Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, all year this Democratic Congress has worked to live up to our promise to move the Nation in a new direction. In many ways, we have been successful, raising the minimum wage, fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and making college more affordable. We are proud of these accomplishments, but there are many other important bills that have been passed with strong bipartisan support here in Congress, only to be vetoed by President Bush.

We sent the President a bipartisan bill that restored harmful cuts to No Child Left Behind, job training programs, and research grants for cures for life-threatening diseases. President Bush said no with his veto pen.

We sent him a bipartisan bill that would ensure 10 million children have access to quality health care. President Bush said no with his veto pen.

We sent him a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of next year. Again, President Bush said no with his veto pen.

Madam Speaker, President Bush has stood in the way of real progress, but know that we in Congress will continue to fight to move our Nation in a new direction.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I stand today in strong support of this rule, a rule that supports a very important bill, a fix for the AMT, that does it in a way that is fiscally responsible, which is extremely important.

When I look at the things that this House has done this year, things like appropriating money so that student loans are increased, Pell Grants are increased so that our children who go to college leave college with less debt, less saddled for the future; when I think of the sacrifices that parents make so that they can help their children through college, so that when

their children finish college they're not saddled with debt; those are the kind of considerations that we need to take into consideration today in fixing the AMT so that we don't saddle our children with incredible debt in the future, that we fix the AMT and we do it in a responsible way.

So I am proud to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 862 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 862.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 862 provides for consideration of H.R. 4299, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4299 except those arising under clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks brief. We have debated the substance of this bill before, and the House passed a similar version in September with the support of 312 Members of this body. The measure we will consider today contains many needed revisions to the terrorism risk insurance program to ensure our national and economic security.

The terrorism risk insurance program was originally enacted as a short-term backstop for an insurance industry hard hit by the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 of 2001. In the years since, we have seen that the private insurance market is unable to cover the risk of both domestic and foreign acts of terrorism without assistance.

Experience has shown that there is a true need for government involvement in terrorism insurance. The exposure for private companies is just too great. In the wake of September 11, 2001, many companies opted to exclude terrorism risks from private insurance policies, leaving no coverage in the event of another attack. TRIA requires primary insurers to make terrorism insurance available to commercial clients that wish to purchase it while at the same time helping those insurers manage their exposure to risk of loss.

The legislation this rule provides for consideration of would extend TRIA for 7 more years. This is a shorter extension than the 15-year extension that the House originally passed but still far longer than the 2-year extension that was enacted in 2005. A 7-year extension will provide greater certainty and stability to the insurance and real estate markets than presently exists, and that is good for business.

The legislation would also make several other critical changes to the terrorism risk insurance program. It would change the definition of terrorism under TRIA to include domestic terrorism and reset the program trigger level, where the government backstop kicks in, to $50 million, where it was in 2006. It would expand the program to provide for group life insurance coverage; would decrease deductibles for terrorist attacks costing over $1 billion; and reduce the trigger level in the years following such an attack.

The TRIA bill which the House approved in September would have required insurers to include coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks in policies they offer. However, this provision has been removed from the bill because some insurers, particularly the smaller insurers, raised concerns regarding their ability to cover the additional risk when private reinsurance does not exist.

To address these concerns, the legislation will mandate a study by the Government Accountability Office on the availability and the affordability of private insurance coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks. This provision represents a commonsense first step in addressing the economic fallout of such an attack.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical in protecting our national and economic security in the fight against terrorism. It will also help many of the small- and medium-sized insurance companies located in my congressional district provide coverage in this ever-changing 21st century.

I commend Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their bipartisan effort to bring this vital, time- sensitive piece of legislation to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a representative from New York, I can say that there is no nonsense about this. This is a critically important piece of legislation, something that is necessary not only for New York but for the entire country.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, who has been a champion of this legislation, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

All of our speakers have spoken, so I would reserve the balance of my time and ask my colleague if he wishes to close.

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

Frankly, all we have heard lately, especially in the Rules Committee debate, is that this bill is not going to pass the Senate, this bill is going to get vetoed by the President, and therefore the House should follow what the Senate is going to do and the House should follow what the President suggests. That is not the reason 435 Members of this House were elected. We were elected to do what we think is best for this country, and not what the Senate thinks is best, and not what the President thinks is best, but what the House of Representatives thinks is best. That is what this bill is attempting to do, give what the House of Representatives thinks is best in this important piece of legislation.

Protecting the safety and security of America is, without question, a top priority of this institution. The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had a devastating effect on many people in this country. The attacks also had a devastating economic effect on the commercial insurance market. TRIA has been a success. Primary insurers are able to write policies and business owners are able to obtain coverage. Stability was restored to this vital market.

If we do not act now to extend TRIA, this program will expire at the end of the month and we will be back where we started after the September 11 attacks. We have debated this bill before and the House passed a similar version in September, with the support of 312 Members. I hope that the TRIA legislation we will consider here today will enjoy the same overwhelming bipartisan support. We must not allow the threat of future terrorist attacks to endanger or close valuable businesses because they cannot afford insurance. This is not an exercise in futility, as my colleague said in his opening, but rather an exercise in necessity.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Congress is wrapping up its first

year with a proud record of providing real support for our Nation's veterans that starts to make up for lost time. We have passed historic increases in veterans health care benefits totaling nearly $12 billion to meet the needs of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to make up for the President's past shortchanging of our veterans and to keep new fees from hitting veterans families.

Along with focusing on veterans who are returning with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries, we address the military health and disability crisis brought to light by the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, and we are providing the necessary oversight to ensure a scandal like that never happens again.

This new Democratic majority is also working to make sure troops and their families, strained after multiple deployments in Iraq, get a 3.5 percent pay increase, which the President called unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, we commemorated Veterans Day this past weekend. Democrats are proud of our accomplishments in honoring our veterans by providing them with health care benefits they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 825 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 825.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 825 provides for consideration of H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Financial Services Committee-reported substitute. The rule also makes in order 18 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I have no additional speakers.

I am prepared to close, yes.

Mr. Speaker, so the record is clear, as the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction VA subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, so eloquently stated many times right here on the floor of this House, there is a clear difference between the new Democratic majority's approach to veterans and the previous Republican leadership approach.

The difference is that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic majority, supporting veterans is one of the highest priorities of this Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that we are leaving veterans out in the cold. As elected Federal representatives, we are accountable for not only our words but our actions as well. What the other side won't tell you is that we had passed a continuing resolution in the beginning months of this Congress because the previous Congress failed to ever pass the MilCon-VA appropriations bill last year. They also won't tell you that the continuing resolution included an increase of $3.4 billion for veterans health care. The other side doesn't want to talk about the emergency supplemental spending bill we passed a few months ago which included an additional $1.8 billion for veterans discretionary spending. I am no mathematician, but $3.4 billion and $1.8 billion add up to $5.2 billion, which is larger than any increase in veterans spending passed by the previous Republican leadership.

I admit I am a new Member, but I can still look back at the record to see that the last time the previous Republican leadership passed the Veterans appropriation bill on time was 1996. It sounds to me like the other side of the aisle is suffering from a case of selective memory.

The new Democratic majority has not forgotten about our veterans. We have already passed legislation which has been signed into law that will provide an additional $5.2 billion for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. The new Democratic majority has and will continue to provide for our Nation's veterans.

Back to the issue, we are facing a national crisis with hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes and an expected 2 million more over the next 2 years. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act provides long-overdue and much-needed protection to those families.

As I said earlier, every American deserves the opportunity to achieve the American Dream of home ownership. It is because of the leadership and bipartisanship of Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus that I am proud to stand here today as we make meaningful, commonsense steps to help more American families achieve that dream.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 825 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

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.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's

ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal

of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question

passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in

order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of

the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House

defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition

rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I would like to point out to my friend and colleague from Arizona that this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule, and ultimately to consider a measure that invests in our Nation's vital transportation infrastructure and housing program at a time when we desperately need it so much in this country. In fact, I would say it is simply an effort to try to kill this conference report, and on a faulty premise at that.

Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly disclosed in conformance with the House rules. The blanket waiver against consideration of the conference report did not include a waiver of either clause 9 or rule XXI of House Resolution 491.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we must consider this conference report which provides funding for our Nation's priorities. For example, Community Development Block Grants to provide communities with funds to assist low and moderate-income persons; housing for the elderly, disabled, and homeless veterans; foreclosure mitigation and reconstruction of the Minnesota bridge and the repair of aging bridges throughout our Nation that is desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the new House Democratic majority has implemented the most honest and open earmark rule in the history of the United States House of Representatives. But don't take my word for it. A few weeks ago, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Commonsense, was quoted in CQ Weekly as saying, ``The House has given us more information than we have ever had before on earmarks, and they deserve credit for that.''

I am troubled with the analogy given by my colleague from California comparing it to a drinking problem. I would say the comparison, considering the way the Republicans abused the process, would be to a person who started a fire, then called the fire department, and when the fire department came and put out the fire, they then turned around and criticized the fire department for the way that the fire was put out.

That is the situation that they have. They abused the earmarks when they were in control of the House, and now they are critical of our majority when we attempt to fix it. It is important to remember which side actually abused the earmark process and who actually stepped up to the plate to reform the system and provide transparency.

We didn't wait until 2 months before the election. We responded to the people's call for more openness on the first day of Congress. It seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of our constituents and the people in this country.

This question of consideration is the result of an unwarranted point of order against our rule. A ``no'' vote will prevent consideration of a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.

So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to block this bill, we will stand up for housing and we will stand up for the critical infrastructure upon which our economy depends. We must consider this rule and we must pass this conference report today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for 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 this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution 817.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 817 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member for bringing a conference report to the floor that makes critical investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure at levels guaranteed in SAFETEA-LU.

The conference report also rejects the administration's proposed funding cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program, highway programs, and critical housing and community development programs.

The conference report provides $151 million more than current funding for the FAA, $765 million more than the President's request for FAA Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants for airport planning, construction and development.

Recipients of AIP funds such as Griffiss Park Airfield in my upstate New York district have benefited greatly from this program. Over the last few years, AIP funds have helped Griffiss continue to fully develop as a regional aviation facility, become the new home for the Oneida County Airport, create long-term regional economic growth for a region seeking to attract new investment.

The conference report also maintains our commitment to keeping our airways safe by providing $7 billion for air traffic organization, including $16 million to hire more than 1,400 new air traffic controllers to replenish the work force as the rate of retiring air traffic controllers continues to grow, and provides critical funding to hire and train more safety inspectors and for other aviation safety activities.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides $3.5 billion more than current

levels for the Transportation Department. These additional funds will provide for much needed investments in our Nation's highways, road construction and repair, and transportation safety.

This conference report boosts funding for the Federal Transit Administration by providing $227 million more than the President's request for mass transit programs. Local transit authorities, such as the Central New York Regional Transit Authority and Centro in my district, will now be able to expand their hybrid bus fleet and continue to provide low-cost, convenient, clean and energy-efficient transportation services to commuters in both upstate New York and in New York City.

This conference report also increases funding for the Housing and Urban Development Department by $3.1 billion above the President's request.

The President's budget request sought to eliminate funding for the HOPE VI program, but I am so pleased that this legislation will maintain our commitment to providing affordable housing for the many disadvantaged individuals across our country, individuals that still struggle daily to meet their family's needs, even while working full- time jobs.

In 2003, the City of Utica, New York was the recipient of an $11.5 million HOPE VI grant for revitalization of a local residential community. This grant has allowed for significant improvements in safety and greater access to service and facilities for its residents. It would be a shame if similar communities around the country were unable to reap the benefits of the HOPE VI program.

The conference report restores funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, which this administration has cut since 2001 by nearly 35 percent. This conference report provides $922 million more than the President's request for CDBG grants, which allow local governments in cities such as Utica, Rome and Auburn, New York to provide critical service to revitalize neighborhoods, promote economic development and improve quality of life for those starved of financial resources.

Localities across my upstate New York district rely on CDBG funds to support vital redevelopment efforts that improve housing, assist local businesses, and offer services that promote safety and reduce crime. CDBG funds have been used by the City of Utica to prepare sites like those in the Corn Hill area for new housing construction by demolishing existing structures, replacing antiquated sewer lines, planting trees, constructing new sidewalks and curbs and paving streets, improving the quality of life for all the citizens of that city.

CDBG funds have been used in the City of Auburn to provide small business assistance loans to help new businesses make it through their first critical year of start-up, retain their employees, and grow their business. CDBG funds are also used by Auburn to support after-school programs, child care subsidies, and even counseling for children in crisis.

In the City of Rome, these funds are also used to assist new small businesses and also to assist low- to moderate-income persons make needed health and safety improvements to their homes, such as helping seniors with the installation of ramps and railings that allow them to remain living in their homes, and helping people deal with emergencies like failure and roof collapse. These are important parts of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no other speakers.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also point out that the gentleman from Florida indicated that he had no further speakers, and he recognized the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Additionally, I would like to point out that whenever anybody makes factually incorrect statements on the floor, I am going to yield to my colleagues to make sure that the record is made clear, and that is why I yielded to Mr. Edwards on that point.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, like very few other things that we as a body deal with, deals and helps and touches many, many millions of Americans, whether it is CDBG money that goes to help the elderly make a senior center more accessible, or whether it is fixing our roads that thousands of commuters travel on every day, it is a bill that is critically important. All we have heard from the other side of the aisle are procedural reasons why we shouldn't go forward. That is what the American people are tired of. They are tired of the process, the procedure. They want action. They want things accomplished.

During the break, I had an opportunity to talk to my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Kagen, and he made a good point. He said, you know, while we spend billions of dollars in Iraq, and no one talks about it, we hear all kinds of complaints when we try to spend millions of dollars domestically on programs that help Americans, needy Americans, people that need it most.

Mr. Speaker, that's why we need to pass this rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 817 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. 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.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph Carinci of Oneida, NY. Mr. Carinci is a veteran of the U.S. Navy, Boatswain's Mate Second Class, who served bravely and honorably in World War II.

Joseph Carinci entered the Navy on March 11, 1943, and, at the age of 18, boarded the gun boat USS Plymouth for his first sea voyage. On August 4th, the USS Plymouth was struck by a German U-boat while escorting a convoy en route to Key West, FL. Mr. Carinci and his shipmates waited for rescue in choppy, shark-infested waters as the ship sank. Tragically, by the time a British rescue ship arrived, Mr. Carinci was among only 85 surviving crew members. Following this harrowing experience, Mr. Carinci served honorably on the destroyer escort USS Hissem.

Because of his exemplary service, Joseph Carinci was offered a promotion to the title of Boatswain's Mate First Class. Sadly, he was unable to re-enlist in the Navy and receive his promotion due to family tragedy: his father had recently lost a leg in a railroad accident. Because the Carinci family had already lost a son to the war in France and had another injured in Saipan, Mr. Carinci had no choice but to return home to support his family. He was honorably discharged on December 5, 1945.

Joseph Carinci was awarded the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with Bronze Star Device, the World War II Victory Medal, the Navy Occupation Service Medal with Asia Clasp, and a Combat Action Ribbon.

Madam Speaker, since leaving the service, Mr. Carinci has been an active member of veterans groups in Upstate New York. I am honored to count him as one of my constituents, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Joseph Carinci and the countless other brave Americans who have served this country.

I thank my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007.

I applaud Chairman Rangel and the House leadership for providing a broad-based tax relief package in a way that promotes fiscal responsibility by complying with pay-as-you-go rules adopted by the House at the beginning of this Congress.

To be honest though, I'm a bit baffled by the comments from some of my colleagues suggesting that they oppose paying for the $50 billion AMT portion of this bill and would rather add it to the national debt, pushing that debt on to our children and our children's children.

Mr. Speaker, it was that sort of fiscal irresponsible behavior that allowed the previous Republican Congresses to erase the budgetary surplus that existed in 1999 and skyrocketed the national debt by more than $1.3 trillion in the course of 6 years.

While I may not agree with 100 percent of all the so-called pay-fors in this bill, I strongly believe that we in Congress must balance our own books just as all taxpayers do with their own finances.

H.R. 3996 contains many important tax cuts for both businesses and individual taxpayers. Far and away, the most important of these would save an estimated 21 million Americans from paying the AMT. In the district I represent in upstate New York, this bill will save over 36,000 people from having to pay higher taxes, nearly 6,000 of whom make less than $75,000 a year and have never had to pay the AMT before. That, Mr. Speaker, is middle-class tax relief.

H.R. 3996 also includes an extension of the research and development tax credit that allows companies a tax credit for a portion of their R&D expenditures. Extending R&D credit is vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of innovation and keeps our companies competitive.

American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuing to adequately plan their long-term research projects. I support this 1- year extension to provide continuity, and I will continue to work with leaders on the committee and in the body to seek a permanent extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations or lapses.

As I said earlier, I'm not in total agreement with all the revenue raising measures contained in H.R. 3996. I do have some reservations about the so-called ``carried interest'' provisions, especially as it relates to real estate partnerships. Specifically, I'm concerned that reclassification as income of carried interests paid to managers of real estate partnerships may create a disincentive for general partners to manage partnerships that seek to develop higher risk projects in areas that need development or redevelopment.

In spite of these reservations, I will vote for this rule and H.R. 3996. I will continue to work with my colleagues to address these concerns, and I'm confident that together we can find an appropriate and fiscally responsible way of ensuring that development projects in areas that depend on them will continue to attract necessary investment.

I believe we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 is a good bill that brings much-needed tax relief to both America's middle-class families and our businesses, and I'm especially proud that we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way, following the PAYGO provisions adopted by this House in the same way that every household in America does.

Madam Speaker, regardless of how my colleagues choose to characterize it, the new Democratic

Congress has an impressive record of honoring our veterans and our troops. Since taking control of Congress, we have provided real support for our veterans by passing the largest veterans funding increase in history.

But don't take my word for it, listen to what veterans organizations are saying about our historic veterans funding bills. The American Legion called it ``an impressive commitment to this Nation's servicemembers, veterans and their families.''

The Veterans of Foreign Wars said: ``The record funding level acknowledges the deep debt this Nation owes to its defenders and that the care and services provided to them is the ongoing cost of war.''

The AMVETS wrote: ``Overall, AMVETS believe these funding levels will ensure VA will be able to serve America's veterans and their families with dignity and compassion.''

Madam Speaker, for most of the year President Bush opposed the investment in America's veterans. This legislation simply would not have been possible without a Democratic Congress and their commitment to our veterans.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee talked about the fact that the American people would hear sob stories. Well, I don't know if I have a sob story to tell, but I certainly have a true story to tell about the people in my district and how they have been affected by trade.

I rise today in strong support of the rule and the Trade Globalization Assistance Act. Unfortunately, it seems some of my colleagues only want to focus on the long-term effects of trade and globalization and neglect the short-term consequences.

Trade clearly creates an ebb and flow of jobs coming and going, and we have been hearing that. The problem in my district is, while the jobs have been going, they have not been coming back. The high-tech, the high-quality, high-paying jobs have not come back to my district. We have only seen the grave loss of jobs.

Over the last 30 years, my upstate New York district has been devastated by job loss. The fact is that since 1974, employees of businesses in my district have applied for trade adjustment assistance 227 times.

This is a list of some of the companies that have applied. They're companies like Utica Cutlery, Chicago Pneumatic, Oneida Ltd., General Electric, IBM, Smith Corona, Burrows Packaging. These were keystone companies in upstate New York economy, and in most cases, these companies ended up closing their doors.

It's important to look at commercial air travel in our district and how that's been affected by the loss of business as a result of trade. In our district, the Syracuse Airport during the 1970s serviced about 1.6 million flights a year. The Oneida County Airport, 750,000 flights a year. Today the Syracuse Airport has 1.2 million flights, and the Oneida County Airport is closed. That's well over a million flights a year that used to fly out of central New York that no longer do. The reason? The loss of jobs, the loss of business, and the loss of people.

The drastic loss of business and slow recovery creates a dilemma that the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act seeks to address. Most notably, the legislation provides for creation of 24 manufacturing redevelopment zones to encourage the redevelopment of communities that have suffered substantial decline in their manufacturing base.

The legislation also doubles the amount of training funds from $200 million to $440 million, so that workers eligible for TAA training are no longer turned away because the program has been inadequately funded.

Madam Speaker, we have to be realistic about trade and we need to empower our workers with adequate training services. The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act is not a government handout. It's not wasteful Federal spending. It's a way to be helpful to Americans who now need our help. And after all, isn't that what government is all about, the ability to help people who need it when they need it?

This is a good act, this is a good rule, and it's a very good bill. It's a commonsense plan to address the short-term consequences and long-term effects of trade globalization.

You talked in your statement about the increase in the middle class of China, and that's a wonderful thing. But I'm concerned about the middle class here in this country.

I would just simply say that those are fine words and 3.1 percent is wonderful.

I'm sorry, 3.9 percent. The problem is that that 3.9 percent can go to the people who are unemployed and, frankly, do nothing whatsoever for them because they are out of work as a result of loss of jobs, the people in upstate New York, the people in Ohio, the people in the Northeast who have lost their jobs as a result of trade. You can talk about what the percentages are and how much the GDP grew, but the fact of the matter is they have lost their job and they are out of work. Today we are here to help those people that have lost their job by supporting this rule and by passing this bill because this will help them in the short term to make it until they find new employment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Mark Alvarado, a resident of my congressional district in upstate New York. Mark currently serves as the field representative for New York DeMolay, but he is leaving this position at the end of the fiscal year.

DeMolay is a youth organization that develops leadership skills, civic awareness and personal responsibility among young men. With more than one thousand chapters worldwide, the organization combines its serious mission with a fun approach.

Mark's first experience with DeMolay came when he joined, and later became the master councilor of, the David J. Nye chapter in Ohio. After serving as the secretary and president for Northeast Ohio, he became the state secretary in July 1995. Due to his outstanding work in Ohio, Mr. Alvarado was offered a position at the DeMolay International Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri. In 2002, he became the field representative for New York DeMolay.

During his tenure as field representative, Mark has traveled throughout the state to help the members of New York DeMolay as they have contributed approximately ten thousand hours of community service per year. He has developed and implemented a membership education curriculum, and planned conventions, athletic weekends and charity functions.

Perhaps Mark's greatest accomplishment as field representative has been the redevelopment and expansion of the Mohawk Valley chapter, which is based in my hometown of Utica. Due to his encouragement and support, the chapter has become involved in many community events, including the Boilermaker Road Race and the St. John's Day Festival.

In recognition of his work with DeMolay, Mark has received numerous honors including the Leadership Correspondence Course, the Blue Honor Key, the Chevalier, the Legion of Honor and the Representative DeMolay Award.

Mark's exceptional dedication is to be commended. As the father of two teenagers, I recognize the importance of organizations like DeMolay that encourage young people to get involved in their communities. I thank him for his commitment and wish him luck as he pursues his future goals.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, President Bush proposed that our Nation spend another $196 billion in Iraq next year. Today we will spend $330 million fighting the war in Iraq. Imagine that. Every day, $330 million in taxpayer dollars is going to Iraq.

Just imagine for one moment what we could do here in the United States with that money instead. We could hire an additional 1,700 Border Patrol agents to work our borders for an entire year. We could provide health care to 50,000 more veterans so they receive the essential health care treatment that they need. We could enroll 46,000 more children in Head Start for 1 year, so they can receive early childhood education. If we took 1 day of funding from the Iraq war, we could help nearly 800,000 families keep their heat on this winter through the LIHEAP program. We could provide 270,000 more children health care coverage through the CHIP program.

Mr. Speaker, while President Bush has no problem sending billions of dollars to Iraq, he is neglecting essential needs here in America. The Democratic majority in this Congress refuses to follow that lead.

I thank my colleague, and as a former prosecutor for 13 years, I have stood before a judge many times and made application for warrants on a number of different occasions. And, frankly, I certainly respect his position; but he is just not correct on this.

This legislation not only gives our country the ability to do what needs to be done to protect us, but more importantly and equally as important certainly it protects our civil rights. So it does both things: It protects our civil rights and gives us the ability to keep our country safe.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is sad that my colleague attempts to change the actual meaning of what this statute does. It gives no protection to terrorists. It gives protections only to Americans, and it keeps us safe and it gives us the protections that are guaranteed us under the Constitution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would object to that.

Well, we are waiting on one more speaker, so at this time I would not yield any additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I'll continue to reserve my time.

We are waiting on one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard so much today from the other side about the fear that they have that this provision will somehow put Americans at risk. And I think it's very clear that what this FISA bill does is protect America, give our Intelligence Community ability to do the kind of things that it needs to do, while, at the same time, protecting our civil rights.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who once said that any country who gives up its liberty for its security deserves neither and will end up losing both. And I think clearly this bill takes that into consideration.

This bill clearly provides for security for our country. It clearly provides our Intelligence Community with the ability to obtain information that it needs and use that and analyze it in a way that keeps America safe to prevent another 9/11 activity.

At the same time, this bill also protects Americans' rights and gives us the ability to prevent wiretapping of Americans here in this country.

We're not talking about foreign-to-foreign. They can do that. They have done that in the past, and they will continue to do that. This clearly deals with protecting Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentlewoman from California for her very strong leadership on this issue and, over the years, for her many years of strong leadership in this area. I would also like to thank Chairmen Conyers and Reyes for their strong leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

Having said that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 746 Offered by Representative Hastings, WA

In section 1, strike ``and (2)'', and insert ``(2) a

further amendment to be offered by Representative Hoekstra or

Representative Smith of Texas, or their designee, which shall

be in order without intervention of any point of order or

demand for division of the question and shall be separately

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3)''.

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