunpoint, being asked to debate under very restrictive measures bills that deserve more.

Let me talk about one, the terrorism risk insurance. I think it is an important bill, and I agree substantively with what the gentleman from Texas said. Unfortunately, the right wingers who dominate this administration and much of the congressional leadership in both Houses do not agree. They tried to kill this thing, until finally, at the overwhelming insistence of people who are involved in the economy of this country said that that would be irresponsible, they did the next best thing. They have forced us to deal with it in a constricted and inappropriate way.

We did take it up in the House, and we had a full markup in our committee, and we voted on it on the floor. In the Senate, and let us praise the rule change that now allows us to tell the truth about what goes on in the Senate, the Senate passed a very restricted version of this. The Senate chairman of the banking committee then refused to appoint conferees.

Interestingly, we are going to have to amend this rule, because the rule, reasonably, said let us take up on suspension the conference report on TRIA. And then the Rules Committee had to be reminded that there is no conference report on TRIA, because the Republican Senate chairman, knowing that he would have been outvoted in the conference, refused to allow one and, instead, individually dictated what would be in it.

So we are going to have to amend it, because if we had a vote on a conference report on TRIA, we would have no TRIA. They would not have a conference. The regular order has been totally subverted. Unfortunately, we have to accommodate it because we are up against a December 31 extension.

By the way, if the House Republican leadership had not delayed consideration of this bill, we could have done it months ago and not been vulnerable to that kind of extortion.

What we have now is a bill that leaves out, for example, the commission on how to deal with terrorism insurance that the families of September

11 have asked for. We will go into that further when we debate it, but the families of September 11 asked for a commission. We included it in the House bill. Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker accommodated that reasonable request. It is not in the Senate Bill. And because of this outrageously high-handed legislative procedure, we do not have a chance to include it.

An important provision was adopted here in the House, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida, to prevent people who are traveling to what some insurance companies think are dangerous areas, like Israel, from being denied life insurance. That is not in the bill. Maybe some people do not like it, but we should have been able to have had a forum in which it could be debated and decided.

Instead, we have the right wing that controls the executive branch and both Houses of Congress grudgingly allowing a bare bones and, I think, inadequate form of extension. It is better than nothing. It is important to the economy, and the gentleman from Texas is right. But here is a combination of ideological extremism and a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a democratic process here.

As we salute democracy in Iraq, and I am glad we saw it yesterday, I guess I am starting to get jealous of the Iraqis, because as of now there is more democracy being practiced under American auspices in Iraq than the leadership here in the House of Representatives is allowing on the floor of this body.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for his graciousness on that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to put the House on notice that I intend to ask for a rollcall on this rule. And if we do have a rollcall, I am going to vote against it, and I want to explain why.

One of the bills that this rule makes in order is the continuing resolution. At this point, this Congress has not passed the defense bill. It has not passed the Labor, Health, Education and Social Services appropriations bill. Together that equals about 65 percent of all the discretionary spending in the budget. We still have not passed those bills almost 3 months into the fiscal year.

Now, this resolution will allow the continuing resolution, which expires today, to continue until February 15. Now, it also says that we will not be able to amend the CR. However, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from amending the CR when it goes over there, and I fully expect them to try because they have a different set of priorities than the Republican House leadership. If you do not believe that, just ask Mr. Stevens.

There is another problem with the CR, and that is that it funds both the Defense bill and the Labor, Health, and Education bill at a very much lower level and on a very much more restricted basis than I think is healthy. Example: on the Defense side, if the Defense appropriations bill does not pass, it means that money will trickle out to the military, but they will not be able to do the advanced procurement expenditures that they need if you are going to have intelligent planning.

On the Labor-Health side, what it means, and this is even more serious, I think, because I think there is a better chance that the defense bill may pass, but the Labor-Health bill right now is so inadequate that the majority leader in the Senate cannot get enough votes to pass it. And so now what they are doing is setting up this scenario: they are going to fund Labor-Health programs at a level $1.4 billion below the House-passed bill and $3 billion below last year. And because of the peculiarities of the formula, programs such as the Community Service Block Grants are going to be funded at a level 50 percent below last year. You might as well gut that program if you let that happen.

And why are they doing it? I think the reason they are doing it is because they know they cannot pass that turkey of a Labor-Health bill now as it is, so they are trying to set up a scenario in which in February Senators will have to vote for that inadequate bill in order to escape from the crisis which was manufactured by this inadequate and rigid CR.

I think House Members, if we are going to be asked to pass another CR, ought to have an opportunity to amend it. Coming from an agricultural State, I am told that the agreement just reached between the House and the Senate is going to allow Senator Cochran to put $2 billion wherever he wants it in agriculture, and I would kind of like to see some of that money going to the MILC program. But it is not going to under the way this is set up.

I would also like to amend the funding rate for a number of programs so that you do not indirectly, under the table, without a frontal vote, gut programs like the Community Services Block Grant.

So I want to put the House on notice, despite any agreement at the leadership level, I intend to ask for a rollcall vote because this is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is appropriate that we are providing for suspension of the rules, since we learned yesterday that the President has suspended the law regarding spying on American citizens. I heard one of our colleagues earlier say that it was the law. I would remind him that this House has passed no such measure permitting spying on American citizens, even babies know that.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already noted, this rule will permit the House to consider nine pieces of legislation under suspension of the rules. While I will not oppose this rule and intend to support the nine bills to which the rule applies, and I say that advisedly, taking into consideration the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my distinguished colleague, who will explain in detail the circumstances regarding Labor-HHS and the drastic implications for the finances of certain agencies.

I am deeply concerned that the House is again operating outside the boundaries of regular order.

For the last year, my friends in the Republican leadership have consistently convened the House a mere 3 days a week, occasionally 4. They have regularly sent Members home earlier than anyone else in this country gets off work. Sure, I certainly, and I believe all of us, appreciate going home a few hours earlier during the week. But forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I am not the most sympathetic Member when the leadership cries legislative crisis time and time again over situations that it created.

There is a better way to run this body, and the Republicans continue to show that they are incapable of leading the House in an efficient and regular manner.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, at this particular moment I am privileged to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope that the general body heard and understood Mr. Obey's explanation, the fact remains that it would devastate programs in this country that people are totally relying upon; and, more importantly, my friends who espouse their support of the military, put the military in a position of not being able to do advanced procurement and to live at restrictive levels. That is not right. Therefore, we need to pay particular attention to the continuing resolution.

I would urge Members to be prepared to come back for this particular measure, in light of the explanations offered by my colleagues Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. Speaker, due to surgery, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

December 17, 2005:

Rollcall vote 663, on Agreeing to H. Res. 623--Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 664, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2520--the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, I would have voted aye.

December 19, 2005:

Rollcall vote 665, on Agreeing to the Conference Report H.R. 1815-- the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2006, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 666, on Agreeing to H. Res. 639--Waiving points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2863, FY 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 667, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended to H. Con. Res. 284--Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the 2005 presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 668, on the Motion to Recommit with instructions H.R. 2863--Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, I would have voted nay.

Rollcall vote 669, on Agreeing to the Conference Report H.R. 2863-- Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 670, on Agreeing to the Conference Report S. 1932--the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2006, I would have voted aye.

Rollcall vote 671, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree-- Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the education curriculum of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I would have voted aye.