Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Lu Plunkett who this week is being honored by the Queens County Democratic party for her 50 years of outstanding and tireless work for the party and its candidates.

Mary Lu Plunkett was born in Brooklyn, New York, on March 26, 1928, but she moved to the great borough of Queens in 1949 after she married Queens-born John Plunkett. The two settled in Jackson Heights, the neighborhood where they met when they attended a dance. The couple raised two children, Steven and Jamie, and are the proud grandparents of Matthew, Christopher and Caroline.

Mary Lu's foray into Queens politics began with the friendship she shared with her mother-in-law Harriet Plunkett. The two joined the Amerind Democratic Club where they made great strides to improve the community in which they resided. Mary Lu later put to work the political savvy she acquired by volunteering countless hours for the Queens Democratic Organization. Then in 1956, she began working as a full time secretary at Democratic Headquarters.

Mary Lu's exceptional office and organizational skills have kept Queens Democratic Headquarters running smoothly for half a century. She has earned the respect and admiration from everybody with whom she has worked. These include almost all the Queens Democratic elected officials, candidates running for office, and party officials in recent memory.

Mary Lu has served under numerous county chairmen including Moses Weinstein, Jim Roe, Tom Manton, and the present leader, our colleague Joseph Crowley. She also, over the many years of her outstanding service, ran numerous fundraisers attended by such political legends as President John Kennedy, President Jimmy Carter, Senator Ted Kennedy, Governor Hugh Carey, Governor Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While serving as one of the pillars of the Queens Democratic office, Mary Lu has witnessed the many changes that have taken place along the political landscape in Queens. These include everything from changes in elective office to shifts in the borough's population and demographics. However, throughout these turnovers and transformations, Mary Lu has always urged local citizens to be informed about their government and encouraged countless Queens residents to become involved in the political process.

About 25 years ago Mary Lu also began an annual fundraiser for the children of St. Gertrude's Parish in Far Rockaway, the community where the Plunketts presently reside. From its inception, the fundraiser was embraced by the borough and remains a worthy and wildly popular event.

In addition, Mary Lu continues to organize the affairs for the Women's Democratic Organization of Queens County, a group that still attracts a large audience.

In 1976, Mary Lu's daughter Jamie joined the staff of the Queens County Democratic Headquarters. Together, this mother and daughter team continue to administer and manage the office.

I know that all those involved in Democratic politics in Queens will be forever grateful for all of Mary Lu Plunkett's extraordinary contributions to the Queens Democratic Organization. She has made the Queens Democratic Headquarters a stronger workplace, which in turn has made Queens a better place to live and work.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in congratulating Mary Lu Plunkett for 50 years of outstanding service to the Queens Democratic Organization. I am confident that she will continue to achieve success for many more years to come.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 912) condemning the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and reaffirming the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 912.

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

Madam Speaker, on December 27, former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi as she left a peaceful political rally. In addition, 20 of her supporters were killed in a suicide bomb blast and Pakistan was wracked by violence and instability in the immediate aftermath.

Former Prime Minister Bhutto had returned to Pakistan in October after several years in exile in an attempt to bring Pakistan back to the democratic fold and inject the voice of moderation into the Pakistani parliamentary elections. Her killers cut short that effort in an attack that was one of 40 suicide bombings that killed 700 people in Pakistan during 2007.

Ms. Bhutto's life was marked by tragedy that played out on Pakistan's public stage. Her father was hung after a questionable trial. Her brother was murdered. As Prime Minister, she was twice removed from office by the army amid allegations of corruption and wound up in self- imposed exile. Yet she

remained very popular with the people of Pakistan, especially those in her home province of Sindh, and as the awful events of December 27 demonstrate, she was perceived as a threat by someone.

The United States and the rest of the international community have a vital interest in supporting a free, stable, and secure Pakistan so as to stem the rise of extremism in South Asia, prevent global acts of terrorism from originating in Pakistan, and support the movement toward stable political institutions, democratic values, and the rule of law.

The fact that al Qaeda, the Taliban and other extremist elements are using the federally administered tribal areas to regroup, retain and recruit for future attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a dangerous component of instability that, when added to Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, conjures up the frightening possibility of terrorists with access to weapons of mass destruction.

All of this means that the United States and the rest of the international community need to do all that we can to promote and support Pakistan's economic, social and political development to prevent Pakistan from becoming a failed state.

The resolution before us today condemns Ms. Bhutto's assassination, expresses condolences to her family and the families of the other victims of the attacks, and reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the people of Pakistan as they combat terrorism and work to establish a free and democratic country. I urge all of our colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Is the gentleman from Indiana seeking to recognize further speakers?

Proceed.

I would like to thank Mr. Pence, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, all those who participated in this discussion. I don't think we can call it a debate. I think all of the indications that we have heard today indicate that we are on the same side on this.

I would urge unanimous support for the resolution.

Having no additional speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

First, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the effort and hard work of Mr. Bachus and Mr. Baker, as well as Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Maloney, the extraordinary efforts of my friend from New York, Pete King, and of course to Chairman Frank for his extraordinary leadership, as well as the entire New York legislative delegation, including our friends from New Jersey and Connecticut, who all know firsthand the anguish and the pain of regions suffering from a terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for 15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761 included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major terrorism attacks against our country.

I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at lower levels.

God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/ 11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit'' of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset mechanism.

Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama. I only pick Alabama, I think, because I went in alphabetical order. Sometimes bad things happen in alphabetical order. I don't read the obituaries because people die in alphabetical order.

In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were another terrorist attack on our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re- insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our capacity to recover from an attack.

Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to go to conference.

Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and disrupting the

U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet again, Democrats and Republicans, working together, to try to find a compromise with the Senate, and last week we passed a limited but still much-improved TRIA reauthorization over what they had done in the Senate.

The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA, which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance coverage, and lower program triggers.

Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible thing.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world, developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an even larger scale.

In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from 9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is because the U.S. Senate said so.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year.

I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration date, with the understanding that this fight is not over.

We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely, the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as well.

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

I yield to the chairman of the full committee 5 minutes, Mr. Frank, whose extraordinary leadership has kept this issue alive.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the chairman of the subcommittee in whose jurisdiction this legislation originated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked long, hard, and well on this issue.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to redistribute the wealth and attribute no social meaning to that, but those of us who are in need of the time are deeply appreciative, and we thank you for your cooperation.

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time indeed is left.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the majority caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute.

I thank the vice chairman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished county leader of Queen's County who has fought so long and passionately on this issue.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Mr. Bachus for the extraordinary cooperation between the majority and the minority on this particular issue. He led his caucus, along with Mr. Baker, in crafting what was a very open process led by the distinguished chairman, Mr. Frank, of the full committee, where everybody's voice was heard; everybody's opinion was allowed to be aired. We fought it out. Not everybody won every fight, but it was an extraordinary effort in goodwill. And the efforts of the Financial Services Committee should be something that set an example for the rest of the committees in the Congress, especially on this particular issue, everybody exercising goodwill and good judgment.

Let me thank my staff especially Steve Boms, who, unfortunately, became one of our Nation's leading experts on terrorism risk insurance.

Much has been said about the New York delegation, because, I think, of our high profile on this issue. But allow me to thank our colleagues and offer this: do not feel sorry for us. We do not make this case for your pity, because we think that our city, we think that our communities, we think that our State and our neighbors acted in an exemplary fashion at a moment of extraordinary terror and pressure, not just to us but to the entire Nation and to the world. What we faced was absolutely extraordinary, and we are so proud to be New Yorkers, and we make this fight not because of what we suffered as a city and a State, but because we already know the pain and the problems that each and every one of our colleagues and other communities across this country might face in the event of a terrorist attack.

Much has been said of the courage of New York. We do not end this fight here because this fight is not for us.

First, to those who have expressed concern about the cost of money as taxpayer money, let me say that the way this has been added up by CBO, the taxpayers would actually gain $200 million if there were a terrorist attack because of the scoring. Do this because it's the right thing.

I thank the gentleman.

Do this because it's the right thing to do, not because of New York. Because your community could be next, and it could be next yet again. That's what the reset is for.

We pass this today to provide our country with ongoing insurance so that major development can continue to take place, not to allow the terrorists to dictate when and where and how construction might take place in America.

Pass this, vote for this stripped-down version, provide this protection at least as a minimum for the next 7 years; and I guarantee we will all be back here next year to fight more and again and harder to include those provisions that will protect us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York.

I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4299, which would extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, for 7 years.

TRIA is a vital program that has made effective terrorism insurance coverage available across this Nation by creating a Federal backstop to share with the insurance industry the burdens of losses caused by catastrophic acts of terrorism upon our country.

The certainty and stability that TRIA has provided over the past 6 years has allowed large-scale developers to plan, to secure financing and insurance and, ultimately, to build the types of multimillion- or multibillion-dollar real estate development projects in our capitalistic system, projects that shape our cities and invigorate the American economy.

With TRIA set to expire at the end of the month, I am particularly grateful that our leadership and Chairman Frank and our friends on the minority side are insisting that Congress renew this vital program before we run out of time and insurers are forced, in an act of self- preservation, to abandon our Nation's largest projects.

This rule will allow the House to consider legislation to reauthorize TRIA for the second time in 3 months. My colleagues may recall passing H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act. H.R. 2761 was a triumph for bipartisanship, regular order, good-faith bargaining and effective government. It sought to extend TRIA for another 15 years, added group life insurance to the program, lowered the program trigger, provided for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological, the so-called NBCR coverage.

And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2761 included the so-called ``reset mechanism,'' which, in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack, lowered the nationwide program trigger and decreased the deductibles for any insurer that paid out losses after an attack on our country. This provision was and is absolutely critical to meeting the demand for terrorism insurance across our Nation, and especially in our high-risk areas.

On September 19, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 with a bipartisan vote of 312-110. And with the clock ticking toward the program's expiration date, we waited for the Senate to act. And we kept waiting and we kept waiting, and we waited some more. Then, once the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, and only once the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, the Senate quickly passed, by unanimous consent, a shell of a bill that simply extended the program to 7 years, stripping out the key provisions that were vital and put in there on a bipartisan House-passed bill.

We believed that we would have had the opportunity to negotiate on many of the issues in a conference with the Senate, but the Senate unacceptably and irresponsibly has refused again and again to conference with the House on the Senate bill, leaving us with few, but not zero, options.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a compromised bill that accepts the Senate's position on the extension period, as well as the Senate's opposition to protecting us with NBCR coverage. This compromised bill, however, does stand firm on the House's key priorities, the reset mechanism, group life insurance, and lower program triggers.

Passage of this rule will allow the House to reaffirm its equality in the legislative process and reject the Senate's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I urge all of our colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since the Committee on Financial Services began the process of reauthorizing the terrorism risk insurance program. It has been 9 months since our committee held a field hearing in New York at which we heard experts, insurers, developers and reinsurers testify about the private market for terrorism insurance which has not grown enough since 9/11 to sufficiently meet the demand in many of our Nation's so-called high- risk areas.

It has been over 4 months since we held a subcommittee and a full committee markup and almost 3 months since the House overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2761, a strong reauthorization that would have extended TRIA for 15 years, provided group life insurance as well as nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological coverage, and significantly lowered the program's trigger level.

Most importantly of all, and after constructive negotiations and compromise with the minority, the House bill included a reset mechanism to address increased capacity shortages following major terrorist attacks such as those that may occur anywhere in our country.

And yet despite a proactive bipartisan effort in the House spearheaded by Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus, we find ourselves in the 11th hour with TRIA set to expire at the end of the month, and we are faced with a weak Senate bill that was deliberately sent to us only after we had recessed for Thanksgiving, effectively stalling the negotiation process between the two Chambers.

The Senate bill, a 7-year reauthorization that only amends the TRIA program by eliminating the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism simply does not provide developers, insurers, and reinsurers with enough of the stability they need in our free-market economy to plan, finance, insure and build our Nation's major development projects.

Mr. Speaker, for TRIA to be truly effective in addressing the shortages in the terrorism insurance market, we must recognize that the market is dynamic. The terrorism insurance market behaves much differently in the wake of a terrorist attack than it does before an attack. The reset contained in this compromise bill is identical to the reset provision that was included in the House-passed TRIA extension in September, on which I and Mr. Baker of the minority came to a mutually acceptable agreement. Under those terms, which are in this compromise bill, in the event of a terrorist attack with losses of a billion dollars or greater, the deductibles for any insurance company that pays out losses due to the event immediately lower to 5 percent while the nationwide trigger for any insurer for future events drops to $5 million.

Mr. Baker and I also reached agreement on my proposal to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the total losses of two or more attacks that occur in the same geographic area in the same year so if the total insured losses of those events are over a billion dollars, the reset mechanism would be triggered. The inclusion of this language is absolutely vital to every high-risk area across the country, and many of us consider this to be the most essential, must-be-included aspect of the legislation.

My colleagues may recall that the TRIA extension passed by the House in September was subject to PAYGO concerns because the CBO had assessed its cost at roughly $10 billion over 10 years. With this CBO score, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle argued that even though no funds would have been appropriated unless the country was attacked, our bill would have been too much of a burden on the American taxpayer. Not knowing who else to bill for an attack on America, I disagreed with that view and with the CBO scoring; but I, too, am committed to a fiscally responsible bill.

I am pleased to say that my fiscally conservative friends on both sides of the aisle can now vote for this bill without any hesitation thanks to the inclusion of language from the Senate bill, and more significantly, because the reset language, this compromise legislation has been assessed to a positive CBO score of $200 million. Let me say that again. This compromise bill that we are debating today will result in a net gain of $200 million. Legislation that protects developers and the insurance industry from terrorist attacks and provides taxpayers with a return on their dime is something that I believe we should all support.

Mr. Speaker, the next terrorist attack against the United States, like the one on 9/11, is going to damage more than just buildings. We must acknowledge that the structural losses associated with a terrorist incident will be accompanied by the loss of human life. The legislation before the House today recognizes this fact and includes group life insurance coverage because this Congress is concerned not only with the value of buildings but the people inside of them as well.

Our bill lowers the program trigger in the Senate bill from $100 million to $50 million. Our lower trigger would prevent smaller insurance companies from being priced out of the terrorism insurance market. And, with a greater supply of insurance, we can expect a higher degree of stability for large-scale developers all over America.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a formal conference which most of us in this body would have preferred, we have taken it upon ourselves to consider this legislation in which we have compromised with the Senate on many of their issues but hold firm on those provisions that we believe must be included in TRIA: the reset mechanism, group life coverage, and lower triggers.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this important compromise legislation and, as the clock strikes 11:59, to place the burden of responsibility back on the broad shoulders of the United States Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James Klurfeld, vice president and editorial page editor of Newsday, who last week retired after nearly 40 years of outstanding and tireless work at the paper.

James Klurfeld was born in 1945 in New York City and is a 1963 graduate of Syosset High School. His illustrious career at Newsday began in 1968, just one year after he graduated from Syracuse University.

Klurfeld's first job at Newsday was as a local reporter, where he covered various news stories on Long Island. But he quickly rose through the ranks at the paper, where his extraordinary reporting propelled him into several key positions. He led Newsday's Albany bureau, and he served as the newspaper's Washington bureau chief between 1980 and 1986. After his exceptional leadership during these stints, Klurfeld was appointed editor of the editorial pages in December 1987.

James Klurfeld's constant pursuit of journalistic excellence has earned him numerous honors and recognitions. He was a member of the Newsday investigative team that won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, as well as the New York State Publisher's Association and Deadline Club award in the same category. The awards were for a 3-year effort that disclosed political corruption in several townships on Long Island. He also won the Sigma Delta Chi National Reporting Award with other members of the Washington bureau in 1982, and he was the recipient of the 1988 American Society of Newspaper Editors Distinguished Writing Award for editorials on the Iran-Contra hearings. In addition, the staff of Newsday's editorial and viewpoints pages won several major awards under his leadership. These included everything from brilliantly written editorials to exceptionally creative cartoons.

Over the years, Klurfeld has become incredibly knowledgeable about local and national issues and is an expert on foreign affairs matters, most notably through his extensive travels around the globe and from his work with the Council on Foreign Relations. To this extent, he has provided Newsday readers with

extraordinary insights into politics, national security and international policy through the informative and lively column he has written in the paper each week.

Klurfeld's achievements in the news business have also extended beyond print journalism. For the past 12 years, he has asked the tough questions on The Cutting Edge, a weekly television program on WLNY/TV55 that focuses on Newsday's Sunday editorials, a show in which I have been honored to appear. I was also privileged to be part of some of his many appearances on Long Island's public broadcasting station, WLIW/ Channel 21. In addition, he has provided exceptional analysis and commentary on other broadcast outlets including the CW11 in New York City.

James Klurfeld's exit from Newsday is the end of an era for journalism on Long Island, in New York City and across the Nation. We will miss his leadership, his quest for the truth and his shaping of local and national policy debates.

But fortunately, Klurfeld will not be going far. He will remain on Long Island, where he will pass on the craft he has mastered to the next generation of journalists as the interim director of the Center for News Literacy at Stony Brook University's School of Journalism. He will also continue to write his weekly column.

Although we are sad to see him retire as Newsday's editorial page editor, we are comforted to know that many students of journalism will learn the press trade from one of the best to have ever worked in the news business.

I know that Newsday's staff and readers will be forever grateful for all of James Klurfeld's exceptional and memorable contributions, which have made Newsday a stronger newspaper and have helped the Long Island- New York City area become a better place to live and work.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in congratulating James Klurfeld for nearly 40 years of outstanding service to Newsday. I am confident that he will prevail in his new endeavor and continue to enjoy success for many more years to come.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 624) congratulating the State of Israel on chairing a United Nations committee for the first time in history, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank Mr. Hastings and Mr. Green for their work on this important resolution congratulating the democratic State of Israel for achieving a significant victory in its long and tedious campaign to gain fair treatment at the U.N.

In June, an Israeli diplomat, Mr. Ron Adam, was chosen to chair a critical U.N. committee, the Committee on Policy and Coordination, which is responsible for approving the work plan for all U.N. agencies and bodies. Incredibly, in the entire history of the U.N., this is the first time an Israeli has been granted such a role.

For almost 60 years, since it became a member of the United Nations, Israel has been treated as a second-class citizen among the nations at the U.N. The greatest barrier to fair treatment for Israel has been its inability to achieve normal standing in one of the U.N.'s regional groupings. These groupings control committee assignments and leadership positions throughout the U.N. system.

Though geographically Israel should be a member of the Asia group, a cabal of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic states in that region, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has conspired to exclude Israel from its rightful membership in that group. Only recently has Israel been granted qualified membership in another U.N. group known as the Western European and Others regional group.

This new status has allowed Israel to begin to obtain U.N. leadership positions. We must build on this momentum. H. Res. 624 does so by demanding that the Western European and Others Group, with which Israel now caucuses at the U.N., remove all remaining restrictions and qualifications on Israel's status as a member of that group. The resolution also expresses support for Israel's campaign to gain a rotational seat on U.N. Security Council.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I congratulate Israel for its election to serve as Chair of the Committee on Policy and Coordination. I also urge our good friend, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to use this positive step towards further increasing normalization of Israel's status at the United Nations. We must continue to work with the U.N. Secretary General who has made pressing normalization an important goal of his tenure. The unfair treatment of Israel at the U.N. undermines the very principles the United Nations is meant to embody. The spectacle of repressive regimes conspiring to deny Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, normal status at the U.N. undermines the broader fight on behalf of the human rights and democracy.

Madam Speaker, I would urge all of our colleagues to support this very important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida, the very distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee on Legislative and Budget Process and a leader for human rights and dignity around the world, author of the resolution before us, Alcee Hastings, such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the gentlewoman from the First District of Nevada, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and Ways and Means Committee, Shelley Berkley, for such time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, urging all of our colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 738) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Government of Syria's continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, when the House last discussed Lebanon on September 25, I said that Lebanon was being bullied. That statement, though true, is insufficient. Lebanon is not being harassed by invisible unworldly forces. Lebanon is not a victim of fate or destiny or bad luck. Lebanese politicians and public figures, beginning with Rafiq Hariri and continuing to this day, are not being assassinated and blown away by falling meteors or volcanic eruptions. Arms do not appear in Lebanon by magic. Hezbollah's billions do not fall from the sky like rain. Palestinian terrorist groups don't find rifles falling out of trees or by the side of the road. The Fatah al-Islam and its war against the Lebanese state were not the product of spontaneous auto-genesis. Like maggots, their origin can escape the casual observer, but their birth was no accident or mystery.

Madam Speaker, Syria and Iran are responsible for these crimes. Syria and Iran are responsible for the chaos. Syria and Iran are to blame for the shadow of civil war that hangs over Lebanon. Lebanese politics are complex, and the interaction within and among confessions is daunting for the outside observer to contemplate. Where interest and principle merge and depart is hard to judge. But we know some things about Lebanon for certain, and they are spelled out clearly in the resolution at hand.

Despite Lebanon's Constitution, Syria demanded the extension of President Emile Lahoud's term in 2004, and Damascus got its way. The principal opponent of this grotesque intrusion into Lebanon's affairs was Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. There is credible evidence uncovered by U.N. investigators showing that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad first threatened and then ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri for his defiance of Syrian diktat.

Madam Speaker, in response to the murder of Hariri, and, let us remember, 22 other civilians, the Lebanese rose up against their Syrian overlords and demanded, with the full support of the international community, the expulsion of Syria's occupational forces. A new government was formed through a free and fair election led by Lebanese not in the service of Syria and not in the debt of Iran.

This development, both surprising and hopeful, of a Lebanon free to chart its own course, was one that Syria and Iran couldn't tolerate. In their minds, Lebanon is a fiefdom, a toy. Lebanon is a playground for their ambitions and a canvas on which to splash their rage and hatred for the United States and Israel in the modern world.

Madam Speaker, Lebanon, in the minds of Syria's overlords and Iran's ayatollahs, is not for the Lebanese. This intolerance, this greedy self-interest, this bitter contempt for the rights of others is why we are speaking of Lebanon in the U.S. House of Representatives again today.

Lebanon is in grave peril. Lebanon's independence and sovereignty are under attack by Syria and Iran and their bootlicking Lebanese proxies, Hezbollah, Amal and the Aounist bloc. Extralegally demanding control of the presidency, and threatening civil war, this coalition of the wicked and the selfish have again brought chaos, violence and terror to Lebanon. It need not be so. It should not be so.

Syria and Lebanon are responsible for the crisis in Lebanon. Syria and Iran are responsible for the crisis in Lebanon. They have trampled on Lebanon's sovereignty and clearly violated U.N. Security Council resolutions protective of Lebanon. They are the puppet masters pulling on the strings of Hezbollah, Amal and Aoun. The assassinations of Lebanese members of Parliament are their work. The bombings are their work. The threats to establish an extra-legal second government are their work.

Madam Speaker, there is no mystery here. There is evil, there is greed, there is indecency, and, were I Lebanese, I might say treason as well. But there is no mystery. Syria and Iran are attacking Lebanon's sovereignty no less than if they sent a fleet of bombers, or a wave of tanks, or a swarm of infantry. That this aggression, this naked aggression is being done by proxies, and by terrorists, by car bombs, by telephone threats does not make it any less aggression, or any less a crime.

Many vital interests of the United States are at stake. If we want every nation to be secure in its own borders, we cannot tolerate cross- border aggression. If we want to see the Middle East at peace, we cannot tolerate the resumption of Syrian and Iranian control of Lebanon. If we want to encourage self-governance around the world, we cannot tolerate Lebanon's democracy being subverted by thugs and fanatics. If we want to see people rising up against tyranny, as they are today in Burma, we cannot tolerate the reversal of Lebanon's glorious Cedar Revolution. If we want to see the United Nations become a true guardian of peace, we cannot tolerate the will of the international community being scorned by rogue states.

Madam Speaker, America must lead. Even today, even with Iraq, there is still no other state that can mobilize the international community as can the United States, and the hour is desperate. Only if they are convinced that the world will not tolerate their aggression against Lebanon, will Syria and Iran back down. This outcome is not impossible.

The stakes are exceedingly high. It is my hope that the Lebanese Government and the Bush administration will see this debate in the House as proof that Congress is watching closely and that we stand ready to help secure Lebanon's future as an independent and sovereign state. If we want to end the bloodshed in Lebanon and foreclose the prospect of still greater violence, we must act now and in concert with the community of nations.

There is wide support for Lebanon both in Europe and the Arab and Muslim world, just waiting for a catalyst to give it expression. America must be that catalyst. We are here today to sound the wake-up call. A brighter future for Lebanon, for the Middle East, and for ourselves awaits our clarion call.

Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I just want to add to the comments by our good friend Mr. LaHood. He will surely be missed in this great Chamber. He has added much to the dignity, fairness, objectiveness and to the thoughtfulness of this body. And I hope when decency, security and peace does return to Lebanon, he will be in this Chamber with us to share in that moment.

Madam Speaker, I too want to thank Speaker Pelosi for her leadership, for taking her time during her trip to the Middle East to visit Lebanon, and also to try to talk sense to the people in Syria as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the tremendous service to the working man and woman of America by a true friend, Rick Diegel. Rick recently retired after working for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) in a distinguished career that spanned 38 years.

After a stint in the U.S. Air Force, Rick's IBEW career began in 1969 when he joined Corpus Christi Local 278 in his native Texas. Always active in politics, Rick also served three terms as mayor protem in the city of Ingleside in the early and mid-1970's. Rick was elected business manager for Local 278 in 1977, and he arrived upon the Washington political scene in 1983 when he was appointed IBEW's Political Director, the same year I was elected to Congress. Then, in 1998, he became director of the IBEW's combined Political/Legislative Department, the position he held until his retirement October 1st, 2007.

Upon Rick's arrival in Washington, Rick Diegel immediately made an impact on public policy on behalf of the IBEW and its members. Through the support given to IBEW-endorsed candidates in local, state, and federal elections, the IBEW has been able to influence the agenda on vital kitchen-table issues such as job security, the minimum wage, healthcare, working conditions and safety, retirement, and trade. Rick became a major figure in the modern labor movement and helped lead the transformation of the IBEW into the 21st Century.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend Rick's tireless dedication to the members of the IBEW and the labor movement as a whole over his almost four-decade career. He will be truly missed by me and the IBEW.

Rick will be returning to Texas, where he will be able to have more time with his wife Theresa, his seven children, and four grandchildren. Fortunately, Rick isn't completely leaving the political arena though-- he has promised to be available to aid Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, so we won't be losing him entirely.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Rick Diegel for all of his hard work and dedication as IBEW's lead political architect for over 20 years and in wishing him and his family the best of luck in his retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the time, as well as for your tireless efforts in support of the legislation that we are considering today.

There is no more imperative threat facing the world today than checking Iran's nuclear aspirations. Sometimes, in the midst of urgent debate over the right tactics to use to stop the mullahs' mad march towards the bomb, we lose sight of the big strategic picture. By focusing on the particular costs of each sanction, the monstrous reality of a world in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons can slip into the background. This loss of perspective is a terrible mistake.

Critics of H.R. 1400, both here and abroad, see only the cost and the irritants of American sanctions. Their concerns focus on economic liberty and their own bottom line, on their national sovereignty, but not their national security.

Protests are heard regarding our insensitivity to the Iranian regime and the likelihood of sanctions hurting the Iranian people. The critics are, unfortunately, missing the point. In a vacuum, sanctions always seem harsh unless you consider the nonpeaceful alternative.

To fully and fairly judge the proposals in a sanctions measure such as H.R. 1400, we have to consider what a future without it might look like. If you don't want to see the complete collapse of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the rapid nuclearization of the entire Middle East, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to see Iranian proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, taking over the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Lebanon, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to see Iran accelerating its supply of arms and training to terrorists around the world, then you're for the bill. If you don't want the supply and the price of oil to be set in Tehran, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to even imagine a nuclear device exploding somewhere, anywhere in the Middle East, then you're for the bill. And, finally, if you do abhor war, if you really don't want to see military force used to stop Iran's nuclear program, if you hate the very idea of America attacking Iran's nuclear program, then you're for this bill.

The official title is the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act. The proper title should be the Stop the Iranian Bomb by Every Peaceful Means Possible Act. This is the alternative.

We are running out of time. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's mullahs are not inevitable; but to prevent such an international security catastrophe,

we need every tool at our disposal now while there is still time. The longer we wait, the greater the danger and difficulty of the challenge we face. Now is the time to apply the absolute maximum diplomatic, political and economic pressure that we can muster.

H.R. 1400 will crank up the pressure and help us avoid having to choose between military action and an Iranian atomic bomb. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 548) expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what has been happening in Lebanon is extreme aggression in the classic sense of the word. Through a campaign of assassinations targeting Lebanese parliamentarians and political figures; bombings in public places; threats to establish an alternative extra-constitutional government; and the instigation of a jihadi insurgency by the Fatah al- Islam, Syria, Iran, their bootlegging proxies, Hezbollah, Amal, and Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, have brought Lebanon's government to a constitutional crisis. Yet again, outside actors have pushed Lebanon to the brink of civil war for their selfish interests.

Just 6 days ago, on September 19, a massive car bomb killed Antoine Ghanem along with five other civilians, and left many dozens of other bystanders wounded. Mr. Ghanem, a member of the Lebanese Parliament and a supporter of the Siniora government, was just the latest in a string of 11 political assassinations over the past 3 years. As a consequence of this pattern of violence, the March 14 alliance is two parliamentarians away from being murdered out of their majority.

Now is the time for this Congress to send a strong message of support for the democratically elected and fully legitimate government in Lebanon. Time, Mr. Speaker, is short.

The Syrian-backed campaign for murder is creeping ever closer to its goal of destroying the majority of the Lebanese Parliament, bringing down the government of Fuad Siniora, and imposing again a pro-Syrian president on Lebanon.

Fearing just this scenario months ago, I introduced H. Res. 548 with the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Pence, with Chairman Lantos and Representatives Issa and Boustany, two Members whose roots extend back to Lebanon. This bipartisan resolution expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's elected government, and affirms our readiness to make that support tangible in order to help preserve and strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and independence.

The resolution condemns Syria and Iran for providing arms to Lebanese militias, particularly the terrorist group Hezbollah, and the Palestinian factions in Lebanon, in clear contravention of Security Council resolutions.

H. Res. 548 also endorses prompt action by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the Security Council to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Syria must know with utter certainty that the United States will never sacrifice justice in Lebanon to allow Damascus to escape accountability for its crimes.

The current Lebanese Government, which is under siege, is both legitimate and representative of the majority of Lebanese. The attempts to undermine it are not some kind of retaliation. Lebanon's government is being systemically attacked only because it is unwilling to subordinate its authority and Lebanon's sovereignty to external and extra-legal demands.

Quite simply, Lebanon is being bullied. And in light of this fact, the United States and the entire international community must come to its aid.

I would urge all of our colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the distinguished ranking member has any additional speakers.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 350th anniversary of the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance. Though sadly not as well known as some of our country's other founding documents, the Flushing Remonstrance's heroic call for religious freedom made this document fundamental to the establishment of our country as a land of religious liberty.

On December 27, 1657, in Flushing, New Netherland, in the Borough of Queens, in New York City, 29 brave English citizens composed a document stating their unwillingness to tolerate or enforce an official mandate for religious persecution. These daring patriots rose in protest of Governor Peter Stuyvesant's call to persecute the area's new Quaker inhabitants, and affirmed their belief in the ``law of love, peace and liberty.''

Madam Speaker, some of the signatories of the Remonstrance were imprisoned, and many suffered for their actions. Nevertheless, by standing up for their beliefs, they successfully initiated the fight for religious freedom in the New World. We all owe the signers of the Flushing Remonstrance a debt of gratitude, as their appreciation of, and commitment to religious freedom has become the cornerstone of our democracy.

Later this year, the Borough of Queens will celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance with many descendants of

the document's signatories. The original document will be transported from the State Archives in Albany, New York and will be on display at the Queens Borough Public Library, Flushing, during the official celebration.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance, a document that pioneered the right to religious freedom in America and throughout the world.

I thank the other gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, there are equities on both sides of this issue.

First of all, I think that we all have to and do understand that in order for any major development project to go forward, developers have to put together a plan, they have to put together their financing. Financing has to be secured in order for financing to be assured. Insurance has to be issued for any major project to go forward. There is no insurer that I can think of that would put $10 billion on the line without some backup in this day and age by the Federal Government, and I think that we're all pretty much in agreement to that.

In this argument of what to do on this rule and how to proceed, there are equities on both sides. It has been my view that the first thing that we should do is fix the rule so that in case this country is under a terrorist attack anywhere in the country, and this is not just New York City, we've been attacked, we've been attacked already, but anywhere in the country where a terrorist attack involving huge amounts of money, that the Federal Government would step in and we would not worry about the budget and the bottom line and balancing. Any city, any town, any State, any American community deserves to know that if America is attacked, and attacked in their city, in their neighborhood, in their community, that America stands behind them and will help make them whole and help put them back together again.

So it makes tremendous sense that the rule on PAYGO that was instituted and put into the rules of this House be made to accommodate the situation that says, in the case of war and in the case of a terrorist attack, nothing is going to stop us from moving forward, doing the business of America and assuring the American people.

My friends on the Republican side understand that, and they were helping to try to put this together. But the approach that we have taken up until this very moment, and, that is, putting the bill forward and then looking to find a fix later on down the road in my view was putting the horse in back of the cart. That has to be fixed, and that has to be addressed.

I originally came down here with the intent of opposing the rule, opposing the rule not because I oppose the bill, because I serve on the Financial Services Committee and worked very hard under the leadership and tutelage of Chairman Frank who has done an immense job together with our Republican colleagues on the committee to bring a great bill to the floor only to find that it was subject to PAYGO.

I've come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be looking to sidestep PAYGO. We should not be looking to make an exception to PAYGO. We should not be looking to work around PAYGO. What we should be doing is bringing common sense to the process and amending the PAYGO rules so that in the case of a terrorist attack, PAYGO is not applicable, not that we make an end run around it.

In the last few moments, Mr. Speaker, I have, after consultation with the majority leader, received a letter from him, and he has been in meetings with the Speaker of the House on this up until this very moment. And those who have intended to oppose the rule have received in writing from the majority leader, after consultation with the Speaker, an assurance in writing in this letter to us that this process will not go forward in its final form for a second vote in the House until we not sidestep PAYGO, but address the issue of PAYGO and make it right so that it makes common sense to the House and to the American people.

I have that assurance, Mr. Speaker, that this process will be fixed and that we are engaged in an ongoing process, that this vote will not be the final step, that the vote after the rule on the bill will not be final, that this bill will not be brought before us in the conference, that we will reverse and put the horse in front of the cart.

I would urge those with whom I have conferred, New Yorkers and others who were very, very concerned about this process, that with the assurance of the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the House with whom I have worked for 25 years and whose word is gold, that we will bring common sense to this process and fix it before this process is through.

Mr. Chairman, on September 11, in addition to the enormous loss of human life, the value of which cannot be measured, our Nation suffered catastrophic economic losses. The attacks of September 11 resulted in $30 billion worth of insured losses, the largest catastrophic insurance loss in the history of the United States, larger than any blizzard, tornado or hurricane. As a result, insurers and reinsurers began to worry about the likelihood and the cost of a future terrorist attack.

Worrying about risk and then monetizing that risk is the key to the insurance industry, which is an essential element in a modern dynamic economy. As happened, businesses with legitimate concerns about their solvency, insurance and reinsurance firms withdrew from the market where the attack took place. As the supply of terrorism insurance rapidly decreased, New York City developers, for whom terrorism insurance was essential to secure financing for their projects, were put in a precarious position. They needed terrorism insurance to continue building, but the market for insurance simply did not have enough supply to meet their demand. Similar shortages began occurring throughout the country. In simple terms, there was a market failure.

It was out of this dilemma that the critical need to address that original version of TRIA was born. TRIA increased the availability of terrorism insurance coverage by creating a Federal backstop that would share the burden of losses caused by any future attacks of terrorism with the insurance industry.

In the wake of 9/11, we had hoped that a temporary, 3-year program would provide enough of a shield to allow the market to fully recover. By late 2005, however, the Financial Services Committee and others in Congress realized that TRIA had not resulted in as quick or as robust a recovery of the market as was originally hoped. TRIA was extended for an additional 2 years, and is currently set to expire on December 31 of this year.

Mr. Chairman, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act is a major achievement. It eliminates the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. It incorporates group life insurance into the program. And, most importantly, this legislation extends TRIA for another 15 years.

Let us be clear: the enemy of business is uncertainty. This is particularly true for multi-million or multi-billion dollar real estate development projects, the kind that breathe life into our Nation. Designing, securing capital and then contracting for construction

is a multi-year process, and if we want these kinds of projects to go forward during these uncertain times, there is simply no alternative to providing a long-term terrorism insurance backstop.

Extending TRIA by 15 years is not a whim. It is not an arbitrary number. A 15-year extension would allow developers to secure 10- and 15-year bonds when financing their projects and would cover the life span of construction for our Nation's most innovative and remarkable development projects.

Equally as important to our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers is the inclusion of the so-called ``reset mechanism'' in this legislation. This language ensures that, in the aftermath of another catastrophic terrorist attack, the affected area or areas do not experience the same capacity problems that we experienced in New York following September 11.

To be clear, however, the reset mechanism included in H.R. 2761 is not a special favor extended to New York. Under the language I worked out with Mr. Baker, representing the minority side, in the event of a terrorist attack with losses of $1 billion or greater, the deductibles for any insurance company that pays out losses due to the event immediately would lower to 5 percent, while the nationwide trigger for any insurer for any future event drops to $5 million.

Mr. Baker and I also reached agreement on my proposal to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the total losses for two or more attacks that occur in the same geographic area in the same year, if the Secretary so chooses, so that if the total insured losses for those events are over $1 billion, the reset mechanism would be triggered. Permitting the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the losses of two or more attacks in the same year is absolutely essential to protect our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers from a scenario in which the same area suffers a loss of $1 billion in insured losses, either from two or more medium-scale attacks or from one large-scale attack.

The reset language is a true bipartisan compromise with the minority, accommodating a vast number of their concerns, and one in which I think Members of both sides should be very pleased. The new language simultaneously addresses the need to boost capacity in our Nation's highest risk areas, while recognizing that in case America suffers another catastrophic terrorist attack anywhere in this Nation, capacity shortages could be expected not only in the geographic area surrounding the site of the attack but also, quite possibly, throughout the Nation as a whole.

The chairman has asserted that he would accommodate the needs of those who have complained about the openness of the process, which I assure everybody is open. And as the leader of the conference, when the House goes into conference on this matter, Mr. Chairman, could you give us your assurance that this bill will come back in the kind of form that we will not have an issue?

This is a private letter from the leadership to myself. I will be glad to show it to a Member of the minority side that signed the letter.

I will share it with a Member of the minority side who signed the letter.

I think you have heard my answer.

This is the word of the majority leader to our delegation.

I thank the chairman.

My name was cited, along with a list of other New Yorkers having opposed the original TRIA when it came to the floor. The reason we did so is not because of TRIA, it was because the minority side, the Republican side at the time, tried to use this as a vehicle to move tort reform and added all sorts of tort reform provisions to the TRIA bill, which we absolutely opposed because it was a politically motivated move and not because of TRIA.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, our friends on the Republican side pride themselves on being tough on terror, and rightfully so. To be honest, it is evident when you listen to President Bush and he says things like ``You're either with us or against us.''

But also the President said in the wake of 9/11, he said this here in this Chamber to the Congress and to the American people, and I quote our President, ``Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundations of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.'' Our President said that to us, Mr. Chairman.

After looking over the amendment, I realize the gentleman from New Mexico was not yet elected to be here and probably didn't get the memo about what the President said, because the effect of his amendment would allow terrorists to tell us where we can and where we cannot build after a catastrophic terrorist attack.

The bill would reset the deductible from 20 percent to 5 percent after a terrorist attack, which is good. The amendment that the gentleman proposes would increase the reset deductible to as high as 19 percent after a terrorist attack, which is almost the same as the original 20 percent. Small comfort.

Undermining the purpose and the intent of the reset mechanism by eliminating the incentives created by the reset would price insurers out of areas affected by terrorist attacks, prohibiting developers from rebuilding.

It would seem to me that to support this amendment is so blatantly to oppose the American resolve that President Bush claimed in the wake of September 11. Should we have left Ground Zero smoldering and not build the Freedom Tower? Should we concede defeat to Osama bin Laden? Should he dictate where we can and cannot build?

I say to the gentleman from New Mexico, if we cannot build and rebuild in the areas where terrorists attack, that is a major defeat for our country and a resounding retreat from the spirit of our Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I further yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I would just urge all of our colleagues to join with the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and Mr. Frank and myself and oppose this amendment before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2929) to limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2929.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been many justifications for why we went to war in Iraq. Take your pick: We invaded to capture Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, or we invaded to oppose a

dictator and bring democracy and human equal rights to the Iraqi people, or we invaded to fight al Qaeda and prevent them from attacking us here.

So many reasons have been offered that you can mix and match one from column A, two from column B.

Whatever your favorite reason for invading Iraq, the one reason that was never offered was that we are invading Iraq to occupy their land, establish permanent bases and control their oil. Yet, among Iraqis, this perception is that the establishment of permanent bases is precisely why we invaded. The insurgents use that perception to recruit fighters and incite attacks on our troops.

The bill before us today, introduced by our colleagues, Barbara Lee and Tom Allen, along with Jim Moran and David Price, will help combat that perception. It states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish permanent bases in Iraq and not to control Iraq's oil resources.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the House has spoken on the issue. Six separate times the House has passed legislation prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq. Three of those bills have been signed into law. Yet, from the President, we continue to get mixed messages.

In May, the President's spokesman talked about a U.S. presence in Iraq that looked like our presence in South Korea. Last month, Secretary Gates suggested that the President was considering a long and enduring presence in Iraq.

Whatever your position on the war, I don't think anyone here in this House believes that we should be in Iraq for over 50 years. In case anyone needed any further convincing that pursuing a long-term presence in Iraq is unwise, the Iraq Study Group was unequivocal on the point of permanent bases. ``The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq''. But instead of standing down when the Iraqis stand up, the President seems intent on putting down roots. It is the wrong policy yet again.

The Lee-Allen bill will send an important message again that the United States has no interest in permanent bases.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chief sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished coauthor of the resolution before us, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request of the gentlewoman, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, if she would be kind enough to yield us 3 minutes of her time.

Sure. Why don't you take that time now.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, if the distinguished minority leader of the full committee is prepared to close, we have one final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Speaker Pelosi.

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