Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 861 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 861.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 861 provides for consideration of H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the Democratic philosophy is simple: We believe in pay-as-you-go. In other words, we believe that you should live within your financial means. Every family that makes these choices around the kitchen table every month in order to live within its budget understands that simple fact of life. The Federal Government used to understand this, too. In fact, the Clinton administration and the Democratic Congress worked with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and turned decades of exploding budget deficits into 4 straight years of budget surpluses through the use of pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rules in this House.

The use of PAYGO through the 1990s and early 2000s helped lead us to the first Federal budget surpluses in over 30 years at that time, and we saw record economic growth during that period which resulted in the addition of 22 million American jobs. And in that time, America actually began to pay down the national debt to foreign nations. Despite the proven success of PAYGO, President Bush and the Republican Congress abandoned the PAYGO rules in the year 2002, allowing it to expire with no interest in reinstating it.

According to the Bush administration's own numbers, President Bush's policies are on track to increase the Federal debt by over $4 trillion by the year 2008.

It took, Madam Speaker, 41 Presidents combined to accumulate the total of $4 trillion in debt. This means that the debt America incurred over the first 200 plus years of our Nation will be doubled in only 8 years under the Bush administration.

Worse, Madam Speaker, about 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since the year 2001 has been financed by foreign investors, including foreign governments, especially China. This has resulted in 50 percent of our Nation's debt now being owned by the following countries: China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

At the start of the 110th Congress, Democrats provided real choices and a new direction for America. We made good on our commitment to PAYGO and did what 6 years of Republican Congresses before us refused to do: We restored PAYGO rules to make sure that we do not spend more money than we have.

Once again, the Democratic leadership brings to the floor H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, that provides millions of middle-class families with tax cuts to help grow our economy without increasing our national debt. H.R. 4351 prevents 23 million families from being hit by the AMT, and it helps 12 million children by expanding their child tax credit.

The Republicans will surely say that this bill raises taxes, but that is far from the truth. Let me set the record straight right from the beginning. This bill closes tax loopholes that allows a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than other hardworking Americans, such as school teachers, police officers, firefighters, and our Nation's veterans. This bill stops hedge fund managers from making hundreds of millions of dollars by using offshore tax havens to avoid paying income tax while other middle-class families play by the rules and pay their fair share.

It also prevents multinational companies from shifting their income to offshore entities and from creating sham corporations in tax- friendly jurisdictions to avoid Federal taxation. We would all love not to have to pay our taxes. Why should we allow these big corporations to go offshore to avoid paying their fair share?

It seems only fair that if hardworking American middle-class families play by the rules and pay their fair share that the wealthy and huge multinational corporations that are gaming the system should pay their fair share as well.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal house in order. If we want to continue down the path towards fiscal sanity, we must make sure that every piece of legislation that we consider, including this bill, fixing the AMT, complies with the PAYGO rules. The Blue Dogs and the House Democratic leadership are standing strong behind our commitment to fiscal responsibility through PAYGO. I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel for their unwavering commitment to sticking with the PAYGO rules. I would also like to reiterate to the other body that our leadership is committed to abiding by the PAYGO rules and not considering any AMT bill on the House floor that is not fully paid for.

Madam Speaker, the $9.1 trillion debt that our country has irresponsibly racked up, nearly half of which has happened in the last 6 years, must be paid back, and it will be paid back by our children and our grandchildren if not by us. We need to adhere to the old adage that we should provide a better

life for our children than the ones that we found ourselves. Quite simply, we should be investing in our children's future and not borrowing from it.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the right choice today, to stand by PAYGO today, to stand by PAYGO tomorrow, and support this commonsense legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains on either side.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to Mr. Costa from California, who has been a champion of the PAYGO rules and fiscal responsibility since the day he walked into these hallowed Halls.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from California for his eloquent comments and say I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a former cochair of the Blue Dog Coalition and a great Member of this House who is committed to fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the Chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and someone for the last 11 years who has fought hard on this particular issue to bring fiscal sanity back to our country.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke talks about malarkey. I would say that his side of the aisle should know about malarkey after they raised the Federal deficit over $4 trillion in the last 6 years.

I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and an absolute fighter on behalf of fiscal responsibility in this House.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and an absolute champion on this issue, Mr. Obey.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire how much time either side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Rosa DeLauro.

Madam Speaker, I have the distinct honor to yield 1 minute to a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Budget Committee, a distinguished member of this body, Mr. Doggett.

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have available to us?

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition and absolute champion on the issue of fiscal responsibility and making sure that this House returns to fiscal sanity, Mr. Tanner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on my side and so I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said that this bill raises taxes, but that's far from the truth. Let me again, as I did in my opening, set the record straight. This bill closes tax loopholes that allow a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than the average hardworking American does on their income. That includes school teachers, police officers, firefighters, our Nation's veterans, and, frankly, even us privileged that are able to serve here as Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans need to make a choice today. Are they going to stand with tax cheats and hedge fund managers, or are they going to stand with the 23 million hardworking Americans who will be affected by this policy?

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is united in our commitment to fiscal discipline and ensuring that government lives within its means. The Democratic Congress pledged to exercise spending restraint and to stop shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We strongly urge the other body, Democrats and Republicans, to have the courage and good sense to keep the promise they made to the American people to be good stewards of their taxpayer dollars. We can't pick and choose when we comply with PAYGO rules if we want to reverse the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Bush administration and the prior Republican Congresses.

By restoring budget discipline and getting back on the path to budget surpluses, we ensure America is economically strong and that we are not beholden to foreign nations such as China, Japan, Iran and Saudi Arabia whom we are borrowing this money from; that we are protecting our Social Security and Medicare programs; and that paying down the national debt is not a burden that we are going to put on the backs of our children and generations to come.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendments to H. Res. 861 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

(1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto''

after ``ordered on the bill''.

(2) In section 1. strike ``and (2) one motion to

recommit'', and insert:

``(2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by

Representative Hastings of Washington or his designee, which

shall he in order without intervention of an point of order

(except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI) or demand

for division of the question, shall he considered as read,

and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions''.

(3) At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

``At the end of the bill add the following new section:

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

I would like to thank the chairman for recognizing me and yielding to me. I also want to thank Mr. Ross for being such a leader on this issue and for being a leader on so many of the Blue Dog causes that he brings to the floor every week. And there is no question, Mr. Ross, that there is no issue that's more important to the Blue Dogs than this issue of PAYGO.

Madam Speaker, passing PAYGO rules at the beginning of the 110th Congress fulfilled an absolute pledge to the American people that this new Congress was going to spend taxpayers' dollars and money responsibly and without continuing to run up the deficit. It was a very important initial step when we passed the House rules this year. Waiving this rule now would break that pledge to pay for the alternative minimum tax and would be a rollback in what we've committed to do for the American people. And I believe that breaking the PAYGO rules would return us to the disastrous fiscal policies of the past Congresses under the Republican administration of this House and would be a terrible mistake.

After allowing the PAYGO rules to expire, the Republicans enacted legislation increasing the national debt by nearly $1.4 trillion over 6 years. Twenty-one percent of all individual income taxes of the year 2008 will go towards paying the interest on the national

debt. They won't help cure a sick child, they won't help educate one of our bright young people in this country, your tax dollars, 21 percent of which will go strictly to pay interest on the $9 trillion that have been run up in the national debt.

This ``debt tax,'' as we call it, is a direct consequence of the reckless fiscal policies that have happened, for the most part, over the last 6 years. The President and the Republican majority have put us on a fiscally unsustainable path, and the Blue Dogs are unwilling to pass this undue burden onto future generations of Americans.

The Blue Dogs demanded a new rule, as we talked about earlier, that put PAYGO back into place. And when we took over the Congress, the Democrats restored the PAYGO rules to ensure that the government spends within its means, just like American families have to do.

In complying with the PAYGO rules, this House has overwhelmingly relied on spending cuts to offset increases in higher priority programs. Over 80 percent of the increases in spending for priority programs passed by this House have been offset by cuts in lower priority or wasteful spending programs.

The Blue Dogs are committed to addressing this country's long-term fiscal challenges, and that is why we have insisted that PAYGO rules be applied to all mandatory spending increases.

This Democratic Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal house back in order. If we want to continue down this path towards fiscal sanity, we must ensure that every piece of legislation we consider, including the AMT bill that we're going to be considering this week, comply with the PAYGO rules.

Mr. Chairman, again, I very much appreciate your leadership, and I thank you for recognizing me and yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, with home values dropping and the cost of health care, home heating oil and college education continuing to rise, American families are justifiably uneasy about their ability to make ends meet in a declining economy.

The Democratic Congress has made protecting middle-class families its highest priority. Over the course of this year, we have passed billions in tax relief for American small businesses, increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, passed legislation that cuts taxes for middle-class families and given families the most financial assistance for college since the GI Bill.

The New Direction Congress is also working to reach bipartisan agreements to address the subprime loan crisis and predatory loan practices that are threatening to force thousands of American families from their homes. Today, we will bring a comprehensive energy bill to the floor that will provide some much-needed relief at the gas pump as well.

Madam Speaker, the needs and concerns of our Nation's working families remain one of this Congress' top priorities.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and want to single out one provision that is vital if we are going to protect our children.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for including language in this conference report adopted by the Senate which includs $500,000 for a feasibility study for a National Registry of Substantiated Cases of Child Abuse or Neglect, as described in the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. I also want to thank my home state colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was instrumental in getting the Senate to adopt this important provision.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law in July of 2006. This landmark piece of legislation served to reform the Federal standards for sex offender registration, enhances criminal penalties for sex offenders, creates and amends various grant programs to protect children, and called for the creation of a National Child Abuse Registry to further protect America's children.

Unfortunately, child abuse is a huge problem and the statistics tell a troubling story. Each week, child protective services, CPS, agencies throughout the United States receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. In 2002, 2.6 million reports concerning the welfare of approximately 4.5 million children were made.

In over two-thirds of these cases, an assessment or investigation followed. As a result of these investigations, approximately 896,000 children were found to have been victims of abuse or neglect--an average of more than 2,450 children per day.

As the parent of two children adopted from foster care, I am particularly concerned about the number of children in the foster care system who have been physically abused.

People who work in the foster care system estimate that the percentages of boys and girls in foster care who have been physically abused is as high as 75 percent. Many came into foster care initally because of physical abuse and others are children who were revictimized while in foster care.

This is unconscionable. All children, no matter what their background, deserve to grow up in a stable and loving home.

The Adam Walsh Act addresses this problem by directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the National Registry which would be available to child protection authorities for use as a resource in tracking previous instances of child maltreatment in order to enable child protection workers to be better equipped with relevant information in assessing cases.

Each State already collects information on substantiated cases of abuse and neglect, but once an investigation is under way, adult perpetrators need only to move to another State to escape detection and punishment. This National Registry will address this loophole and ensure that violators, no matter where they live, can be brought to justice.

Unfortunately, the Registry has not come to fruition. This legislation would require the Department of Health and Human Services to complete the study on the feasibility of establishing the Registry within a year of enactment.

The President should sign this conference report and enact this vital provision. We must do a better job of protecting our Nation's most vital resource, our children, and this money will help us in that effort.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 773 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 773.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 773 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act, under a structured rule.

As the Clerk reported, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule

Madam Speaker, I would respond to my friend from Florida by saying that it is the hard copy being received in Rules Committee that needs to be done by the time that has been specified by the Rules Committee. Timely filed amendments were all made in order on the Republican side for this measure. We certainly look forward to our Republican colleagues filing amendments in committee when we've called for amendments to a bill, and encourage them to file on time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I have one additional speaker that has arrived.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

No other speakers. We will be ready to close.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, my friend, has indicated that we are not adequately funding our Nation's veterans. I would like to remind the gentleman, my good friend, that the recent Republican-led Congress shortchanged veterans funding by failing to provide sufficient increases to keep up with VA's growing number of patients and the rising cost of health care while they were in charge.

In the summer of 2005, the VA confronted a $1.5 billion shortfall as they significantly underestimated the health care needs of the new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. This year the VA expects to treat 5.8 million patients, 1.6 million more than in 2001.

The new Congress, under the Democratic majority, committed to taking the country in a new direction. For 2007, the Democratic-held Congress increased veterans funding by $5.2 billion, and the Congress is proposing an additional increase of $3.8 billion more than the President in fiscal year 2008. That is the largest increase in veterans funding in 77 years.

The Democratic Congress once again is bringing to the floor a bill that provides real solutions to the obstacles facing America's small business owners, innovators, and entrepreneurs. H.R. 3867 ensures that veterans, women, and minority-owned businesses and other underrepresented entrepreneurs receive the assistance they need to thrive in the Federal marketplace. It also paves the way for them to develop their companies, create jobs, and give a much-needed jolt to our economy.

Madam Speaker, securing a Federal contract is a major boon for entrepreneurs, especially those owned by minority and veteran small businesses. This bill is yet another step towards ensuring that these businesses are not, in fact, left behind, but rather given every opportunity to succeed.

I appreciate the debate with my friend from Florida, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 773 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 25, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 763 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions.

All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 763.

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

House Resolution 763 provides for consideration of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the amendment from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment which was submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration on this rule.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1011, designates 43,000 acres as wilderness and nearly 12,000 acres as national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia. The areas in the Jefferson National Forest that are protected by this bill are some of the most beautiful areas of the country. The areas offer numerous recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, canoeing, horseback riding and skiing. These areas are virtually priceless and provide much-needed opportunities for visitors and families to spend time in the great outdoors and enjoying America's natural beauty.

H.R. 1011 ensures that critical habitat for bears, song birds, wild turkeys, brook trout, and other species, in addition to preserving countless stands of old growth, a 45-foot cascading waterfall, and breathtaking scenic views that encompass wide areas. Preserving this habitat is also critical for the economy, as tourism is the fattest growing industry in the region.

Each of these areas contained in H.R. 1011 were either recommended as part of the Jefferson National Forest plan or have been endorsed by the relevant county boards of supervisors in the local areas. The bill has broad bipartisan support from five other Representatives from Virginia, both Virginia Senators, Governor Tim Kaine and four county boards of supervisors. Local businesses and State organizations, faith groups, the International Mountain Bicycling Association and local bear hunters also support this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Boucher for their dedication and hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today so that we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are protected once again for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, an esteemed environmentalist and champion for our national resources, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I share the comments of our prior speakers. Both the Speaker of the House and the gentleman from California spoke eloquently about the disasters that are happening in our home State. It is certainly a time of great need and a great need for us to come together to figure out how we proceed from here to battle this rage.

I see Mr. Lewis in the audience, and I have been to his district at a hearing about this very topic, and I know the serious nature of some of the forest management issues that are around his district and we have discussed it on numerous occasions. And our sympathies are with you and those of your constituents, Mr. Lewis.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

I just wish to again give my deepest condolences to the folks who have lost their property in your district, Mr. Lewis. As you have said, we have traveled there and had hearings, and, frankly, with all the dry timber that was left behind there, we were fearful that that would have happened a couple of years ago, and I understand it's happening as we speak. And hopefully we will not lose any more lives. And our hopes and prayers are with the people that habitat that region in and around Lake Arrowhead.

With regard to the bill at hand, H.R. 1011, I would just like to say, as has been said before, that this measure is supported by the members of the Virginia delegation. We will be offering, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment that was proposed under this rule. It's supported by all the local boards of supervisors as well as Senator Warner, Governor Kaine.

And, in fact, we have listened to the community. And Mr. Sessions is right. The local officials and local community leaders, citizens of a region should be consulted when we designate one of these wilderness areas. And, in fact, this bill does incorporate those suggestions and comments of the local community. They desire this wilderness designation for their area. And it is truly going to be a national treasure. It already is, and it will be preserved for our children and for their children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the gentleman's last comments. What I heard just does not even make any sense to me, having spent the last 5 years of my life sitting here watching this House debate veterans issues.

The first 4 years that I was here, we saw the Republican Congress that was in power at that time refuse to take up a number of measures that were brought forward by the Democratic minority at that time. In fact, there were several discharge petitions that laid languishing at that desk for weeks and weeks on end until they finally died at the end of the session because they never got the attention of the Republican majority at that time. In fact, this year, since we have taken back the House and we have become a Democratic majority, we have been champions of veterans issues. And to say that they want to now lay letters upon the table that they're demanding of the Speaker's attention, we have been putting attention on this issue for a number of years. And not only are we taking care of our veterans now for the

first time in 12 years, but we are taking care of it in a way that would surprise them. And our Nation's veterans are very grateful that we are finally giving them the respect they deserve.

And I will tell you that this House, by a vote of 409-2, passed the Veterans appropriations bill. And, yes, we do need to go to conference; but we will do that when the conferees are appointed in the Senate, when it is appropriate to do it. We have passed, this year, an additional appropriation of $3.4 billion to take care of our Nation's veterans. We will, in fact, make sure that all the veterans are taken care of. In fact, on November 11 of this year we will celebrate tremendous respect for our Nation's veterans and will, in fact, do everything that we have promised to do, and more.

We just saw today three bills taken up by the Veterans' Committee to, in fact, take care of the needs of our Nation's veterans. And I am highly offended by the insinuation that we are in some way acting in a partisan way not to take care of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1011, this bill is, in fact, an important bill to protect the natural resources of the State of Virginia, a vital area for our country. Mr. Boucher and the delegation from Virginia have done a fabulous job in crafting this proposal. It is a bill that preserves tens of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness in Jefferson National Forest. It is necessary that these beautiful, natural landscapes remain protected and untouched so that they may be enjoyed by our children and our grandchildren for years to come. It deserves the strong support of all the Members on the floor today.

That is the bill that we will be moving the previous question on. 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.

Madam Speaker, many House Republicans have mistakenly bought into President Bush's false rhetoric about the CHIP program and its reauthorization. I would hope that they would listen to their Senate Republican colleagues who are willing to see past the White House rhetoric.

Republican Senator Corker from Tennessee said, ``What will move our country towards socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care.''

Republican Senator Roberts of Kansas said, ``I'm not for excessive spending and I strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concerns about this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly, they are not.''

And Republican Senator Hatch from Utah thinks the President ``has been sold a bill of goods'' on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the House Republicans should not buy into the administration's falsehoods. This week, we have an opportunity to ensure 10 million children have access to quality health insurance. They should join us in overriding the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 719 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 719.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 719 provides for consideration of H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility 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 clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3056, implements several measures to protect the interest of taxpayers and the integrity of our tax system. First, it would once and for all repeal the IRS's authority to contract with private debt collection companies. The collection of Federal income taxes is inherently a governmental function and at the crux of what governmental responsibilities should be. This was stated as early as 1819 by Chief Justice Marshall. It was reaffirmed by Congress in 1874, when the Ways and Means Committee said that ``any system of farming the collection of any portion of the revenue of the government is fundamentally wrong.''

Tax farming, giving a private entity the right to collect taxes on a commission basis, has created modern-day bounty hunters who have no regard for the taxpayer, only regard for their company's bottom line.

Taxpayers are heavily pressured to reveal their Social Security numbers, last known address, date of birth, and other confidential information over the telephone to private contractors working on commissions of up to 25 percent of their take.

In this modern day and age where identity theft runs rampant, why would we want to turn over people's Social Security numbers and who knows what other confidential information to someone who is only out to protect their own bottom line? Noted Princeton economist Paul Krugman recently penned in the New York Times, ``Tax farming went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.'' How right he is.

The irony is that we tried this private tax collection scheme in 1996 and promptly abandoned it. Why? Because the IRS's Inspector General found that private contractors regularly violated our own Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, threatened the confidentiality of taxpayers' personal information, and on top of all that, cost the government a net revenue loss of $17 million.

Despite this past history, the Republican Congress renewed this authority in 2004. What has happened since that renewal? Well, the Federal Government has spent an additional $71 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money and they have collected a grand total of $20 million in tax revenue. That is right, Mr. Speaker; we have lost another $50 million on an inefficient program that experts readily admit does not work. Even more absurd is that had the IRS been given that money, the $71 million, instead, it would have collected almost $1.5 billion.

The House has long recognized that this program simply does not work. In fact, language to stop private debt collection has passed on a strong bipartisan basis twice but has not made it into law. But don't just take my word for it. The National Taxpayer Advocate, appointed by the Treasury Secretary, reported to Congress that ``the money spent on the IRS Private Debt Collection initiative is an inefficient use of government dollars.'' Even past and present IRS Commissioners have repeatedly admitted before Congress that IRS employees could perform this task at far less cost than the private agencies.

I firmly believe that when the government actually does something better than the private sector, cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector, then the government should do that job. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that IRS employees are better trained, better equipped and better prepared to handle these important responsibilities. They also protect American citizens' privacy.

H.R. 3056 recognizes this reality and restores this fundamental responsibility to the Federal Government, as our Founding Fathers intended. Second, H.R. 3056 includes language based on legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek), which provides tax relief to small businesses and administrative relief to local jurisdictions by delaying implementation of an onerous tax burden.

Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, passed by the then-Republican Congress to raise revenue, requires tax withholding of 3 percent on payments to vendors providing property or services to the government beginning in January of 2011. The 3 percent withholding requirement presents a number of administrative and practical challenges for businesses, including reducing the cash flow they need to meet operating expenses, pay suppliers or subcontractors, or meet payroll. They also present several problems for governments, including how State and local governments will be able to comply with this law, much less how the IRS will be able to afford and administer such a requirement.

H.R. 3056 takes a commonsense approach to this issue and delays the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement for 1 year. It further calls on the Department of the Treasury to study the compliance issues confronting businesses and government and report the findings to Congress. This measure is supported by State and local governments and a broad array of business organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, among others.

H.R. 3056 also clarifies that U.S. citizens who claim to be bona fide residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands receive the same procedural and administrative rights afforded to other U.S. taxpayers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3056 strictly adheres to the House PAYGO rule. This bill is paid for primarily by eliminating a tax loophole that currently allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying U.S. taxes simply by renouncing their citizenship or terminating their U.S. residency. Despite what you may hear today, let me be clear, closing this loophole has broad, bipartisan support and has been supported by my Republican colleagues.

I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Meek, and the Ways and Means Committee members for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this commonsense bill protects taxpayers, preserves the integrity of our tax system, and makes our tax system fairer for all. It deserves strong support of all the Members of this House floor today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we said in our opening statement, tax bills are traditionally closed due to their complexity. Under Democrats, before 1994, they were closed. Under Mr. Dreier's administration in the House Rules Committee under the Republican leadership, they were traditionally closed. Now we continue to maintain that practice. Because tax laws are so complex, late amendments that have not been fully vetted and analyzed are simply too complex to insert into the Tax Code without knowing their full ramifications.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sessions, my colleague from Texas, mentioned that the McCrery substitute was not made in order. He is correct about that. It was not made in order because it violates the PAYGO provisions of our House rules. I have a copy of it right here. It simply does not meet the PAYGO statutory requirements of the House rules.

Finally, the Republican privatization bill that had passed in a prior Congress, when it was implemented it spent $71 million to collect $20 million. That is a loss of $50 million. Even with the creative accounting of the Republican ``voodoo math,'' I cannot believe that they are advocating continuation of this program that has lost money.

Further, the use of private contractors to collect Federal taxes violates a confidential and fundamental relationship between American taxpayers and the Federal Government. IRS employees have access to a taxpayer's complete tax history, including personal information that is ready identifiable. That should be restricted only to IRS employees. By prohibiting the IRS from hiring private debt collectors, this bill will ensure that the privacy rights of Americans and other confidential information of taxpayers is protected from bounty hunters working on commissions of up to 25 percent.

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

I called it traditional.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California is a very skilled orator, and I appreciate his speaking ability. I will tell you, however, one of the great tools that people use when they are as talented as Mr. Dreier is, when they don't want to talk about the bill at hand, they talk about everything else around it.

The reality is that the bill at hand, the rule that we are trying to move forward to bring a bill to the House floor today, eliminates privatization of tax collection.

Now, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle love privatization. They love it in Iraq where it has not worked and our military is struggling under the burden of having privatization and contractors, war contractors not doing what they should be doing and charging four times what they should be charging to do it. We see all of the problems that have happened there.

We have seen the same thing happen here in the United States where Federal contracts have been let. Mr. Waxman's committee has done incredible work rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the private contractor system.

And then they want to turn over the collection system of the IRS to private hands, putting at risk all Americans' private information and documents. They like privatization; they just don't like protecting your privacy.

The gentleman from California talked about all kinds of issues but he didn't talk about the root problem that we are trying to address here, and that is stopping bounty hunters from harassing American taxpayers.

Finally, Mr. Dreier talked at great length about the McCrery substitute and the fact that Mr. McCrery has not gotten a substitute this year.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this year that I have managed a rule where the Republican substitute has violated the House rules. I am a member of the Blue Dog Coalition as well as being a member of the Rules Committee. I am very proud that for the whole time I have been here as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, we advocated for advancement of the PAYGO rule. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe we need to pay our debts. So we got, when we took over the majority, inserted into the House rules a clause that says we have to pay as we go. We have to do it like every American taxpayer has to run their own home. We have to run this House in a fiscally responsible way. And so we mandated the PAYGO rules.

The substitute put forward by the Republicans, for the second time that I have managed a rule anyway, has violated those PAYGO rules. When you don't follow the House rules, you can't expect your amendment to be made in order, Mr. Speaker. I encourage my colleagues to abide by those rules and honor the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I wasn't referring to Mr. English's bill.

I was referring to Mr. McCrery's substitute.

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

I wish to commend my colleague Mr. English. He is a very thoughtful individual and a very good legislator, and I would just say that while his amendment was PAYGO compliant, we were not aware of that until this morning when the tax tables were submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. So last night when the Rules Committee was dealing with this issue, we had no way of knowing whether his substitute was, in fact, PAYGO compliant or not.

With regard to Mr. McCrery's substitute, I have it here with me. The substitute that was submitted by Mr. McCrery was, in fact, not PAYGO compliant. Now, Mr. Sessions says that he made the motion to allow it to be PAYGO compliant, but the bill before us at that point in the Rules Committee was not.

I would like to say, also, that Mr. English's substitute doesn't deal with the base bill, which is to stop the privatization of tax collection, and that is what the majority is trying to get at today.

Now, certainly there are other issues that are worthy of consideration in this institution. AMT is certainly one of them. But in this provision today, the majority wants to bring forward a bill that would stop American taxpayers from being harassed by private bounty hunters. That's the issue before us today. And all the other issues that people are trying to discuss one way or another, they have nothing to do with this base bill and really don't apply to the debate we want to have in the next hour.

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

I would like to inquire from my colleague if he has any remaining speakers.

Would the gentleman like to close?

I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007, stops wasting taxpayer money on programs that cost too much, gives away confidential taxpayer information, and results in taxpayer harassment by bounty hunters and simply never has and never will work. It didn't work in the early 1800s, it didn't work in the late 1800s, and it doesn't work in the year 2007.

Mr. Sessions mentioned that there are these Republican best practices that would enhance our collection methods. Well, let's talk about that.

The Republican bill spent $71 million to collect $20 million, resulting in a $51 million loss. If Mr. Sessions wants to claim those as Republican best practices, he can do that. However, if the Federal Government employees, the traditional men and women who have served our country honorably, if they had had the ability to use that same $71 million, they would have collected $1.5 billion in taxes owed to this Treasury, $1.5 billion that could be used to, well, maybe fund SCHIP so that our poor young children could get the health care they deserve.

Mr. Sessions talks about that this bill only has 11 cosponsors. Well, this bill is a compilation of bills that was put together in the last few weeks, and, in fact, the base bills that this bill is based upon, Mr. Van Hollen's bill has 156 coauthors and Mr. Meek of Florida's bill has over 100. So there is wide support for this bill. The public should not believe that there are just a few folks thinking this is a good idea. This has wide support. It has had a number of hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and there has been great testimony with regard to the fact that the current program put in by the Republicans in the last few years has not and will not work and should not continue to be allowed as the law of the land.

H.R. 3056 does something very fundamental. It protects taxpayers and ensures their privacy. It addresses withholding concerns raised by business and local government. It cracks down on yet another tax loophole for the wealthy that has been left open under the prior Congresses for far too long, and, most importantly, it continues to make our taxes fair for all.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deserves this House's strong support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. HERGER Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule on H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. This rule, on legislation to halt collection of previously uncollected tax debts, wrongly prohibits any Republican amendments. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery, would have allowed for consideration of full repeal of the 3 percent withholding burden, which is so important to thousands of U.S. businesses. This was rejected by the Rules Committee on Tuesday evening. This rule stifles debate and is counter-productive to the bipartisanship we've worked for this year on the 3 percent withholding repeal. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 682.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 682 provides for consideration of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007, under a structured rule. As the Clerk reported, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all three amendments that were submitted for consideration that are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Administration states that it ``helps Americans start, build, and grow businesses.'' Lately, however, the Small Business Administration's actions have spoken louder than their words. And, unfortunately, SBA's actions have not spurred innovation and development but stifled them.

Given the high cost of purchasing additional capital assets, small businesses are dependent upon financing, which typically comes in the form of venture capital or angel investments. Despite the SBA's intent, its investment programs have fallen short and the needs of small business have gone unmet. In fact, due to SBA's ineffective investment programs, small businesses are now faced with more than $60 billion in unmet capital needs.

This is a tragedy. Small businesses form the backbone of our economic growth. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every four jobs in the United States. Imagine how many businesses could grow and how many jobs could be created if we could deliver even a fraction of that unmet need.

Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we cannot afford for our budding entrepreneurs to be denied the opportunity to succeed. By making the SBA an efficient partner in business development, small businesses will have better and more widespread access to venture capital and angel investments that they need.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3567, has strong bipartisan support. It passed the Small Business Committee by a voice vote.

Among other things, H.R. 3567 streamlines the Small Business Investment Company program. Last year this public/private partnership leveraged more than $21 billion to over 2,000 small businesses. However, the current leverage limits are overly complex and the heavy reliance on debt-based lending programs has hampered the investment in veteran-, minority-, and women-owned businesses. H.R. 3567 will simplify how leverage caps are calculated and revise the limitations on aggregate investments to increase small business investment opportunities. In addition, it provides incentives to target veteran-, minority-, and women-owned businesses.

Second, the bill updates the New Markets Venture Capital program. This program was established specifically to address the unmet equity needs of low-income communities. However, this program has been woefully underfunded, and as a result, investment in low-income communities has suffered. H.R. 3567 expands the New Markets Venture Capital program and provides additional incentives for small manufacturing companies in low-income areas. This will be especially important to areas like those in my district in Merced County.

Third, the bill establishes a new Office of Angel Investment to focus on increasing equity investments in small businesses. Angel investors are high net-worth individuals who invest in and support start-up businesses in their early stages of growth and currently account for the creation of more than 51,000 new businesses every year.

H.R. 3567 promotes this crucial source of financing for entrepreneurs through the creation of an Angel Investment program within SBA's investment division. This new program provides matching financing leverage to eligible angel groups with 10 or more investors. The bill also directs the SBA to create a Federal angel network, a searchable directory of angel groups on the SBA Web site to better match up angel investors with small businesses seeking financing.

The bill also addresses many deficiencies in the Surety Bond program to assist small businesses in obtaining the backing they need to compete for construction contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects Democrats' commitment to providing real solutions to remove the obstacles facing America's small business owners, innovators, and entrepreneurs. I would like to thank the Small Business Committee for their hard work and thoughtful work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. In particular, I extend my thanks to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and Chairwoman Velazquez.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of small business to our economy, and we must act on this bipartisan bill without further delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman discusses the question of an open rule. In fact, we adopted every amendment that was presented to the Rules Committee and brought it to the floor today. There were three amendments offered. All three amendments will be before the House today.

And the question on a Small Business Committee bill that deals with the wide diversity that small businesses can impact really allows, under the House rules, under the germaneness rules, that almost any measure, not related to this bill, but almost any measure could be brought to the floor under an open rule. It's much more appropriate for the Rules Committee to manage the debate and the time spent on this House floor by asking all Members to submit their amendments that they might want to put forward on this particular bill and debate them in an orderly fashion on the floor. And that is why the committee adopted the rule that it did, a structured rule, to manage the rule in an appropriate rule way.

The second question is on the question of earmarks that the gentleman raised. And I would just like to refer to page 24 of the report submitted to the House that accompanies this bill, and title XIV is a statement of no earmarks. I should read that to the House at this time.

It says: ``Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 3567 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.'' The statement is very clear that there are no earmarks in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats believe that small businesses are a fundamental part of our Nation's economic growth and that government has a responsibility to provide increased investment opportunities to ensure their long-term successes. H.R. 3567 creates a renewed focus on minority-owned small businesses and small businesses in low-income areas, both of which have been traditionally faced with difficulty in gaining access to equity investment. It also paves the way to better serve thousands of small businesses and give a much-needed jolt to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to shepherd our small businesses to give them every opportunity to succeed for today and for tomorrows yet to come. This bill will move us in that direction, and small businesses will be that much closer to making their dreams of prosperity a reality with the passage of this bill.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 682 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

I rise today in strong support of this amendment to H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank, for his leadership on this issue. I would also be remiss if I did not mention that Congressman Hinojosa was very instrumental in helping me bring this amendment to the floor today, and his name was left off the list of coauthors although he was certainly instrumental, as well as Mrs. Lois Capps, our colleague from California who has a problem in the Santa Maria area and is also a supporter of this bill.

I fully understand, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the need to reform and modernize the National Flood Insurance Program. As we all know, the recent devastating hurricanes, Katrina, Rita and Wilma, not only ruined thousands of people's lives, but displaced tens of thousands of people and laid waste to millions of homes, causing billions of dollars in property damage, and they were exposed to the fragility of the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Taylor will speak later to that problem.

At the same time, FEMA began a remapping of flood plains across the country. And while I agree that people should know whether they live in a protected area or not, FEMA's process has been terribly flawed from the beginning, and my constituents stand to suffer as a result.

As we make the necessary reforms to the system, we must be cognizant of the impact this legislation could have on unsuspecting residents. FEMA's current plans to update the floodplain maps will force many people in my district and across the country to have to purchase flood insurance who are currently not required to purchase it. To add insult to injury, many of these people are low-income earners, and have no idea that this expense is looming.

I commend the bill for recognizing this problem and taking some steps to address it; however, we must do more to help low-income people who will be affected. Our amendment addresses these concerns and blunts the impact the remapping process will have on low-income residents.

This amendment says that people forced to purchase flood insurance as a result of a new map who live in an area that was previously certified and now have been decertified under the new FEMA process will have a grace period of 5 years in which they will be entitled to a 50 percent reduction in their flood insurance premium. The goal is that, during those 5 years, necessary upgrades will be made to the levees to bring them into compliance, thereby eliminating the mandatory requirement to purchase flood insurance.

This amendment will have a huge impact on my district and many other parts of the country as well. It is simply unfair to, while requiring communities to upgrade their levees, also require them to purchase flood insurance at the same time. Many of these people are still paying on the levees that had initially protected them in the first place.

By giving those who most need assistance a grace period, we are acknowledging the plight of these communities and taking action. This is the right thing to do. Moreover, given the volatile housing markets, we need to do everything possible to ensure people on the precipice remain in their homes. In my district, we have nearly 20,000 people who are currently facing foreclosure due to the subprime loan problem. Saddling these same people with more expenses when they can least afford it is counterproductive and contrary to the shared goal of promoting ownership. Let's help these people bring some balance to the flood insurance program and FEMA's remapping process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say there are several Republican boondoggles that we have seen in the last few years.

The drug program. The unheard of tax cuts that were not paid for. There have been several things that have exposed the American Treasury to boondoggles, and they have been authored by the gentleman's party.

That is not what the Congressional Budget Office says.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize my colleague from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for 1 minute.

This amendment applies to levees.

This amendment's intent is to cover folks who are in flood areas now that are currently covered by levees that, through no fault of their own, FEMA's come in and decertified. They had regulations 2 years ago that said they were fine. They've changed regulations on these folks.

So it's not my intent to affect in any way the wind portion of the policy.

My amendment is silent to the wind coverage, sir. It doesn't speak to that.

I would yield.

I yield my remaining time to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 79) recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and the contributions of those programs efforts to decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to encourage passage of House Resolution 79, recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and recognizing the contributions of those programs to decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

Hunters for the Hungry is a unique and innovative program that addresses hunger in communities nationwide. Hunters can donate their game and

fowl to Hunters for the Hungry which processes the meat and provides it to food banks and other feeding programs. This cooperative effort between hunters, processors, and the hunger community is an innovative example of how groups can work together toward a single worthy goal.

This legislation received unanimous support in the House Agriculture Committee, and I strongly encourage passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I'd like to rise to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Gingrey from Georgia, on this legislation, and also thank my colleague and friend Mr. Goodlatte for managing it on the Republican side.

Our chairman on the Democratic side, Mr. Peterson, is an avid hunter and, I'd like to say, a very successful one as well. I know he wants to extend his gratitude for this bill and totally supports it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1983) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to renew and amend the provisions for the enhanced review of covered pesticide products, to authorize fees for certain pesticide products, to extend and improve the collection of maintenance fees, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to encourage passage of S. 1983, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act. This reauthorization will ensure continued, stable EPA funding for pesticide registration programs, provide predictable timelines for industry, and support the introduction of new and safer products for consumers that are better for the environment.

This legislation received extensive input and strong support from a unique alliance of the pesticides industry and the environmental community. S. 1983 builds on the success of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 and deserves to be passed with the unanimous consent of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few points I would like to clarify regarding the text of this legislation. Regarding section 5, the summaries of acute toxicity studies shall be based on real data to further protect public health and the environment, and acute toxicity studies shall be conducted in a manner which accomplishes that goal. The summaries of the acute toxicity studies are intended to supplement the full submission of data from the registrants, not to replace that data. Registrants must still provide a full submission of acute toxicity data in their registration application.

There are three errors in the chart printed in the Congressional Record of July 31, 2007: The registration service fee for new category No. 133 should be $78,750, rather than $278,250; the decision time for new category No. 47 in fiscal year 3 should be 12 months; and the action description for the new category No. 61 should read: ``Non-food use; outdoor; FIFRA, subsection 2(mm) uses (1).''

And lastly, section 3 of S. 1983 amends FIFRA to add, among other provisions, a new section that is intended to reflect EPA's current practice of identifying in the docket any information claimed, but not necessarily substantiated, as confidential business information. The language in this new section is not intended to change EPA's responsibilities or practices, pursuant to other statutes, regarding the docketing of information claimed as confidential under FIFRA.

With this legislation, EPA will continue to have the resources to review each pesticide product using the best scientific practices in a more predictable timeframe. The pesticide registration program is a model of good government because it includes systemized

stakeholder involvement and furthers the openness and transparency for which all Federal Government programs should strive.

I strongly encourage the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members who seek time on my side. I just wish to also thank my colleague from Virginia for his cooperation on working together with us to extend this program.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.