Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is real simple. It's real simple. For several years there was a negotiation with HUD to look at the best practices across this country from people who are in the housing industry to determine best how to go about and manage assets of housing units. This bill is all about taking away the best practices that exist for nongovernment housing, the rest of the industry, because it will take money away from people who don't engage in best practices. Of course it will take money away from them. But what this is all about is to try to take a negotiation that has happened for about 7 years from what the previous Congresses have passed to say we think that public housing needs to raise its standards to where we do have proper public housing, public housing that works, public housing that can pass the smell test of asset management.

Now my good friends, led by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, want to say forget the standards. Forget the standards of the industry. If they have to live up to those standards of proper management, of best practices, do you realize what that would mean to us? We couldn't pass those audits; so we will lose our money. So this rule and this new change that we are having here that's called the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007 is all about trying to say forget trying to do something that's better. Forget following standards that have been established in the public sector. We don't want those to apply. So now we're going to pass a rule and a law that says you don't have to do that because if you did, you would lose money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition not only to the rule, which I believe is unnecessarily restrictive, but also to the provisions in this bill and the underlying legislation that unilaterally and at the last minute seeks to abuse the Congress's power and to undo specific parts of a process that have previously been carefully negotiated over years with the private sector best practices and brokered over the last decade to make public housing more accountable for its spending and more accountable to the public housing units that we don't want to go into disrepair in the United States of America.

In 1998 Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which among other things required a deliberate and negotiated rule-making process to bring asset management at our Nation's public housing administrations up to a reasonable standard. What we are here to do today is to say we don't want that standard.

And you're right. The gentleman from Florida is right. Public housing units that cannot meet the standards would lose money. That's why we talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People that do not use the money that has been given them by this Congress, by the taxpayer to work in the best interests, we thought, I think, as we vote to spend money, of people who are in public housing, who, through some sometimes no fault of their own, have to end

up in public housing and find out they are in a rat-infested, bad housing project because asset management standards aren't followed. Amazing.

By adopting widespread private sector common practices such as project-based budgeting and accounting to ensure that costs are known, managed, and maintained at a reasonable level, which is what the current bill is about, which is what we're going to undo, Congress wisely gave public housing administrations the tools they needed, and just like private sector tools, to manage their own finances better, bringing them into line with every other operator of subsidized housing in this country and ensuring that spending moneys to support their tenant and tenants remain the highest priority. We are going to do away with that today. That's what we are going to do away with, and we call that new and approved. I call that a sham and disrespectful of the residents whom we are trying to help.

Today's legislation would overturn these longstanding negotiations and turn back the clock for public housing administrations nationwide by eliminating any restrictions on the amount of management fees they could charge, promoting inefficiency, reducing the level of funding available to tenants, and decreasing oversight and accountability. In other words, making sure that these public housing agencies stay on the watch list for waste, fraud, and abuse rather than using private sector standards of best practices to make them better.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this self-proclaimed most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history would use this time today to bring this legislation to the floor to make financial management of mid-sized public housing administrations less transparent, less responsive, and not even following the standards established by the private sector and by unilaterally overturning a lengthy and fairly negotiated rule-making process. But here we are.

In fact, if Speaker Pelosi really wanted to demonstrate her commitment to honest, open, and ethical government, she could be using this time instead to take up a resolution that I and over 150 of my Republican colleagues have cosponsored, authored by my good friend, Representative Jack Kingston from Georgia, which is a continuation of House Republicans' long-term commitment to reform the earmark process. Congressman Kingston's bill would create a Joint Committee on Earmark Reform to conduct a full study of the earmark practices of the House, the Senate, and executive branch. Upon completion of this study, the joint committee would file a report of its findings and its recommendations. Most importantly, until this report is filed, the House would put in place an immediate moratorium on the consideration of all earmarks.

By the way, that's the people's money. That's the people's money that people really back home are worried about.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, this House, which recently tied the record as the most closed Congress in history, with 49 closed rules so far in the 110th Congress, will consider this legislation that will impede the successful transition to, and implementation of, asset management by overturning a long negotiated process that is consistent with proper standards of the private sector.

I know that other bills like the bipartisan Senate legislation to give our Nation's intelligence services tools that they need to protect Americans against terrorists is also trying to be taken up by the House. But, instead, this Democrat leadership has chosen to miss yet another opportunity to provide Americans with greater security by instead allowing the Protect America Act to expire. If there is any question as to why the public holds Congress in such low regard, with only about one in five Americans approving the job that this House is doing, one need not look any further than the congressional calendar this week, again, this week, and examine what both the Democrat leadership and the House are doing and what we are neglecting to do.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy explaining their strong opposition to H.R. 3521's passage.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2008.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3521--Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act

The Administration is strongly committed to the successful

transition to and implementation of asset management for

Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Asset management will adopt

widespread private sector practices, including project-based

budgeting and accounting, to assure costs are known, managed,

and maintained at reasonable levels--ensuring public housing

tenants are the first priority. However, the Administration

is deeply concerned that H.R. 3521, as reported by the House

Financial Services Committee, would severely undermine PHAs'

long-awaited conversion to asset management and the adoption

of conventional business practices. For the reasons that

follow, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes the terrorist loophole.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Darrell L. Fant, Director of the Highland Park Department of Public Safety (HPDPS).

After thirty-two years of dedicated service, Darrell will be retiring from HPDPS on February 29, 2008. The Town of Highland Park has been privileged to have such a devoted public servant working on their behalf to ensure Highland Park stays a safe and family friendly area in the heart of Dallas. He has served in various roles such as Public Safety Officer, Lieutenant, Assistant Shift Commander, and Captain before taking on the leadership role of Director. His colleagues affectionately refer to him as ``Chief'' as he has earned their respect and demonstrated exemplary performance. In addition, he has received numerous commendations, thank you letters, and awards such as the 1984 Firehouse magazine Heroism and Community Service Award.

I know his vision and leadership will be greatly missed and difficult to replace. The legacy he leaves speaks loudly of the impact he has had on Highland Park.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for his hard work and dedicated service.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida yielding me the time. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, specifically as they relate to really the author of HOPE VI, who is Jack Kemp, at that time in the early nineties the Secretary of Housing in the United States of America.

I think that today, as we talk about HOPE VI and the wonderful attributes that HOPE VI has brought not only to inner cities but to thousands of people who live in these new areas as opposed to a large housing complex, it is a testament to the dream that, as Secretary, Jack Kemp brought to our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule and to a number of the provisions included in the underlying legislation in its current form. This legislation, which alters a successful public-private partnership and housing program that encourages public housing authorities to work with the private sector to create more livable public housing, has a number of avoidable, and I repeat, avoidable shortcomings; and I hope that there will be at least some of them that will be corrected during this restrictive rule process as is provided for by the rule.

One of the provisions in this bill particularly threatens the continued participation of private developers in the program, which jeopardizes HOPE VI's continued success. I believe that is part of the success, the public-private partnership, in creating mixed-financed and mixed-income affordable housing.

By mandating compliance with privately developed green building rating systems, rather than providing market-based incentives to reach these goals, this legislation creates additional cost burdens for green compliance and adds further impediments to an already complicated financing structure which could discourage developers from undertaking future projects.

Further, because the legislation makes specific reference to only one green building rating system, this legislation federally mandates winners and losers and stifles future innovation and technology advancement in all aspects of green buildings.

I think it would be a flaw to say that the one standard that has been developed in 2007 and 2008 would be the only model as we move forward in public housing. I certainly would not want that in the free market where, as a user of the free market, I would be told one standard that was developed this year is what we will use. The future is bright, and I wish that our friends on the other side would recognize that there will be many, many more technological advances made in the future; and mandating one standard today is a flaw in this bill.

Thankfully, my former Rules Committee colleague and friend from West Virginia, the gentlewoman Shelley Moore Capito, has an amendment to this legislation that will require minimum green building standards, in other words, the floor, not the ceiling, that will make mandatory graded sections of HOPE VI application, requiring a minimum standard for green building, and allowing for developers who build to a more stringent green standard to receive even greater credits. That means that we could exceed the one standard. For instance, if you lived in a very cold area, or very hot area, you could exceed for maximum utilization the opportunity to build the house, up front, properly.

So our friends on the other side who are telling us the one standard is like a one-size-fits-all rather than a minimum standard, however, if a determination is made in the section of the country that might artificially or might otherwise be able to take advantage of a different standard, a different way that might improve economical standards of efficiency, it wouldn't be included.

By utilizing this market-based approach, rather than the one-size- fits-all

standard of our friends in Washington of a heavy-handed government mandate, this amendment achieves the goal of building green without stifling innovation for new and improved green building standards.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because it will take our friends who are Democrats if we are going to pass this, to please support this commonsense fix to the legislation.

Another aspect of this legislation which requires improvement is the elimination of HUD's current authority to award demolition-only grants, which would prohibit the demolition of unsuitable public housing without the replacement of those units. Mr. Speaker, clearly there may be instances when demolition-only grants are appropriate; for instance, when public housing authorities may have already assembled a financing package to fund redevelopment and replacement housing activities, but are lacking the funds for the demolition itself.

Additionally, because of their age and denigration, it is certainly possible that some distressed public housing sites would not be viable candidates for redevelopment. There are lots of places in this country where something was built 15, 20, 30, 40 years ago that might not be easily accessible to the modern conveniences of today. And these sites, though only partially occupied or completely vacant, because they put a demand in a particular area, would be excluded. In these instances, other forms of housing assistance such as section 8 vouchers may be more appropriate in a community than public housing.

To address this flaw in the legislation, I have introduced an amendment to allow HUD to retain this commonsense authority, rather than trying to tie their hands by taking some of the options that had previously been available to them off the table.

For their part, HUD has noted that these grants have provided housing authorities with resources to raze, or to tear down, distressed developments and relocate impacted families. The result is a cleared site that more readily attracts Federal or private resources for the revitalization of the property. I encourage all of my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment to allow HUD to retain the flexibility to respond to individual cases, particularly in those cases where a public housing authority does not even have a HOPE VI renovation grant, leaving it with fewer options in revitalization in its most distressed or otherwise not as easily used sites.

Mr. Speaker, in the last five budget proposals to Congress, this Bush administration has advocated the elimination of the HOPE VI program, citing the completion of the program's mission and ongoing inefficiencies within the programs. These programs have been assessed by the administration's objective Program Assessing Rating Tool, what is called PART, which has deemed HOPE VI to be not performing, inefficient, and more costly than other programs that serve the same population. In addition to these fundamental problems, the PART assessment notes that ``the program has accomplished its stated mission of the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.''

I include a copy of this assessment as well as a Statement of Administration Policy on this matter for insertion into the Record.

Program Assessment: HOPE VI--Severely Distressed Public Housing

The HOPE VI program revitalizes distressed and obsolete

public housing, usually replacing it with less dense housing

combining a mixture of public and privately owned housing.

The program awards grants through a competitive process to

State and local public housing agencies for this activity.

NOT PERFORMING: Ineffective

The program is more costly than other programs that serve

the same population. It also has an inherently long, drawn-

out planning and redevelopment process.

The program has accomplished its stated mission of

demolishing 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.

The program coordinates effectively with related programs

in designing a comprehensive program to improve the

community.

We are taking the following actions to improve the

performance of the program:

Implementing changes to complete projects more quickly. The

average time to complete a project after award is being

reduced from 8 years to 7 years with further improvement

anticipated.

Reducing the average cost per unit of the project. (The

average grant award has been reduced from $30 million to $20

million to improve project management.)

Terminating the program since it has completed its mission.

The remaining balance of over $2 billion will be spent during

the next several years to complete funded projects.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which strikes the prohibition of the demolition-only grants from the HOPE VI, allowing HUD to retain its current authority to issue these grants as conditions warrant. The original goal of HOPE VI was to eliminate severely distressed public housing, and demolition-only grants continue to play an important role in achieving this goal.

Currently, HUD is allowed to grant demolition-only grants only when necessary and in instances that benefit the community. That means it will be done in consultation with the community. As a result, HUD provides these grants with great discretion. In fact, a demolition-only grant has not been issued by HUD since 2003. Clearly, despite what the opponents of this legislation may claim, HUD has not covertly abused this power to tear down public housing units without reason and, I would suggest to you, without being asked to participate.

However, sometimes public housing authorities have already put together their own financing to redevelop housing, but they lack the funds to tear down the existing distressed facility. In instances like these, common sense dictates that a demolition-only grant under HOPE VI would be appropriate, once again, working with the existing local authority to make sure that what they want is accomplished.

As an added bonus, a cleared site also attracts more Federal and private resources for revitalization efforts, meaning that when local people ask for the support, then it can and would presumably be granted, making the site better.

Another instance in which demolition-only grants make sense is when a severely distressed public housing site is simply not a viable candidate for redevelopment, either because it is only partially occupied or completely vacant, once again, working directly with the local housing authority. In these cases, other forms of housing assistance, like section 8 vouchers, may be more beneficial to community members simply than reconstructing a new building, in particular on the same site, once again, at the discretion of local housing authorities.

The question that every Member should be asking themselves before they vote to eliminate this authority is, if there is no demand for public housing in a certain area, as evidenced by its partially or completely vacant status, and if the local housing authority is seeking this help, then why on Earth would Congress mandate that HUD create an unwanted supply? It makes no logical or fiscal sense to inefficiently direct these taxpayer dollars where there is no reason or demand to build. Prohibiting demolition-only grants almost guarantees this type of waste would occur.

Additionally and finally, Mr. Chairman, let's not forget that the ultimate goal of this program is to empower people to eventually get off public housing and become self-determined, not simply to create more public housing units. I would submit in the greater scheme of things, it is also to have the Federal Government, through HUD, have the flexibility to work carefully and closely with local housing authorities to make sure that the right thing happens.

By preventing HUD from having the authority to remove dilapidated housing without also rebuilding new units as Congress, we are certainly failing to live up to the spirit of this philosophy. I encourage all of my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. What he said is let's take away the flexibility, notwithstanding that he has a disagreement with what the Clinton and the first term of this President has done.

I think what we are doing is taking a tool away from the toolbox rather than flexibility. I believe it is local people who would ask for this to be done, anyway, and then the Federal Government can participate. But simply to say we have a house and we ought to keep it no matter what, is, in my opinion, a bad argument. It is a bad argument because keeping up something that is bad and needs repair and can't take care of itself, we need to get rid of those. We need to rebuild. That is what HOPE VI is all about. I hope you vote for my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from Vermont, for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

``I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague the United States House of Representatives. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Madam Speaker, those are not my words nor are they the words of my Republican colleague from the Rules Committee, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who spoke these same words on the floor on Monday. They are not the words of my staff or some journalist who is covering the Democrat majority heavy-handed floor tactics. No. These are the clear and clever words of the gentleman from Massachusetts, our Rules Committee colleague, Jim McGovern. He spoke these words on several occasions last year regarding what was then eloquently called ``martial law rule.''

I will also use this opportunity to point out another comment that the gentleman from Massachusetts made about martial law rules.

His quote is particularly interesting because it was given to each of us on this floor last year on December 6, just a month before the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, well after the election. He spoke about how the Democrats proposed to run the House, which today stands in sharp contrast to what they are actually doing.

About 1 year ago, the gentleman from Massachusetts said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.''

Now, I and all of my Republican colleagues must ask, a year into the new Democrat majority, where is the openness and fairness that Mr. McGovern spoke about? Where is the openness on the energy bill rule where over 90 amendments were prevented from being considered on the House floor, including a Republican substitute? Where was that openness when we considered SCHIP reauthorization and, what, we had a closed rule?

I can help my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find out because I know exactly where it is; they left it off on the campaign trail. This, like their promises to disclose earmarks and to run the most ethical and open Congress in history, was an empty promise. It is an empty promise which is becoming more and more evident from the opening day of this new majority, when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for consideration of the first six bills that we were to take up, in effect, discharging the Rules Committee from its duties and setting a new partisan tone for this Congress. Not much has changed since then, Madam Speaker.

Lacking the courage of their convictions to change what they perceived to be problems with how Republicans ran the House, the Democrat remedy for changing unfair practices in the Rules Committee was to have no Rules Committee at all. And that trend of closing down the House to Members that started back then, sadly, continues to this day.

Madam Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth is is that the American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we must and we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.

Oh, by the way, following the rules of the House of at least presenting a bill 24 hours before it comes to the House floor would be a great place to start, because I know it's on the Speaker's Web site saying that that's the way we should operate. We're still waiting.

Madam Speaker, a year ago at this time, despite the House passing all but one of our spending bills, Democrats were on the campaign trail railing against Republican leadership, calling it a ``do-nothing'' Congress. Well, if last year was a failure because of Congress' ability to get all but one appropriations bill to the President for his signature on time, then what does that mean that this year we should think about Democrats when Democrats have failed to get more than one to the President after holding back popular bipartisan bills like veterans funding for their own political partisan gamesmanship?

Madam Speaker, I agree with the Democrats of 2006, not the Democrats of 2007. So, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think we've said enough. I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, we are here right now for the purpose of providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2764. That is what we are here for. I will repeat that. We are here for providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment. It is rather confusing, not just to Members of Congress. It is confusing, I think, to the American people, also.

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to just read from the Calendar, Wednesday, December 19 on the back page, ``Status of Major Bills, First Session.'' Here is essentially what it says.

It says that Homeland Security appropriations was completed on June 8 in the House and July 26 in the Senate. Never sent to conference.

Energy and Water appropriations, July 17. Never completed by the Senate.

Military Construction and VA, June 15 in the House, September 6 in the Senate.

The new fiscal year has already started. This new Democrat majority has been sitting on these bills, including the VA, since September 6. And yet they are coming to the floor today just a week before Christmas terribly upset, terribly upset, and yet it says here, let me see if I got this right, sent to conference, these are all blanks. They didn't go to conference. The Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader never had a conference. They didn't get together to try and work out the differences that they had. What they did is they let Members sit day after day after day.

Just 1 year and 75 days ago, when Republicans had completed all but one of these bills, we were called irresponsible and we couldn't do the people's business. And yet here we are, 1 year later plus 75 days, and only one of the bills has made it to the President. I could keep going. Financial Services and General Government; Labor, Health, Human Services and Education.

My gosh, what is happening?

What is happening to this House of Representatives and the United States Congress? What is happening is that I believe we had what I would consider to be false hopes and promises that were established in the first place about all these problems that were going to go away. Just give our good friends, the Democrats, that ability to hold the House and Senate, and they will do it. But, Madam Speaker, they didn't even get the work done between themselves, forget blaming things on the President of the United States or Republicans. They couldn't even appoint their own conferees. They couldn't even do their own work.

Today, we sit here and listen to all the things that are still wrong and about how Republicans have stood in the way and been obstructionists. That is not the facts of the case. The facts of the case are all these bills that I have talked about were never even sent to a conference, and today, the reason why we are still talking is because allegedly there is a glitch, a glitch, because the negotiations between the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate couldn't get it right. Well, if you do things in the dark, if you do things where nobody else is involved, that is

what you get. I am told it's a $70 billion mistake.

I just don't understand why business is done this way, when 1 year ago we had all but one bill done before the election. All but one. If you systematically go through a process and work through the bills in the light of day, where the information is posted on the Web site, where you give people time to read the bill, I think a better result happens.

I think it's deceptive. I think it's deceptive to say that this House would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in the history, when there was no attempt from the very beginning to even live up to that.

So here we are, just a few days before Christmas, still burning time, trying to burn time, because we know that the negotiators have to fix the problems, and that is a real problem to this House, and I think it is to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take just a few minutes to say this. The Republican Party congratulates our colleagues and all of us today for presumably ending what we are doing, and I am pleased to say that it was a victory for the taxpayers because we are not going to increase taxes, as our good friends the Democrats wanted to do and have bemoaned all week long about not getting that massive tax increase.

We are going to go and make sure in SCHIP that we don't take 2 million children from their own private insurance to a government-run program that is still overburdened. We are going to make sure that we don't do, I think, bad things in dealing with our ability to find terrorists with the FISA bill.

So it's a great victory today for the taxpayer, for the people who want to protect this country, because what has prevailed is what we said should happen, and that is that the Republican minority kept after this process to make sure that the taxpayers don't lose on this last day before we leave before Christmas, and we are going to stay after that because we believe we are doing the right thing.

I am proud of what we will accomplish here today if we can find this $70 billion mistake that has happened and we can close the books on the year and know we went home with no further damage.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, our government has been involved in the funding of several successful conservation programs that are supported by recreational, sport and trophy hunting programs in Africa. The Committee wisely spoke to these important programs in the Statement of the Managers which accompanies the Omnibus Appropriations legislation. I support the language and welcome the USAID coming before the Appropriations Committee and detailing these important conservation projects.

Initially, the language in the State Foreign Operations Report denied USAID funding of recreational, sport and trophy hunting in its assistance programs in Africa. Again, the language in the Statement of the Managers to accompany the Omnibus legislation offers out the opportunity for the USAID conservation projects to continue and further states that they need to come before the Committee and explain these important conservation programs. I support this effort and commend the Committee on this language.

Tourist hunting in foreign lands has proven to be vital and critical to community-based natural resource management programs such as the CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe and the LIFE Plus Project in Namibia.

These programs provide conservation and social benefits like growth, revenue, poverty reduction, improved livelihoods and empowerment--all of which alleviate human suffering. Isn't that what we are trying to accomplish with these programs? Closer to home, National Geographic News reported in March of 2007 that ``trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas...''

As I previously mentioned, the CAMPFIRE and the LIFE Plus Projects in Africa are just two examples of working conservation programs that involve controlled, regulated sport and trophy hunting. These programs literally support the entire tribal system in many areas of Africa. The programs which are funded with matching funds from groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the Dallas Safari Club supply money for drinking water wells and schools for the local population. Without these programs, literally millions of acres that are properly managed now would fall prey to poachers and the land would prove to have no economic value. Animals in this environment would be killed for food, over-hunted and poached. These programs provide conservation and social benefits like growth, revenue, poverty reduction, improved livelihoods and empowerment--all of which alleviate human suffering.

The USAID conservation programs are extremely important to the survival of many species worldwide and I thank the Appropriations Committee for recognizing that the language in the Foreign Operations House Report needed to be revised and I thank the Committee for speaking to it appropriately in the Statement of the Managers that accompanies the Omnibus legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pasco, Washington.

Madam Speaker, we are sitting here watching our good friends on the other side talk about all this great work that they have done, how fiscal responsibility is so important and all these problems with the country, and yet we are sitting here in the middle of December with 10 out of the 11 spending bills not even done because the Democrat majority is interested in spending record levels of money, more and more and more money and talking about tax increases, taxes that continue and keep going.

And yet they want to stand up and eat both sides of that cake and talk about fiscal responsibility and how Nancy Pelosi, as our Speaker, has done such a great job.

Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to encourage my friends to go home maybe on a weekend sometime and talk to people and find out how well we're doing. How well we're doing is not yet well understood by the American people because we're up here and can't even get our work done, and yet we're up here crowing, trying to take credit for all this great work that has been done, and none of it is passed, not even a negotiation with the President and the White House. No negotiation; bills that show up, 1,700 pages worth of

a bill last week that we were given 20 minutes before the Rules Committee went in.

We find out all sorts of earmarks, billions of dollars worth of earmarks, and then we have people that come down here and start crowing about fiscal responsibility. That's malarkey. That is ridiculous. We're trying to get our work done, and we're over here standing up acting like we've just won the race.

The American people know the difference. The Republican Party is here to say we're going to try and get our work done, and we're here to show up and to try and do that work. We're waiting for those other 10 out of the 11 bills to come to the floor. We're waiting to be able to see those bills so that we can know what's in the bills. And then one side stands up and talks about fiscal responsibility. Absolutely ridiculous.

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

I rise in opposition to this rule, despite my long-term support for TRIA, because passing a bill that has already been pronounced dead on arrival in the Senate foolishly puts the reauthorization of this important program in jeopardy as its expiration date at the end of the year draws ever closer because

the Democrat House leadership has decided to continue to play political games on this issue.

By engaging in this game of what I call ``legislative chicken'' with the Senate, the House is setting itself up for potentially allowing this important program to expire, an outcome that I believe is bad for continued growth of the American economy and is an outcome that I strongly oppose.

But even if the Senate were somehow to miraculously pass this legislation, the Statement of Administration Policy regarding this legislation that was released by the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday makes it clear that President Bush will veto this bill in its current form and that any extension of the TRIA program must be temporary and short term, include no program expansion and must increase private sector retentions.

At this time, I will submit a copy of the Statement of Administrative Policy for substantially similar legislation explaining the futility of today's legislative exercise in the Congressional Record.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, December 11, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2761--Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

The Administration believes that the Terrorism Risk

Insurance Act (TRIA) should be phased out in favor of a

private market for terrorism insurance. The most efficient,

lowest-cost, and most innovative methods of providing

terrorism risk insurance will come from the private sector.

Therefore, the Administration has set forth three key

elements for an acceptable extension of TRIA: (1) the Program

should be temporary and short-term; (2) there should be no

expansion of the Program; and (3) private sector retentions

should be increased.

The Administration continues to believe that any TRIA

reauthorization should satisfy these three key elements.

However, the Administration will not oppose the version of

H.R. 2761 passed by the Senate on November 16, 2007. The

Administration strongly opposes any amendments that move the

Senate-passed version of the bill away from the

Administration's key elements. Accordingly, if H.R. 2761 were

presented to the President in the form to be considered by

the House, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto

the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate version of this legislation is not perfect. However, I do believe that on behalf of terrorism insurance policyholders, American workers and businesses, the health of our insurance marketplace and the continued growth of the American economy, it is important for the House to stop playing games with TRIA and to pass a bill that can advance through the Senate and be signed into law by President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this exercise in legislative futility so that the Rules Committee can instead bring to the floor a rule that would provide for consideration of the Senate compromise bill that the House has already received.

It's time to stop playing games on this important issue and for the majority to finally grow up and lead to protect the American economy from the threat of terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, we urge the legislation to be passed, also. And that's why we're encouraging for the House to agree to the Senate version so we can get this done before the expiration at the end of the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and admiration for the chairman of the committee, and I think that virtually everything the chairman said I agree with. I think the question is of timing. The fact of the matter is that the majority has chosen to not have a conference. They have chosen to negotiate among themselves, and they have chosen to wait until the last minute. With great respect to the gentleman, these are lots of arguments I could have been making or our chairman could have made just several years ago for a number of years.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, we are not negotiating with the Senate, we are negotiating with ourselves, and I believe that what we need to do is get it done.

Now, there are reasons why the gentleman has chosen to do what he has done. I really can't disagree with him. I really don't. From an institutional perspective, for making the bill better, I think every one of these are great arguments. I think my point would be similar to what we are trying to make on our side: Let's get our work done so the rest of the world and the rest of the marketplace can get their work done. It's pretty late. We are now moving on to the middle of December and this expires at the end of December. There are lots of paperwork issues, there are lots of legal issues, there are lots of contract issues. There are lots of things that need to be done, and it takes some period of time. We are doing the same thing with the AMT. We are trying to say, why don't we not rock the boat because what you are going to do is put in jeopardy the ability this next year for the IRS to even get their work done. So the wake-up call, the head snap is, today it's darn near the middle of December. I could have completely bought off on everything the chairman said, every single word, every single philosophy, everything he said if this were November 15. It is not. It is 1 month later. It is time that we get our work done so that the marketplace can get their work done so that investors can know that they are taken care of, so that we can have certainty in the marketplace and so that we know what we are going to pass. And that is the only disagreement.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Retrieving my time, I would say to the gentleman that we believe we should not continue doing what the gentleman is doing. We should do what the agreement should be and get it done, because we believe that there are overriding considerations, Mr. Speaker, in the marketplace, with people who need an answer today to be able to get their work done. And waiting until the end, whatever that means, does not help the marketplace.

We are not the start-all and end-all of the world by being the United States Congress. There is a marketplace out there. There are people who need things done. New York City is a fine example of where the business community and those that own property need TRIA. Let's get the thing done. I would have agreed completely with what the gentleman said 1 month ago. It is now time. We are asking, please, let's get this thing done. Let's come to an agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The question that I would have for the gentleman is, whom are you negotiating with in the Senate? You talked about these negotiations. Whom is the negotiation with?

I thank the gentleman. So we are going to keep playing ping pong?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the gentlemen from the Financial Services Committee offering their explanation about this process. I would once again remind my friends in this great body that there is a lot of work that needs to be done after this bill leaves both of these bodies, including a signature of the President of the United States. What we do does matter and is important. But it is time we get our work done to allow the people who really do matter, and that is the people who are in the marketplace to be able to buy the insurance, to make it available and to get it ready days from now. It is time to put aside our differences. It is time to enter the real negotiation, and that is either to have a real conference where we know where people are to get it done, or to find a way to cut a deal. And, instead, to come back to this body and to once again change the rechange of the change I think is a bad deal.

So we're going to vote ``no.'' We would like to get the deal done, but not to continue to deal.

You see, Mr. Speaker, in the world where I come from, it is results that matter, not just reworking the work to rework the work, just like what this body has gotten used to this year with 10 out of 11 spending bills not being done. I would remind the majority, you got a lot of work to do there, too, so that we can have the confidence of the American people that we can not only run the railroad on time, but we can make wise decisions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, and responding to the gentleman, I have no additional speakers.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the conversation that has taken place today is one that was important. The Republican Party does support and thinks what the gentleman is doing is of a worthy nature. The gentleman, Mr. Frank, has, for a number of years, not only spoken about this issue but has worked hard for its resolution. We know that if we continue to work together on issues like this, we can get things done. But getting things done is also important, and we think that a bill should have been done, an agreement should have been reached before now and negotiations should have ended because it is now time to give to the President, it is now time to give to the marketplace.

But I also recognize that this is the 44th closed rule of this session, that somebody is not really interested in what we think. That's why we have 44 closed rules this year. So we come to the floor, once again, the Republican Party, saying, you can have it your way, we know you have the votes, 44th closed rule this year. But let's get our work done. Let's not have the American people waiting on the House of Representatives.

I know the Speaker of the House wants to do things in the way that she sees fit. But let's get our work done. The American people are waiting. They are waiting not just on AMT. They are not just waiting on this bill that we have today. They are waiting on, like the rest of the government, the other 10 out of the 11 spending bills. And I do think that the American people don't confuse a lot of work that is being done with progress. Progress is the end result where you get something done and then say, We're proud of our effort. All I have heard all today, notwithstanding the prior arguments, and these arguments, that everybody is trying to take credit for everything. We are far short of the runway. We are far short of the runway because what we do here must be done right, but must be finished and done so that the American people and the economy can move forward.

I know this is a closed rule. If it had been an open rule, and that is okay, we understand. If it had been an open rule, we would have said, let's get this thing done. Let's close it. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee the other day that said, let's take the Senate language, let's decide we will just accept what they have done so that we can get it done in proper timing. On a party-line vote that was defeated. So there is a reason why the Speaker wants to continue this dialogue. There's a reason why the Speaker wants to wait and to hold this out. I don't understand it. But the Republican Party once again today is saying, we think we ought to get our work done. We think we should do what we said we were going to do, and we should then let the American public see what we have done and not hide things in secret.

Let's get this done, let's get TRIA done, let's get our AMT done, let's get the 10 out of 11 spending bills done, and let's show the American people we can do the work which we were sent here to do. That is the position of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize the Dallas Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Detention and Removal Operations agents who participated in Operation Community Shield--an annual, national law enforcement initiative that brings together federal, state, and local law enforcement to fight gang violence, drug smuggling and organized crime linked to illegal immigration.

I applaud the remarkable accomplishments they produced in just seven days of Operation Community Shield: 120 gang members arrested, including members from 28 alien gangs, 63 criminal arrests, and 8 firearms and over 4,000 grams of marijuana and cocaine seized.

Thanks to Operation Community Shield, numerous murderers, rapists, and drug dealers have been taken off our streets. With the collaborative work of federal, state, and local law enforcement, Operation Community Shield enables officers to more effectively communicate between agencies, developing a ``force multiplier'' effect in fighting against violent gangs and criminal illegal immigrants. Consequently, I believe that this important initiative represents a critical step in addressing the illegal immigration problem facing our community and nation.

Madam Speaker, I would further like to give recognition to the leadership of John Chakwin, ICE Special Agent-in-Charge, and Mrs. Nuria T. Prendes, Director for Detention and Removal Operations. Both have remarkable staffs that support the mission in light of the challenging times in our nation, and their steadfast commitment is one we can all be proud of in Dallas, Texas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize the Varsity Volleyball team at Canyon Creek Christian Academy (CCCA) for winning the 2007 Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) Volleyball State Championship.

Last weekend, CCCA defeated Austin Regents 3-1 in the semi-finals and then proceeded to face the Tyler All Saints in their final match. On November 10, 2007, CCCA emerged triumphant with the score of 3-0 and won the coveted title of 4A State Champions. This title speaks loudly of their hard work and discipline, which led to their victory. I commend them for dedicating the time and effort to enhance their ability to perform as a team and skills and techniques of this great sport.

I congratulate the members of the volleyball team for their well- deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Marci Novak, the founder of For the Love of the Lake.

In 1995, Marci and a group of enthusiastic volunteers formed For the Love of the Lake, committed to the preservation and enhancement of White Rock Lake Park in Dallas, Texas. She envisioned turning a dirty, litter-filled lake into a clean and beautiful urban oasis. Under her leadership, For the Love of the Lake has expanded to thousands of volunteers and implemented creative new programs such as the White Rock `n' Roll Run, Adopt-a-Shoreline, and the Celebration Tree Grove project.

Whether rain or shine, warm or cold, Marci has spent countless Saturdays at White Rock Lake over the years. As a result of her hard work, For the Love of the Lake has received countless contributions from the local community as well as grants from Dallas Park and Recreation Department. We share a common vision--a clean and magnificent environment where children can play and wild life can flourish. It was that shared vision that spurred my involvement, which began in 1995. I am grateful for Marci--for her getting me involved in such a wonderful and valuable organization and for her dedication, which has ensured that White Rock Lake Park can continue to be enjoyed by families, local citizens, and visitors.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for her passion and hard work.

I appreciate the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, in response to our good friends on the other side, this economy is the greatest economy we have ever had, 130 straight months of economic growth.

I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of what the Republican Party did by cutting taxes. I am proud of what the Republican Party did by making sure this country came back to work. I am proud of the Republican Party for doing the things that President Bush has led us to do.

I know what the Democratic Party is all about. They are all about making sure that we will raise taxes, that we will have more rules and regulations and that we will make sure that we cut off the ability that America has to be competitive with the world. That's what this debate is also about.

I rise with great regret to report to the American people that once again, as I have been forced to do on multiple occasions over the past few months and really during this entire year, to see the Democrat leadership bringing legislation to the House floor that stacks the deck in favor of Big Labor bosses at the American taxpayers' expense to the tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact.

Last night the Democrat Rules Committee voted along party lines to prevent me, a member of the committee, from having the opportunity to raise government revenue while reducing the size of our government by striking a provision unrelated to fixing the AMT. However, it was in the legislation that is before us in the House today.

I find it ironic that as this Congress works to protect American taxpayers from the AMT, a tax that they would pay but were never meant to pay, that the Democrats would include in this bill a provision preventing the IRS from effectively collecting other delinquent taxes, taxes that people were meant to pay but haven't.

In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt.

Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these taxes, unpaid taxes, exist, meaning that every single year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an average or an extra $2,700 to cover taxes not paid by others.

This new program, which began as a small pilot program that continued to grow and continued to succeed, is estimated to bring in $2.2 billion in the first 10 years alone. Under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every dollar for them to hire new collections professionals, a provision that will have positive compounded effects by helping to bring in even greater amounts of uncollected revenue to the government in the future.

This program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it can succeed, has been a huge success, bringing in over $30 million of uncollected taxes. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy, as well as 100 percent rating for professionalism.

I wish that I could say that I was surprised by the Democrat leadership by allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new broken-promises Democrat majority.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this tax increase and this attempt to stack the deck in favor of labor union bosses.

I am opposed to this rule. I am opposed to the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation which asks taxpayers from across the country to subsidize the risky housing choices of residents of one State at the expense of the private marketplace.

This legislation does nothing to promote responsible and effective disaster mitigation standards or any other risk-reduction measures to lower the costs in the terrible event of a natural disaster. Instead, it promotes widespread moral hazard and inefficient decisionmaking by distorting the costs associated with living in high-risk areas through national subsidies.

These bail-out mechanisms will promote overdevelopment in areas most vulnerable to hurricanes, flooding, and other natural disaster damage, which is why groups like the National Wildlife Federation have come out in opposition to this bill, recognizing that the legislation subsidies will ``result in continued encouragement of risky development in our Nation's coastal areas and floodplains,'' and that more development in these areas will lead to ``more loss of life, more loss of property, and more loss of wildlife habitat.''

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record a letter signed by the National Wildlife Federation and the chairman of The Florida Coalition for Preservation, both of whom are opposing this bill.

National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chair, House Financial Services Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: On behalf of

the National Wildlife Federation and the Florida Coalition

for Preservation, we write to express our opposition to H.R.

3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act of 2007, as it is currently

drafted. For over 20 years, the environmental community has

worked to promote change in the public insurance arena,

especially through reform of the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP). We support reforms that promote ecologically-

sound floodplain management to reduce loss of life, property,

and important wildlife habitat.

We applaud Representatives Klein and Mahoney and the

Financial Services Committee for raising the Nation's

awareness of the increasing risks associated with coastal

storms, which are predicted to become more powerful and of

longer duration, due to rising sea levels and warming of the

climate. The UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) and many of the Nation's prominent climate

scientists have warned that the increasing intensity of such

destructive storms is a likely result from global warming due

to buildup of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.

We understand that the devastating human toll that

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma created in 2005, plus the

four powerful hurricanes that struck Florida in 2004, have

increased the public's awareness of the need for adequate

insurance coverage after natural disasters. H.R. 3355

establishes a federally-chartered national catastrophe risk

consortium, where States can pool risk and sell catastrophe

bonds and reinsurance contracts. It also establishes a

national homeowners insurance stabilization program, which

mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury give liquidity

and catastrophe loans to State reinsurance and insurance

plans. We are concerned, however, that H.R. 3355's subsidies

could inadvertently result in continued encouragement of

risky development in our Nation's coastal areas and

floodplains. With more development in these environmentally-

sensitive areas, the bill could lead to more loss of life, of

property, and of wildlife habitat. The safety of our citizens

should be the number one priority of any government program

dealing with natural disasters. Unfortunately, H.R. 3355

falls short of this goal.

Specifically, we have the following concerns with H.R.

3355:

No Requirement for Meaningful Hazard Mitigation. As

currently drafted, H.R. 3355 does not require any

demonstration that a State has implemented meaningful hazard

mitigation reforms to be eligible to participate in the

consortium. Hazard mitigation must be a primary goal of any

Federal backstop for State insurance and reinsurance

programs. Effective hazard mitigation will save lives, reduce

damage, limit Federal taxpayers burdens, and will help reduce

the cost of insurance.

Low Interest Loans Provide Added Incentive for Increased

Risky Development in Hazard-Prone, Ecologically-Sensitive

Coastal Areas and Floodplains. We are concerned that the

liquidity and catastrophe loans in Title II of H.R. 3355 do

not have any real ceiling amounts, so that the taxpayers'

liability may be limitless. The loans are well below market

rates, mandatory, and of at least 5 to 10 years duration. The

Secretary of the Treasury may extend the loans upon a simple

request. These loans may also result in the creation of more

State catastrophe funds, which may unreasonably concentrate

risk at the State level, and effectively subsidize

development in high risk areas. According to the Insurance

Information Institute, for example, the State of Florida's

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which was

supposed to be only the insurer of last resort, has become

Florida's largest homeowners' insurer. It is predicted

that Citizens will grow to nearly 2 million policyholders

by the end of the year, giving it more than one third of

the total market and exposure to loss of more than $400

billion. Citizens was expected to shrink gradually, but it

has expanded exponentially. Some critics of H.R. 3355 have

called this bill a ``pre-emptive bailout'' of Florida's

state insurance program and others have called it ``The

Developers' Dream Act.''

As Evidenced by the National Flood Insurance Program,

Continued Subsidized Risky Development in Ecologically-

Sensitive Areas Will Jeopardize Citizen Safety and

Unnecessarily Burden Taxpayers. The experience of the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) should provide some

degree of caution to the framers of H.R. 3355. We have been

concerned for many years that the NFIP is having severe

difficulties managing the growth of flood-related risk (as

well as the costs). Nearly a decade ago, the National

Wildlife Federation released a report called ``Higher

Ground'' on the problems of repetitive losses in the NFIP,

where, in thousands of communities, buildings were

experiencing repeated flood losses only to be reconstructed

again and again with little or no mitigation of risk, in part

for lack of incentive to ``move out of harm's way.'' Part of

the lack of incentive for mitigation was driven by rates that

are below (some of them far below) true actuarial rates,

flood hazard maps that are inaccurate or out of date and

failing to consider changing conditions, and failure of

communities and FEMA to enforce even minimum standards of the

program, let alone set higher standards to reduce or avoid

risk.

Today, we still find that after Congress passed amendments

in 2004 to reform the NFIP and began to provide funds to

address repetitive losses, the new program is still largely

not implemented and has failed to spend much of the funds

made available to start changing the pattern. Since 1998, the

number of repetitive loss properties has grown from 74,500 at

the time of the NWF study to now over 135,000 properties, and

the cost to the NFIP of these buildings has more than tripled

to over $8.5 billion in payments. The NFIP continues to face

enormous challenges, and public confidence is lacking in the

program's ability to reduce risks, manage costs and protect

the environment. Another taxpayer-funded ``backstop'' has the

potential to increase the myriad of problems with our current

public insurance programs.

We therefore oppose H.R. 3355 in its current form. We hope

that the Committee will address our concerns during mark-up,

and we urge the Committee to work with the Nation's private

insurance industry to assure that insurance adjustments are

completed quickly, fairly, and accurately after natural

disasters. We also urge the Committee to consider creating

incentives for homeowners in high risk areas to use a full

range of mitigation techniques, including retrofitting

properties to mitigate storm damage or to relocate out of

harm's way.

We believe that the intricacies of H.R. 3355 require

thoughtful assessment, and we urge the Committee not to rush

to judgment on a bill of this complexity. Safety is of

paramount importance to our organizations, and we cannot

support legislation that does not consider meaningful hazard

mitigation. Nor can we support public subsidies in this

legislation that, in turn, could further result in additional

loss of human life, property, and wildlife habitat in the

Nation's most ecologically-sensitive coastal areas and

floodplains. We stand ready to work with you to address these

concerns.

We very much appreciate your consideration of our views on

I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do not have any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I can amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to move forward a clean Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2008.

Despite the fact that Veterans Day will likely come and go this year without the House living up to its commitments to our Nation's veterans, Democrats continue to play politics with this important funding for their own political gain.

While the House Democrat leadership plays politics, however, our Nation's veterans are the ones paying the price. The Senate has already done its work and appointed conferees for the veterans appropriations bill, and for every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees for their own political agenda, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, money that could be used for veterans housing, veterans health care, and other very important veterans support activities.

The American Legion and the VFW already have, along with multiple requests from this Member, as well as Republican Members of the House, urged both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Reid to end their PR campaign and begin conference work on this important veterans funding issue.

Unfortunately, it appears as though all these commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to defeat the previous question so that we can put partisanship aside and move this important legislation forward without any further gimmicks or games.

I know that this is a bold idea that hasn't yet been focused on by groups around the Democrat Party or by pollsters or those who work with moveon.org, but I think that our veterans deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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