Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3648) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross income, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia has offered a motion to recommit H.R. 2740 the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, to the Judiciary Committee and to amend the legislation with regard to intelligence activities. I will support this motion, but with two important qualifications.

The motion to recommit would amend H.R. 2740 with a rule of construction, stating, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect intelligence activities that are otherwise permissible prior to the enactment of this Act.'' This amendment does not at all modify the force of my legislation, does not limit the scope of the MEJA jurisdiction, and does not grant immunity to anyone, including contractor employees of the intelligence community. Put simply, I am voting in support of this motion because it in no way alters the underlying bill before us.

With that said, let me attach two qualifications to my support. First, the amendment is

unnecessary in the context of both current law and this legislation. Second, the amendment raises serious questions about the activities its proponents may be seeking to protect.

My legislation would indeed place contractor employees of non-defense related agencies under the extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States federal law, granting the Department of Justice authority to prosecute felony offenses committed by non-defense contractors. Defense contractors are already covered by MEJA, a point that seems lost on the authors of this motion. Given that the majority of the intelligence community falls under the Department of Defense, it stands to reason that many--if not most--contractors engaged in intelligence-related activities are already under the jurisdiction of federal law. Not only that, employees of the Defense Department intelligence agencies, including agents of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and intelligence services of the different branches of the Armed Forces, among others, are covered by MEJA, and this coverage has not endangered our national security in the least. So concerns about my legislation, which deals with non-defense contractors, seem ill-founded in the context of current law.

To my knowledge, there have never been significant concerns raised about the coverage of these Defense Department intelligence agents and contractors, for one major reason: prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Justice always has the discretion to refrain from prosecuting a case if it will endanger our national security interests. My legislation does not compel prosecution and it does not interfere with the prosecutor's discretion. If a prosecutor ever has concerns that prosecution of a contractor under MEJA would endanger state secrets, expose clandestine networks, or otherwise undermine our security interests, the prosecutor has the discretion not to prosecute the case. It's as simple as that.

Let me also point out that this bill only affects contractors who commit felony crimes. So long as private contractors, including those who are engaged in intelligence-related activities, are conducting themselves within the bounds of the law, this legislation is irrelevant to them. However, if there are private, for-profit contractors tasked with duties that require them to commit felony offenses, Congress needs to know about it. Such a revelation would point to a need for a serious debate about whether we are using contractors appropriately.

My second qualification is that this amendment raises serious questions about the activities it may be intended to protect. The question here is, given that my bill only targets activities that are unlawful, why do my colleagues feel the need to clarify that it does not affect activities that are permissible? What activities are contractors carrying out that are permissible but not lawful?

I have great apprehension about what might be meant in this context, but first let me state clearly: the law is the highest authority in the land, other than the constitution. The law trumps executive orders, memorandums, and policies in all cases. I am voting for this motion with the understanding that there is no activity a contractor might be performing that could ever be permissible but not lawful. The activities that we assign to private contractors must be in accordance with the law on the books. Therefore, I interpret this motion simply to mean that nothing in my bill will have any effect on contractors working on lawful, permissible, appropriate intelligence activities.

I raise this concern because, as my colleagues well know, Congress-- including members on both sides of the aisle--and this Administration have been at significant odds about the activities appropriate for our military and intelligence community to perform in certain contexts relating to the war in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism, especially with regard to the treatment of suspects in interrogations and detentions. There is rampant evidence that this Administration believes certain activities to be ``permissible'' which are clearly illegal under several statutes in United States Code.

Just today, for example, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice has issued secret memorandums that, in direct contrast to the policies they have publicly avowed, amounted to ``an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency'' and ``for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.'' I submit the full article for inclusion in the Record.

The harshest forms of physical and psychological tactics outlined in this article are inappropriate and illegal for our military personnel and intelligence agents, to say nothing of private contractors, and it is abominable that this Administration continues to work to circumvent our time-honored values and laws to authorize behavior that is un- American to its core.

There are clear laws on the books prohibiting torture, including the War Crimes Act (18 U.S. Code 2441) and the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S. Code 2340). Moreover, torture is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (articles 77-134). And the United States is a ratified signatory to international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3) and the Convention Against Torture, which specifically outlaw torture. Most importantly, the United States Constitution (amendments 5, 8, and 14) explicitly prohibits cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment.

The kinds of activities that, to the great shame of our nation, have been carried out at Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay detention facilities are not, in any circumstances, permissible. Let us be clear that, in the passage of this motion, we are in no way authorizing or legitimating these behaviors. Let us also be clear that, in this passage of this legislation, we are providing federal prosecutors the tools to arrest and prosecute any contractor working for this government who commits such abominable acts to the full extent of the law.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2007]

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

(By Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen)

Washington, Oct. 3.--When the Justice Department publicly

declared torture ``abhorrent'' in a legal opinion in December

2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its

assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order

brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales's arrival as attorney

general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued

another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different

document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive

endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever

used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time

provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects

with a combination of painful physical and psychological

tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and

frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on ``combined

effects'' over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy

attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising

clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed

as the opinion's overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told

colleagues at the department that they would all be

``ashamed'' when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing

``cruel, inhuman and degrading'' treatment, the Justice

Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers

did not know existed, current and former officials said. The

Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A.

interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a

hidden legacy of President Bush's second term and Mr.

Gonzales's tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved

quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004

rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on

surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly

in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and

the administration has responded as a policy matter by

dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice

Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal

conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent

memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House

has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal

latitude for harsh tactics.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that

he would not comment on any legal opinion related to

interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, ``We have gone to great

lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive

order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and

our practices fall within U.S. law'' and international

agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved

in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three

months about the opinions and the deliberations on

interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the

condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the

documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.

When he stepped down as attorney general in September after

widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and

withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked

proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was ``a

place of inspiration'' that had balanced the necessary

flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to

uphold the law.

Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales

seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and

David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel, to endorse policies

that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even

though the practices brought the condemnation of other

governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress.

Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the

Bush

White House, undermining the department's independence.

The interrogation opinions were signed by Steven G.

Bradbury, who since 2005 has headed the elite Office of Legal

Counsel at the Justice Department. He has become a frequent

public defender of the National Security Agency's domestic

surveillance program and detention policies at Congressional

hearings and press briefings, a role that some legal scholars

say is at odds with the office's tradition of avoiding

political advocacy.

Mr. Bradbury defended the work of his office as the

government's most authoritative interpreter of the law. ``In

my experience, the White House has not told me how an opinion

should come out,'' he said in an interview. ``The White House

has accepted and respected our opinions, even when they

didn't like the advice being given.''

The debate over how terrorism suspects should be held and

questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,

when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and

coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had

previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted

the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote,

choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of

a handful of appointees.

The policies set off bruising internal battles, pitting

administration moderates against hard-liners, military

lawyers against Pentagon chiefs and, most surprising, a

handful of conservative lawyers at the Justice Department

against the White House in the stunning mutiny of 2004. But

under Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bradbury, the Justice

Department was wrenched back into line with the White

House.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva

Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda,

President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.'s

secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantanamo

Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or

pouring water over a bound prisoner's cloth-covered face to

induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the

administration, President Bush signed a new executive order

authorizing the use of what the administration calls

``enhanced'' interrogation techniques--the details remain

secret--and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding

prisoners in ``black sites'' overseas. The executive order

was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of

Legal Counsel.

Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed that office under President

Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and wrote a

book about it, said he believed the intense pressures of the

campaign against terrorism have warped the office's proper

role.

``The office was designed to insulate against any need to

be an advocate,'' said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar

at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent

years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H.

Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the

Supreme Court, ``lost its ability to say no.'' ``The approach

changed dramatically with opinions on the war on terror,''

Mr. Kmiec said. ``The office became an advocate for the

president's policies.''

From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern

Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions

for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous

interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws

against torture? The Bush administration had entered

uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding

prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross

and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They

included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid

cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by

thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress

positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such

tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would

later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial

intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and

other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or

more effective.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A.

had constructed its program in a few harried months by

consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and

copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training

American service men to withstand capture. The agency

officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from

lawyers thousands of miles away.

``We were getting asked about combinations--`Can we do this

and this at the same time?' '' recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a

veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at

the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.

Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques

had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that

they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He

recalled agency officers asking: ``These approved techniques,

say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature--can they be

combined?'' Or ``Do I have to do the less extreme before the

more extreme?''

The questions came more frequently, Mr. Kelbaugh said, as

word spread about a C.I.A. inspector general inquiry

unrelated to the war on terrorism. Some veteran C.I.A.

officers came under scrutiny because they were advisers to

Peruvian officers who in early 2001 shot down a missionary

flight they had mistaken for a drug-running aircraft. The

Americans were not charged with crimes, but they endured

three years of investigation, saw their careers derailed and

ran up big legal bills.

That experience shook the Qaeda interrogation team, Mr.

Kelbaugh said. ``You think you're making a difference and

maybe saving 3,000 American lives from the next attack. And

someone tells you, `Well, that guidance was a little vague,

and the inspector general wants to talk to you,' '' he

recalled. ``We couldn't tell them, `Do the best you can,'

because the people who did the best they could in Peru were

looking at a grand jury.'' Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions

were sometimes close calls that required consultation with

the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department

provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest

tactics.

That opinion, which would become infamous as ``the torture

memo'' after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo,

a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal

Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by

Mr. Addington, the vice president's adviser. Their close

alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general,

to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming

eagerness to give the White House whatever legal

justifications it desired, a Justice Department official

recalled.

Mr. Yoo's memorandum said no interrogation practices were

illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure

or ``even death.'' A second memo produced at the same time

spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long

they could be used. Despite that guidance, in March 2003,

when the C.I.A. caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief

planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, interrogators were again

haunted by uncertainty. Former intelligence officials, for

the first time, disclosed that a variety of tough

interrogation tactics were used about 100 times over two

weeks on Mr. Mohammed. Agency officials then ordered a halt,

fearing the combined assault might have amounted to illegal

torture. A C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, declined to

discuss the handling of Mr. Mohammed. Mr. Little said the

program ``has been conducted lawfully, with great care and

close review'' and ``has helped our country disrupt terrorist

plots and save innocent lives.''

``The agency has always sought a clear legal framework,

conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and

protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless

terrorists,'' Mr. Little added.

Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed's

statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former

senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.'s initial

interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed's background

or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert

to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A.

professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by

well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical

pressure.

Other intelligence officers, including Mr. Kelbaugh, insist

that the harsh treatment produced invaluable insights into Al

Qaeda's structure and plans. ``We leaned in pretty hard on

K.S.M.,'' Mr. Kelbaugh said, referring to Mr. Mohammed. ``We

were getting good information, and then they were told:

``Slow it down. It may not be correct. Wait for some legal

clarification.''

The doubts at the C.I.A. proved prophetic. In late 2003,

after Mr. Yoo left the Justice Department, the new head of

the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing

his work, which he found deeply flawed. Mr. Goldsmith

infuriated White House officials, first by rejecting part of

the National Security Agency's surveillance program,

prompting the threat of mass resignations by top Justice

Department officials, including Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Comey,

and a showdown at the attorney general's hospital bedside.

Then, in June 2004, Mr. Goldsmith formally withdrew the

August 2002 Yoo memorandum on interrogation, which he found

overreaching and poorly reasoned. Mr. Goldsmith left the

Justice Department soon afterward. He first spoke at length

about his dissenting views to The New York Times last month,

and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on

Tuesday.

Six months later, the Justice Department quietly posted on

its Web site a new legal opinion that appeared to end any

flirtation with torture, starting with its clarionlike

opening: ``Torture is abhorrent both to American law and

values and to international norms.''

A single footnote--added to reassure the C.I.A.--suggested

that the Justice Department was not declaring the agency's

previous actions illegal. But the opinion was unmistakably a

retreat. Some White House officials had opposed publicizing

the document, but acquiesced to Justice Department officials

who argued that doing so would help clear the way for Mr.

Gonzales's confirmation as attorney general.

If President Bush wanted to make sure the Justice

Department did not rebel again, Mr. Gonzales was the ideal

choice. As White House counsel, he had been a fierce

protector of the president's prerogatives. Deeply loyal to

Mr. Bush for championing his career from their days in Texas,

Mr. Gonzales would sometimes tell colleagues that he had just

one regret about becoming attorney general: He did not see

nearly as much of the president as he had in his previous

post.

Among his first tasks at the Justice Department was to find

a trusted chief for the Office of Legal Counsel. First he

informed Daniel Levin, the acting head who had backed Mr.

Goldsmith's dissents and signed the new opinion renouncing

torture, that he would not get the job. He encouraged Mr.

Levin to take a position at the National Security Council, in

effect sidelining him.

Mr. Bradbury soon emerged as the presumed favorite. But

White House officials, still smarting from Mr. Goldsmith's

rebuffs, chose to delay his nomination. Harriet E. Miers, the

new White House counsel, ``decided to watch Bradbury for a

month or two. He was sort of on trial,'' one Justice

Department official recalled.

Mr. Bradbury's biography had a Horatio Alger element that

appealed to a succession of bosses, including Justice

Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and Mr. Gonzales, the

son of poor immigrants. Mr. Bradbury's father had died when

he was an infant, and his mother took in laundry to support

her children. The first in his family to go to college, he

attended Stanford and the University of Michigan Law School.

He joined the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he came

under the tutelage of Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater

independent prosecutor.

Mr. Bradbury belonged to the same circle as his

predecessors: young, conservative lawyers with sterling

credentials, often with clerkships for prominent conservative

judges and ties to the Federalist Society, a powerhouse of

the legal right. Mr. Yoo, in fact, had proposed his old

friend Mr. Goldsmith for the Office of Legal Counsel job; Mr.

Goldsmith had hired Mr. Bradbury as his top deputy.

``We all grew up together,'' said Viet D. Dinh, an

assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and very much a

member of the club. ``You start with a small universe of

Supreme Court clerks, and you narrow it down from there.''

But what might have been subtle differences in quieter

times now cleaved them into warring camps.

Justice Department colleagues say Mr. Gonzales was soon

meeting frequently with Mr. Bradbury on national security

issues, a White House priority. Admirers describe Mr.

Bradbury as low-key but highly skilled, a conciliator who

brought from 10 years of corporate practice a more pragmatic

approach to the job than Mr. Yoo and Mr. Goldsmith, both from

the academic world.

``As a practicing lawyer, you know how to address real

problems,'' said Noel J. Francisco, who worked at the Justice

Department from 2003 to 2005. ``At O.L.C., you're not writing

law review articles and you're not theorizing. You're giving

a client practical advice on a real problem.''

As he had at the White House, Mr. Gonzales usually said

little in meetings with other officials, often deferring to

the hard-driving Mr. Addington. Mr. Bradbury also often

appeared in accord with the vice president's lawyer.

Mr. Bradbury appeared to be ``fundamentally sympathetic to

what the White House and the C.I.A. wanted to do,'' recalled

Philip Zelikow, a former top State Department official. At

interagency meetings on detention and interrogation, Mr.

Addington was at times ``vituperative,'' said Mr. Zelikow,

but Mr. Bradbury, while taking similar positions, was

``professional and collegial.''

While waiting to learn whether he would be nominated to

head the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Bradbury was in an

awkward position, knowing that a decision contrary to White

House wishes could kill his chances.

Charles J. Cooper, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel

under President Reagan, said he was ``very troubled'' at the

notion of a probationary period.

``If the purpose of the delay was a tryout, I think they

should have avoided it,'' Mr. Cooper said. ``You're implying

that the acting official is molding his or her legal analysis

to win the job.''

Mr. Bradbury said he made no such concessions. ``No one

ever suggested to me that my nomination depended on how I

ruled on any opinion,'' he said. ``Every opinion I've signed

at the Office of Legal Counsel represents my best judgment of

what the law requires.''

Scott Horton, an attorney affiliated with Human Rights

First who has closely followed the interrogation debate, said

any official offering legal advice on the campaign against

terror was on treacherous ground.

``For government lawyers, the national security issues they

were deciding were like working with nuclear waste--extremely

hazardous to their health,'' Mr. Horton said. ``If you give

the administration what it wants, you'll lose credibility in

the academic community,'' he said. ``But if you hold back,

you'll be vilified by conservatives and the administration.''

In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr.

Bradbury's approach. He helped block the appointment of a

liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the

Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving

combined interrogation techniques.

Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he

advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the

attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant

about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey's opposition might have

killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-

described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare

administration official who was willing to confront Mr.

Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr.

Comey stated that ``no lawyer'' would endorse Mr. Yoo's

justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred,

saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey

shot back: ``No good lawyer,'' according to someone present.

But under Mr. Gonzales, and after the departure of Mr.

Goldsmith and other allies, the deputy attorney general found

himself isolated. His troublemaking on N.S.A. and on

interrogation, and in appointing his friend Patrick J.

Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case,

which would lead to the perjury conviction of I. Lewis Libby,

Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, had irreparably offended the

White House.

``On national security matters generally, there was a sense

that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,'' said one

Justice Department official who heard the White House talk,

expressed with particular force by Mr. Addington.

Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about

interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring.

Speaking at the N.S.A.'s Fort Meade campus on Law Day--a

noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the

dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A.

program--Mr. Comey spoke of the ``agonizing collisions'' of

the law and the desire to protect Americans.

``We are likely to hear the words: `If we don't do this,

people will die,' '' Mr. Comey said. But he argued that

government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great

institutions.

``It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say `no'

when it matters most,'' he said. ``It takes moral character.

It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence

under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this

country.''

Mr. Gonzales's aides were happy to see Mr. Comey depart in

the summer of 2005. That June, President Bush nominated Mr.

Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which some

colleagues viewed as a sign that he had passed a loyalty

test. Soon Mr. Bradbury applied his practical approach to a

new challenge to the C.I.A.'s methods.

The administration had always asserted that the C.I.A.'s

pressure tactics did not amount to torture, which is banned

by federal law and international treaty. But officials had

privately decided the agency did not have to comply with

another provision in the Convention Against Torture--the

prohibition on ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading'' treatment.

Now that loophole was about to be closed. First Senator

Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and then Senator

John McCain, the Arizona Republican who had been tortured as

a prisoner in North Vietnam, proposed legislation to ban such

treatment. At the administration's request, Mr. Bradbury

assessed whether the proposed legislation would outlaw any

C.I.A. methods, a legal question that had never before been

answered by the Justice Department.

At least a few administration officials argued that no

reasonable interpretation of ``cruel, inhuman or degrading''

would permit the most extreme C.I.A. methods, like

waterboarding. Mr. Bradbury was placed in a tough spot, said

Mr. Zelikow, the State Department counselor, who was working

at the time to rein in interrogation policy. ``If Justice

says some practices are in violation of the C.I.D.

standard,'' Mr. Zelikow said, referring to cruel, inhuman or

degrading, ``then they are now saying that officials broke

current law.''

In the end, Mr. Bradbury's opinion delivered what the White

House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr.

McCain's Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in

the C.I.A.'s practices, according to officials familiar with

the memo. Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only

conduct that ``shocks the conscience'' was unconstitutional,

the opinion found that in some circumstances not even

waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading,

if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial

intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials

familiar with the legal finding said.

In a frequent practice, Mr. Bush attached a statement to

the new law when he signed it, declaring his authority to set

aside the restrictions if they interfered with his

constitutional powers. At the same time, though, the

administration responded to pressure from Mr. McCain and

other lawmakers by reviewing interrogation policy and giving

up several C.I.A. techniques.

Since late 2005, Mr. Bradbury has become a linchpin of the

administration's defense of counterterrorism programs,

helping to negotiate the Military Commissions Act last year

and frequently testifying about the N.S.A. surveillance

program. Once, he answered questions about administration

detention policies for an ``Ask the White House'' feature on

a Web site.

Mr. Kmiec, the former Office of Legal Counsel head now at

Pepperdine, called Mr. Bradbury's public activities a

departure for an office that traditionally has shunned any

advocacy role.

A senior administration official called Mr. Bradbury's

active role in shaping legislation and speaking to Congress

and the press ``entirely appropriate'' and consistent with

past practice. The official, who spoke on the condition of

anonymity, said Mr. Bradbury ``has played a critical role in

achieving greater transparency'' on the legal basis for

detention and surveillance programs.

Though President Bush repeatedly nominated Mr. Bradbury as

the Office of Legal Counsel's assistant attorney general,

Democratic senators have blocked the nomination. Senator

Durbin said the Justice Department would not turn over copies

of his opinions or other evidence of Mr. Bradbury's role in

interrogation policy.

``There are fundamental questions about whether Mr.

Bradbury approved interrogation methods that are clearly

unacceptable,'' Mr. Durbin said.

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's top lawyer from

1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal

opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious,

potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling

prisoners.

``I know from the military that if you tell someone they

can do a little of this for the country's good, some people

will do a lot of it for the country's better,'' Mr. Hutson

said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that

official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger

Americans in the future.

``The problem is, once you've got a legal opinion that says

such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people

is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?''

he asked.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In August, over 165,000 properties in Florida alone entered foreclosure, 50 percent more than the previous month. The situation is most acute in the part of Florida that I am honored to represent. Miami-Dade County ranks in the top five counties in the Nation among major metropolitan areas where homes are entering some stage of foreclosure. Broward County ranks third in the Nation. This great cause for concern in the housing market has prompted anxiety over the tax consequences associated with discharges of indebtedness, debt forgiveness, in connection with restructuring acquisition indebtedness and home foreclosures.

As the gentleman from California pointed out, under current law, when a lender forgives some or all of the mortgage debt, Mr. Speaker, the borrower is required to treat the forgiven debt as taxable income, taxed at ordinary rates. In today's marketplace, declining property values have left some sellers in the position of having to sell their homes for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. Even if the loss of value occurs through no fault of their own, if the lender forgives the shortfall, that amount is taxable income for sellers. This phantom income tax places a heavy burden on a family that has incurred a significant economic loss. This legislation will help protect those homeowners from an unexpected and unfair tax bill.

The bill also extends the deduction for private mortgage insurance for 7 years. Current law limits the deduction for private mortgage insurance to payments made prior to the end of 2007. This provision will be helpful, especially to young families purchasing their first home.

There is some concern that the bill may go beyond what is needed during this time. The administration and some in the minority here in Congress have stated that the relief should be temporary to assist homeowners during the current mortgage market transition period, avoiding as much as possible distorting consumer and lender decisions on new mortgage loans. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the underlying legislation being brought forth today for consideration by this House is an example of what can happen, the good that can happen, the progress that can be made when the congressional majority decides to work with the administration, with the President and the minority in Congress on an important issue such as this. Much of the legislation that we will be considering today was proposed, the substance of that legislation was proposed by President Bush. And so this is an example of what progress can be made on important issues when the congressional majority decides to work with the minority and the administration.

Now, on process, Mr. Speaker, in a document called The New Direction for America, the new congressional majority laid out its campaign promises to

the American people last year. Included in that document was a promise, and I quote, that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

But with this rule today that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the rule is what brings to the floor the underlying substantive legislation that will be considered subsequently by the House; with this rule today, the majority has broken its own promise in two ways. First, they denied the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment. My colleague, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dreier, offered two amendments Tuesday in Rules to allow Ways and Means Ranking Member McCrery the ability to offer a substitute amendment on this legislation. But on a party-line vote, the majority rejected the minority's ability to offer a substitute.

The majority claims that they are running the House in a more open manner than we did in the 109th Congress, but this rule today once again demonstrates that they are not moving toward a more open process, but instead moving backwards. This rule closes out all amendments. So every Member of the House is precluded from in any way offering their ideas to improve this bill.

So far this year, the majority has offered 34 closed rules on bills, closing out all amendments, far surpassing the number from the 109th Congress at this point, as a matter of fact, more than double the amount of closed rules. At this point in the 109th Congress there had been 16 closed rules. And remember the promise: the promise was to move in the other direction, and instead, more than double the amount of closed rules; clearly, moving backwards.

What this rule today really represents, Mr. Speaker, is a missed opportunity. If the majority had offered an open rule, the majority could have doubled their number of open rules on nonappropriations bills to a whopping two; instead, they've permitted only one open rule on nonappropriations bills, thus continuously violating their claim to be a more open and bipartisan Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend Mr. Cardoza's point about the tradition with tax bills, yes, there has been a tradition to bring tax bills to the floor under a restricted rule. That has not precluded in the past, as we did often, the ability of the minority to offer a substitute amendment.

So what I was talking about with regard to process is that there was a clear promise to move in a more open direction, to move toward more openness and more transparency and more rights for the minority. And what has happened is exactly the opposite, a doubling by the majority of closed rules that absolutely close out, in other words, prohibit, all Members from proposing amendments on this floor. So that great contrast between the promise and the performance is what I was alluding to, that unfortunate contrast.

Now, on substance, again, I think that today is an example of something very positive. The congressional majority has decided to work with the minority and the President on an issue that is of importance to this legislation. And so we see legislation, much of

which was proposed by the President of the United States, coming to the floor today to solve a major problem facing the American people.

So while I reiterate the great disappointment that we in the minority feel with regard to the lack of performance by the majority with regard to its promise to open this House to more fairness on substance, I think it's commendable that for once there is an issue of importance to the American people that the congressional majority has decided to work with the President on and with the minority in Congress.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I would like to direct our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, the distinguished John Sullivan, recently sent to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian stated that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of role XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress, to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2\1/2\ minutes.

It is not often I find myself disagreeing with my esteemed friend, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to briefly address his concerns.

As our esteemed chairman, Mr. Rangel, pointed out, this is a serious program that all agree needs a serious solution to avoid having people who lose their homes end up having their loss become a taxable event. Our legislation solves this.

Where I take modest exception to the ranking member and, in fact, had a rather spirited debate before the Rules Committee with Ranking Member Dreier that this is somehow a temporary problem and just requires a temporary solution, we are in a situation now where the majority would argue that there is never a good time to have people who lose their homes have that loss be a taxable event. Second, unlike the Bush administration thinks this is going to be solved in the next year or two, the fact is, in 2006, 20 percent of the first-lien mortgages were in the subprime market.

We are going to see exploding adjustable rate mortgages for years. Those people shouldn't have uncertainty if there are people who assume control who think that their loss should be a taxable event.

As it speaks to the pay-for, the Democrats have made a commitment that we are going to pay for our actions. We are not going to add to the deficit. This is an entirely appropriate pay-for. There was never an intent with the $500,000 per couple exclusion from capital gains on the sale of their homes to string these together.

I came to Congress committed to enacting that relief to protect them. But under the provisions that, as it has worked out, some extraordinarily wealthy people can string these together and have a $500,000 tax-free gain three times in 6 years.

Our amendment, our pay-for, gives everybody the protection for their principal home and allows them to get the capital gains exclusion to the extent that a second home is their principal home. It's reasonable, it's balanced, it's paid for. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Trade Subcommittee, and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Select Revenue Measures Committee and a champion of tax fairness, Mr. Neal from Massachusetts.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to clarify that there's no luxury tax on second or third homes. It preserves the tax exemption for the $500,000 capital gain on a residence, and it permits people to claim an additional benefit to the extent to which it is their primary residence in the future.

I would at this point, Mr. Speaker, recognize a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Tubbs Jones from Ohio, whose experience helped shape this legislation, for 2 minutes.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means Committee member, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, a former mayor who has firsthand experience about the significance of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means member from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has represented an area that is facing this problem and has been so generous in sharing with us the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been acknowledged as one of the prime drivers in shaping this legislation.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) for 1 minute.

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

I would like to commend my colleague for the work that he has done on this measure, Mr. McCrery, and our leadership because at core there is bipartisan understanding and support for the elimination of what has been referred to as a phantom and unfair tax on the poor souls who lose their homes and who receive no net increase to them.

Where we have modest disagreement is in two specific areas: one, the bill that is before us recognizes that there is never a good time to tax American homeowners on this phantom benefit of having their loan forgiven on a foreclosed property. There no circumstances under which we could conceive that we wanted to penalize them for something that they didn't receive, so we made it permanent. Unlike the minority, unlike the Bush administration, we don't think there is ever a good reason to tax them on something that they don't receive.

Second, we're paying for the cost that is associated with it because, sadly, even a tax provision that makes no sense carries value, and under our rules, we need to pay for it. And what we did was not to implement any additional tax, but to clarify the benefit that is given to owners of principal residences that they have a $500,000 tax-free gain if they occupy that as their principal residence for 2 out of 5 years. That's something that we broadly agree upon.

Now, we've always agreed that that ought to occur to the homeowner. Now we're hearing that somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle think that an additional tax benefit, so that people could string this together over the course of 6 years and get $500,000 three times as a tax benefit, is somehow, some way a tax increase. It is not. The purpose of that tax provision was never to reward people who could game the system and string together tax increases two or three times over a relatively short period of time.

So we have clarified it: as long as it is their principal home, their principal residence, they can claim the exclusion. And to the extent that a second home, after they've gotten $500,000 tax free, the extent to which they occupy a second home for an additional period of time, they can claim the proportion that it is actually their principal residence. I would dare say that was the intent for the majority people of why that provision was implemented in the first place. It's reasonable, it's sound, and I would strongly suggest that that's why people in this industry, Realtors, mortgage bankers, homebuilders, support the bill that we brought forward.

I suggest that this bill is something that all of us ought to support. I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that, before this housing slump is over, 2 million homeowners will lose their homes due to skyrocketing interest rates on their mortgages.

Increased foreclosures have adverse effects on the values of neighboring properties. For example, research indicates that, for each foreclosed home in a given neighborhood, the prices of nearby homes could fall by 1 percent to 1.5 percent.

Nationally, housing prices have stopped rising. In fact, some measures of home prices have already declined, by more than 3 percent since the beginning of 2007. Some economists predict that real housing prices are likely to decline by more than 15 percent over the next 2 years.

We want to prevent thousands of Americans from getting hit by the double whammy of (1) losing their homes to foreclosure, and (2) getting slapped with a tax bill when the debt on their home is discharged by the lender.

Even taxpayers that restructure their mortgages to avert foreclosure face this risk of triggering large tax bills.

It doesn't seem right for individuals in this circumstance to face a tax bill when they really have no increase in their net worth.

As I see it, their house went down in value, and the individuals couldn't meet their mortgage requirements, resulting in foreclosure. The amount of the income that they would recognize without regard to this bill would be equal to or less than the decline in value of their home. So, absent this legislation, homeowners in this situation would be slapped with a tax liability for no net increase in wealth.

H.R. 3648 would correct that result so that if a person's principal residence lost value, that loss won't give rise to a tax liability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

First of all, as the gentleman mentions, using the term ``promptly'' means that it is kicked back to the committee to an uncertain future.

This has been before the committee for some time. There is broad bipartisan support that we need to solve this problem. And I have listened to my friends, they haven't come forward with any reasonable suggestion about an alternative pay-for. They had an opportunity in the Rules Committee; they had an opportunity before the committee. If we follow their course, we're going to be in limbo, I don't know how long, but unnecessarily.

The minority has been interested in the past in making it temporary. That was the Bush administration's position; that's what Republicans argued before the Rules Committee. We don't want to put it back to an uncertain future.

The one proposal that has come forward today for a pay-for was itself a long-term revenue loser. Using a Roth-style approach to government employee accounts, I think they're 457s, is a long-term revenue drain which uses an accounting gimmick in the short term to have people pay a little tax so they save a whole lot of tax in the future. That will add to the deficit over time.

Now, contrary to what my distinguished friend from Virginia says, it does not disadvantage people. The exclusion for residential property for a prime residence was just that, it was to give people a $500,000 exclusion from capital gain on the sale of the property. It doesn't foreclose other people from stringing it forward to get more than $500,000. It just means the extent to which it's not your primary residence, you don't get a percentage increase above that. If it's your primary residence for one-third of that time, you get one-third of the benefit, in addition to $500,000 that you get with your first bite of the apple. It means you don't get two it means you don't get three in 6 years; you get one full bite, and then you get a percentage on top of that. It's reasonable; it's fiscally responsible.

I strongly urge the rejection of this proposal that puts this legislation in limbo. There is broad bipartisan support for the concept. The permanent support of a permanent nature of it is sound, the pay-for is reasonable. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 703 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 703.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 703 provides for consideration of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 under the traditional closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from countless media reports and I have seen in my own congressional district, the housing market is in crisis. Subprime mortgages and predatory lending practices are more prominent than ever. Home values have plunged 15 to 20 percent this year and foreclosures in the first 6 months of this year alone have surged 55 percent over the same period in 2006.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, I know these situations all too well. I represent communities that have been dubbed the Foreclosure Capital of the United States of America by the national media because of foreclosure rates of about one in 27 homes. I have seen the joy in families' eyes when they have been able to purchase their first home and achieve the American Dream. I have seen the tears when they struggle to make their payments and their dream is taken away.

Mr. Speaker, losing your home to foreclosure is an unthinkable ordeal. The way I see it, if you are unfortunate enough to lose your home to foreclosure because you are struggling, you have suffered enough. You shouldn't be punished further by being taxed on what you no longer own. But that's exactly what's happening. Under current tax law, the IRS counts as income the amount of the mortgage debt that you have been forgiven by a lender as it is considered a ``gift'' and therefore subject to tax. This means that when many Americans lose their home to foreclosure, they are slapped with a tax bill when a lender discharges the debt on their home. Families are shocked--and frankly so am I--when they receive a tax bill for something they no longer own simply because of phantom income that is created when the so-called gift is forgiven. This double whammy, as Chairman Rangel likes to say, of someone losing their home to foreclosure, often because of circumstances beyond their control, and then facing a tax bill on top of that is neither fair nor equitable, and it has to stop.

The bill before us today, H.R. 3648, addresses this very issue. The bill is quite simple. First, it exempts forgiven mortgage debt from being counted as income for tax purposes. This will prevent countless Americans from receiving a tax bill after they have lost their home to foreclosure. Second, H.R. 3648 provides for a 7-year extension of the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance, which is scheduled to end at the end of 2007. The deduction for PMI, as it is most commonly known, is critical to many low- and moderate-income families and first- time homebuyers who lack the traditional down payment. The PMI deduction allows them to purchase a home at lower cost while avoiding risky subprime or predatory second loans that would need to be made for them to make a down payment. Third, the bill makes it easier for owners of co-op housing units to qualify as a cooperative housing institution. H.R. 3648 also addresses a tax loophole regarding capital gains treatment from the sale of certain homes. Closing this unintended loophole will prevent people from switching back and forth between a primary and secondary residence to get a double tax benefit that was never intended.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan bill before us today, H.R. 3648, was unanimously approved by the Ways and Means Committee, and it has the strong support of organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and the Ways and Means Committee for their hard and thoughtful work in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides more opportunities for people to buy a home, more options for families to keep their home, and eliminates an unfair tax bill should they in fact lose their home through unfortunate circumstances. I am proud to join many organizations and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this commonsense legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend and colleague from Florida that tax bills have traditionally been handled under closed rules, including when Mr. Dreier was chairman of the committee and when Mr. Diaz-Balart was the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, my friend and great colleague on the committee, that on page 19 of the committee report issued after the bill was written, I would like to read section G, which reads: ``Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives, the Ways and Means Committee has determined that the bill as reported contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of that rule.''

Further, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned that Mr. McCrery had offered a substitute and that the majority had denied the minority the ability to bring that substitute up. That's correct, for good cause. The substitute was not paid for under the House PAYGO rules, and in fact violated the House PAYGO rules, and so was not deemed appropriate to be brought to the floor.

Finally, that same substitute only made these very important tax loophole corrections and changes enabled for 3 years. We believe that this particular provision needs to be permanent in Federal law and that homeowners need to be protected if they lose their homes permanently.

So, Mr. Speaker, we did not make Mr. McCrery's substitute in order. And, in fact, it has been the tradition that tax bills come to the floor under closed rules, even when Mr. Dreier and the Republicans were in charge, because of the complexity of tax law. If you amend that bill on the floor, we don't know how it will affect other clauses within that bill. So it has been the tradition, because of tax law complexity, that bills coming to the floor that deal with the Federal Tax Code do, in fact, come under closed rules.

Mr. Speaker, declining property values and rapid increases in the number of foreclosures are causing a national housing and mortgage crisis. This is a commonsense bill. It is a bill that takes key steps in stabilizing the housing market. H.R. 3648 eliminates the double whammy of someone losing their home to foreclosure and then facing an additional tax bill right when they are down on their knees anyway. It reduces mortgage costs, making it easier for families to purchase a home while avoiding high-risk loans. Most importantly, it will help countless families avoid foreclosure and to stay in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, is a necessary bill. Once again, it shows that the Democratic Congress is committed to addressing the mortgage crisis sweeping across our Nation. I want to thank Mr. Rangel and his committee for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

I thank my colleague from California, who continues to be a leader for homeowners across this country as they face very troubling times.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 and this rule. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and the House Ways and Means Committee for moving quickly on this critical legislation.

Our efforts today will help families across America who have had to bear the unfortunate burden of their homes going into foreclosure. You see, under current law, after a homeowner loses their home to foreclosure, they are forced to pay income tax on that debt forgiveness. So although the homeowner has lost their assets, they must suffer the immeasurable strain of a tax bill that they are often unable to pay.

When a family has lost their home to foreclosure or has been unable to renegotiate their loan with their lender to reflect the current value of their home, homeowners under current law are being confronted with an unfair and, frankly, unaffordable tax bill. Our legislation on the floor of the House today will help.

This is simply an issue of fairness for struggling families and homeowners. It is unfair for a family to pay a tax on their income that they actually do not receive. When a bank forgives some amount of debt for a homeowner, either to avoid foreclosure or simply to forgive a debt to a homeowner already in the foreclosure process, the amount of the forgiven debt is treated by the IRS as income, which is then taxed. For families already struggling to make ends meet, the phantom income and resulting tax burden generated by this can endanger their financial health even further. This bill will fix this double whammy.

With the current housing crisis that exists in our country, especially from the subprime lending market, it is no wonder that so many families have found themselves in unfortunate situations when it comes to their homes. Relieving families of this tax burden is the least we can do to help our families and all that they are trying to do in their everyday lives.

My colleague from Florida is correct: in August, the State of Florida had the second highest total of foreclosure filings, up 77 percent from the previous month. Florida is ranked third in the United States for overall foreclosures this year, and nationwide foreclosures up are 115 percent.

In my home district in the Tampa Bay area, over 10,000 of my neighbors have found their homes falling into foreclosure within the first 6 months of this year. Well, we are going to extend a lifeline today, and believe me, it matters.

Last month, I visited with one of my neighbors, Isaline Wyatt. She is a single mother of two in east Tampa who was very close to losing her home to foreclosure. Fortunately, she was able to keep her home with the help of Neighborworks, a community action group. But many of our neighbors are in similar situations, and they do not have the same prospects. I promised Isaline and our neighbors throughout the Tampa Bay area that we would work to ensure that help is within reach.

I am proud to say that today we will keep that promise and help bring relief to my hardworking neighbors. We will keep them from being faced with unaffordable, large tax bills as a result of foreclosure or renegotiating mortgages.

In the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, the talented and caring staff at the local Neighborworks center work hard every day to keep homeowners in their home. Since January, they have assisted 65 families. Homeowners like Joann Carnaham of St. Petersburg are working desperately with Neighborworks so they don't lose their homes. Joann fell behind on her mortgage payment because she lost her job. The house she lived in belonged to her parents. She refinanced for $80,000. Her father was still there, but he passed away, and she had to pay all of his bills. Due to lack of income and her father's death, she was unable to negotiate a payment plan with her mortgage company. Under current law, if Joann's home goes into foreclosure, she will be hit with an income tax bill that she is in absolutely no position to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 will aid families and people like Joann in St. Petersburg and help them get back on their feet after foreclosure. With the whirlwind of problems in the mortgage finance system, this bill will help stabilize families in our neighborhood, and I urge adoption today.