Floor Statements

Let me first commend the conferees for putting this legislation together and then to remind our friends on the other side that the operative word here today is ``necessary.'' That is the most important word as we move this legislation forward today, ``necessary.''

Mr. Rangel did a good job negotiating the tax title to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate fiscal stimulus, starting with The Making Work Pay credit, which will cut taxes for 95 percent of all taxpayers, including 2 million families in Massachusetts.

Working families will also benefit from improvements in the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and a new higher education tax credit.

Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation allowance and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief for small and medium-sized businesses with net operating losses. Incidentally, I pushed for a larger number there, as the other side knows. And State and local government will see substantial relief for infrastructure and other critical needs through the Recovery Zone bonds and Build America bonds.

As a former mayor, I was happy to lead and take the lead on changes to the bond rules that will allow cities and towns to borrow at lower costs at a time when credit is tight.

The compromise also includes AMT protection for 26 million American families--70,000 families in my district alone.

Now, we're going to hear criticism from some that this legislation is too much, it's too little; it's too fast or it's too slow. By definition, by definition, fiscal stimulus means spending. And with an economy as great as ours, it needs to be significant.

We did move at a very quick pace, and we needed to. There are 10,000 families a day in America slipping into foreclosure. That's 10,000 families a day. Clearly, the policies of the last 8 years did not work, and we need a change.

I hope support for this legislation will move today.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to support this motion to go to conference on the Recovery bill. It has been some time since we have had an actual conference on a tax bill. The purpose of conferences is to work out differences between the chambers and that give-and-take will usually result in a better bill.

I commend Chairman Rangel for crafting a responsible tax title that will deliver substantial relief in tough economic times. This means 95 percent of all taxpayers will see tax cuts through the Making Work Pay credit, including 2 million families in Massachusetts. Working families will also benefit from improvements to the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and a new higher education tax credit.

Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief for those businesses with net operating losses. And state and local governments will see substantial relief for infrastructure needs through greater bond authority and lowering the costs to borrow.

The Senate has worked its will and made a number of changes to our House bill, which our conferees should give due consideration. Twenty- six million families will be protected from the AMT under the Senate bill, and that is a provision I am hopeful we can include here. It is something we will enact this year, no doubt. But sooner is better than later.

However, some of the spending cuts, especially for education and higher education, could eliminate the possibility for many of our schools, colleges, and universities to pull out of this economic slump, where credit is tight and borrowing prohibitively expensive.

I am very optimistic and have great confidence in our conferees to craft a recovery package that lifts our economy out of the mire. As the President has directed, time is of the essence. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I yield to Mr. Levin, I want to challenge something that the gentleman from Texas has said. I want everybody to remember what it was like on January 19, 2001, when I hear the Republicans complaining about debt and deficits. We were looking at a $5.7 trillion surplus. The debt had come down and the deficits had been eliminated.

Now their argument is--frankly, a stale one, but they cling to it-- that tax cuts pay for themselves as we look at now a debt of almost $10 trillion. And I hear these protestations of what this legislation will do after they were in control of two branches of government, two Chambers of the House, and the Presidency, and they rolled up these extraordinary deficits and debts.

Reminder. The war in Iraq, which is going to cost almost $2 trillion before it comes to conclusion. And they pontificate on this House floor about the debt?

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

The Bush tax cuts don't expire until 2010. There will be sufficient opportunity for us to discuss many of the issues raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin. We will have plenty of time to discuss those.

I'd like to recognize the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from New Jersey, a valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who really does know something about infrastructure and environmental undertakings, Mr. Blumenauer, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind all that for 6 years we tried the prescription that was offered by the minority leader and his party, the slowest economic growth that America has had since World War II.

With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pomeroy, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a new member of the Ways and Means Committee.

As a member of a very small alumni association here called former mayors, let me assure the gentleman from California that mayors will know how to get this money out the door as the President has prescribed.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, for 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Michigan is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand in opposition to the Camp amendment that is being offered at the moment.

While you might hear that the Republican amendment today includes a 2-year patch for the AMT, let me tell you that this patch results in zero taxpayers being helped. I repeat, zero taxpayers being helped.

I think the Republican minority would agree that I have earned a Ph.D. on AMT during my time in the House. I asked the Joint Committee on Taxation--for the viewing audience, they are not Republicans. They are not Democrats. They're professionals. I asked them to analyze the Republican amendment and tell me how many taxpayers would pay AMT under current law without any patch and under my friend Mr. Camp's amendment. Oddly enough, there will be 26 million families paying AMT this year with or without the Camp amendment and 28 million families paying AMT next year with or without the Camp amendment. That is because this patch falls far short of what would be needed to protect the middle class from the take-back effect of the AMT.

Now this budgetary trick was used in 2001 to mask the true cost of the Bush tax cuts. Without the AMT patch, middle-income taxpayers lost two-thirds of their promised Bush tax cuts to AMT, again, Joint Committee on Taxation. And the same thing will happen under

Mr. Camp's amendment. If Mr. Camp's amendment is enacted, middle-income families, including 49,000 in my friend's, Mr. Camp's, district will not see the lower 5 percent rate or the 10 percent rate that he promises. Twenty-six million families will pay higher taxes this year under the Camp proposal because of alternative minimum tax.

We will enact a patch this year so that those 26 million families will be protected from higher taxes. I guaranty you that. In fact, the Senate has already added it to their stimulus bill. But let's not fool ourselves today by voting for an AMT fig leaf and even steeper rate cuts which will leave the middle-income worker holding the bag.

I urge opposition to the Republican amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Social Security and Medicare Improved Burn Injury Treatment Access Act of 2009. This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting period now required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for Medicare coverage for disabling burn injuries, as well as the five- month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits.

Each year an estimated 500,000 people are treated for burn injuries. Of these 500,000 injuries, about 40,000 require hospitalization. Fire and burn deaths average about 4,000 per year.

Burn care is highly specialized. While there are thousands of trauma centers in the United States, there are only 125 burn centers with a total burn-bed capacity of just over 1,800. These specialized burn centers treat about 25,000 patients annually, or on average, 200 admissions per year for each center. U.S. hospitals without burn centers treat the remaining patients and average less than three burn admissions per year.

Medical care for serious burn injuries is very expensive, which places a great financial strain on burn centers, about 40 percent of whose patients are uninsured. Because of these financial challenges, burn centers in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa and South Carolina have closed in just the past two years.

This is occurring at a time when the Federal Government is asking burn centers to expand their capacity to deal with mass casualty scenarios. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security have included burn centers in the Critical Benchmark Surge Capacity Criteria in the funding continuation requirements for State plans administered through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HSS, in conjunction with the American Burn Association, has created a real-time, web-based burn bed capacity system in the national emergency preparedness center and funded Advanced Burn Life Support (ABLS) and clinical, on-site burn nurse training for 200 public health service nurses as a reserve capacity for potential mass burn casualty incidents, as well as supporting more than 20 ABLS courses with over 600 first-responders in 10 key areas of the country.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, and major accidents like the Rhode Island nightclub fire and North Carolina chemical plant explosions demonstrate the substantial number of burn injuries that can result from such events. Over one-third of those hospitalized in New York on 9/11 had severe burn injuries. The Department of Homeland Security has recognized that there would be mass burn casualties in terrorist acts, and there is a need for appropriate preparedness activities. For example, if the United States should suffer further terrorist attacks using explosions, incendiary devices or chemical weapons, most victims would suffer severe burn injuries.

Even a relatively modest number of burn injuries can consume large segments of the Nation's burn bed capacity. For example, the victims of the Rhode Island nightclub fire absorbed the burn bed capacity of most of the northern East Coast of the United States. Mass burn casualties that reach into the hundreds or thousands would strain the system to the breaking point.

It is clear that burn centers are a national resource and a critical link to public health emergency preparedness. Medicare coverage for serious, disabling burn injuries would enable these burn centers to remain financially viable and preserve an essential component of our public health emergency infrastructure.

This legislation follows an approach already taken with respect to End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), both of which result in waivers of the 24- month waiting period for Medicare eligibility. While these 2 diseases tend to be progressive in nature, the very initial phase of a serious burn injury is when things are most acute.

This legislation is similar to H.R. 685, which I introduced in the 110th Congress, except for the inclusion of some important cost containment provisions. No one with either public or private insurance at the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month waiver. Nor will State public insurance programs be permitted to restrict coverage for burn patients so as to place the burden solely on Medicare. The legislation also requires that the individual's disability status be reevaluated at least once every 3 years to ensure that those patients who have fully recovered from their burn injuries will not be able to stay on Medicare indefinitely.

Providing immediate Medicare coverage for uninsured patients suffering serious, disabling burn injuries is fully justified and a necessary step. Although not all hospitalized burn injuries would qualify as ``disabling'' and thus result in immediate Medicare coverage, this legislation is about providing coverage for the many uninsured patients suffering from serious burn injuries and ensuring the survival of a vital national resource that already is in jeopardy, a situation we cannot accept as we seek to prepare the nation to deal with potential mass casualty terrorist events.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 350th Anniversary of Hadley, Massachusetts. I would like to share some local history as provided by the Hadley guide into the official record.

Hadley was founded by a dissenting Connecticut congregation under the leadership of Re. John Russell in 1659. As an agricultural community on the east bank of the Connecticut River, John Pynchon purchased the site of the new settlement from the Indians on behalf of the settlers. The first settlers laid out this area, formerly known as the Norwottuck Meadow, as the center of the new settlement before their arrival, with the Town Common, referred to as ``the Broad Street,'' as the central feature. The common measured 20 rods wide and one mile long, with the Connecticut River defining both ends, and was reportedly based on the original plan of Wethersfield, Connecticut. Eight-acre home lots were ranged along both sides of the common, with farmlands behind.

In 1675-76, during King Philip's War, to guard against Indian attacks, a palisade that ran far enough behind the houses to include most of the barns and farm buildings enclosed the street and common. One such attack occurred on June 12 of 1676. Legend has it that the town was saved from destruction when, at a critical moment, one William Goffe showed up in the midst of the townspeople, warned them of the danger, and led the town in fending off the assault, disappearing shortly afterward. Goffe, later known as ``The Angel of Hadley,'' became the subject of many legends.

Though the years, the common remained the focus of town life. The meetinghouse occupied a prominent site, animals were pastured on the open land, militia drills were held periodically, and Hadley's Liberty Pole was erected there during the Revolutionary War. Taverns at the north and south ends and at the center of the common served the needs of passengers on the ferry, stagecoach, and riverboat routes.

By the 1670s, the town rapidly developed northward. The North Hadley Mill Pond, also known as Mill River, became the site of the Hopkins Corn Mill, and millers and farmers settled in Hopkins Meadow. The rent paid by mill workers to live here went to support the Hopkins School, which founded by Edward Hopkins of England, a former governor of Connecticut.

Hadley has long been the subject of much folklore, especially when it came to witchcraft. The most notable ``witch'' in the town of Hadley was Mary Webster, who, although acquitted of ``familiarity with the devil'' in a Boston Court in 1683, was nonetheless hung, unsuccessfully, by young Hadley men in 1685.

As the number of settlers south of Mount Holyoke grew, the desire for a local place of worship also grew. As an answer to the problems of settlers traveling many miles to church, the towns of Hatfield, Granby, South Hadley and Amherst formed from the sprawling town of Hadley. The town continued to grow as an agricultural town during the 1700s. While subsistence farming was most common during this time, the exporting of everything from produce to beef to furs grew. Most of the products were taken by flatboat down the Connecticut River and to the Boston area as well. It was around 1792 that broomcorn became the dominant crop in Hadley. So abundant was this crop that Hadley would come to be known as the Nation's broomcorn and broom manufacturing capital. Broom and brush making became a thriving industry here, exporting all across New York and New England, and as far as Ohio.

Over time the soil that produced so much broomcorn slowly depleted. By 1840, tobacco would take its place as the major crop as well

as seed onions and other vegetables. The Massachusetts Central Railroad crossed the northern half of the common in 1887, providing a faster way for Hadley farmers to ship their produce to market. The Connecticut Valley Street Railway lay out along Russell Street about 1900 made local travel to Northampton and Amherst easier.

It was during the late 1800s that, because of labor shortages and a drop in land values, Hadley experienced somewhat of a decline in farming. It was also about this time that a large number of Irish and, later, Polish immigrants that were recruited from Ellis Island for labor purposes settled in Hadley. It was the Polish immigrants that are credited with saving Hadley's farmland as they worked the fine Hadley soil back into fertility. By 1920, asparagus became the popular crop in Hadley, soon making the town the asparagus capital of the world. Most recently, a shipment of Hadley asparagus from Alligator Brook Farm was shipped to former President Bush at the White House in July 2008 after the President had remarked how ``fabulous'' German asparagus was during his visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Once again, Hadley was able to claim its rightful title of ``The asparagus capital of the world.''

Today, in spite of commercial development along Route 9, Hadley remains largely agricultural and residential. It has the largest number of acres in agriculture in the Pioneer Valley, which includes crops of corn, potatoes, tobacco and scores of other vegetables. Malls and commercial businesses now lie along Russell Street on Route 9 to the east of the town's center.

Hadley is a beautiful place to live. I am proud to represent this town which is rich with history and join with its citizens in celebrating Hadley's 350th Anniversary.

First, let me thank Congressman Frank; he did a good job under very difficult circumstances, as did Mr. Rangel with the tax extenders that are part of this bill.

This is imperfect legislation, like much legislation that comes to the floor of this House, but we need to pass it today.

The national principle here is at stake. If there's a hurricane in Louisiana, we all come to the aid of the American family. If there's a forest fire in California, we all come to the aid of the American family. If there's a blizzard in New England, we all come to the aid of the American family. And that's precisely what this legislation does today.

Next week, when people are having difficulty getting a car loan, trying to refinance their mortgage or looking at their 401(k) plan, we acknowledge that they are all members of the American family, and we attempt today to come to their aid.

There is relief here for alternative minimum tax victims; 25 million people will benefit. Twelve thousand businesses are waiting for incentives for the R&D credit. Four million families and three million teachers are waiting for their deductions for education expenses. Thirteen million children in low-income families can finally claim the child tax credit.

This is a piece of legislation that helps the American family.

I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and I would like to ask him a question about the bill.

It is my understanding that the bill is designed to give all banks, especially community banks, which are very important in central and western Massachusetts, and because they are heavily regulated don't have any problems, regardless of size or organizational structure, ordinary tax treatment for certain holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock. Banks, and in particular some State-chartered institutions, are allowed to hold such stock in passive investment vehicles where the bank is the majority investor under Federal law.

I encourage the chairman to work with the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that all institutions have access to this relief, if he agrees it is intended to have an expansive reach.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I want to applaud the work of my friend, Chairman Barney Frank, in negotiating this agreement on behalf of the House. Compared with the proposal of a week ago from the Bush administration, this agreement has much improved.

I have already heard from a number of my constituents this morning who oppose the bill and I understand their opposition. I think it is clear that we are not done with this matter. There is more to do, and even under this bill, Congress will revisit the agreement in 5 years to determine whether the taxpayers are due some repayment from the industry saved by this bailout.

At this time, though, it is important that we proceed forward with this limited authority, which is only provided with substantial oversight. It is an appropriate balance and that is why I will support the bill.

But as I said, there is more to be done. John F. Kennedy said that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. It is true that no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility for the economic quandary we find ourselves in. But if we simply look back to the last time the financial services industry teetered on the brink of disaster, we can see roots that lead to the crisis we confront today.

A decade ago, Long Term Capital Management, a billion-dollar hedge fund lost half its value due to sour derivative contracts and the Federal Reserve Chairman had to arrange a bailout. Complexity is the name of the game in the derivatives market, and that fact has not changed over the last decade. Derivatives are financial products with a value derived from an underlying asset, such as a stock or commodity. The accounting and tax rules regarding these products, though, are anything but clear and that part of the game has also not changed over the last decade.

I am concerned about one section of the bill we are considering today which would grant the SEC authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting. This accounting rule requires companies to declare the market value of assets. With financial products, this may differ from the purchase price. Plus, the value might be hard to determine until the contract expires some time in the future. However, in valuing derivatives, I believe it is important that there be transparency in the market, and mark-to-market accounting is probably the closest to the actual value and is therefore, an essential tool for investors. Think of it this way: if someone asked you for a loan and their only asset is their house which could be sold for $100,000, would you care that they had paid $200,000 for it a year ago?

Should we care about accounting rules for derivatives? Well, clearly yes. It would be easy to assume regulators are taking care of these issues, but recent events show us that is not the case. It would be easy for us to dismiss the threat of derivatives since only sophisticated investors hold them, but as Warren Buffet warned in 2002, ``Derivates are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.''

In March, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, which I chair, held a hearing on the taxation of derivatives. At that hearing, I referred to the threat of AIG directly as one reason our hearing was timely. AIG had just the week before devalued its holdings by $5 billion because of one complex derivative--the credit default swap. I asked the Treasury Department, which appeared before my subcommittee that day, what guidance we might expect on the appropriate tax treatment of credit default swaps, since in their absence, investors were free to choose whatever seemed most convenient. Treasury said it was still under review.

Taxpayers and investors need clarity in the market with respect to these complex products. While some may blame mark-to-market accounting for the problems of individual companies, it merely exposed that these companies were holding worthless paper. And I believe news like that is better known earlier rather than later, and to all investors, not just insiders.

The global market for derivatives exceeds $500 trillion in notional value, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Hedging risks via derivatives is a normal practice of businesses, but the ``Wild West'' trading in these products must be addressed by regulation and transparency. Of course, all businesses would prefer to choose whichever accounting method makes them look the most profitable to investors and the least profitable to the IRS. But we need consistent rules and a system of valuing businesses which is fair to investors, regulators, and the tax collector.

A decade ago, I stood on the floor lamenting the near-crisis that Long Term Capital Management had created. I chastised Congress for ignoring the request of the regulator, CFTC, which had asked for more oversight over derivatives. Since then, we have seen Enron collapse and now our current crisis. Will things be different this time? I certainly hope that is the case. But changing the accounting rules mid-game, I believe, is a move in the wrong direction. I hope that the SEC will take the long view on this and study the issue before reversing any current accounting rules meant to provide greater transparency.

In 1999, I filed legislation to strengthen the constructive ownership rules so that investors in a hedge fund via a derivative could not avoid current taxation on income earned. This legislation was directly aimed at Long Term Capital Management and based on legislation my colleague and friend Representative Barbara Kennelly had previously filed. In 2002, I filed legislation to end the game of corporations betting on their own stock via derivatives. The Tax Code does not allow corporations to claim gains or losses when trading in its own stock, but that provision can be avoided through derivative transactions. This year, I filed legislation to require current taxation on prepaid forward contracts, as investors had been taking the position that no taxation was appropriate until the end of the contract, which could be 30 years hence.

I will continue my efforts to bring transparency to these products and to end the tax game on derivatives. Further, this bill affords us the opportunity to implement a regulatory structure that will result in a healthier market. On both fronts, I hope we will see action.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I want to thank Chairman Rangel.

Let me stand in support of this energy and tax extenders legislation we are considering today. I have been here for 20 years. This is a good piece of work. I want to thank Charlie Rangel for his hard work on this legislation again and again and again.

This is the sixth time we are going to send this energy package over to the other body. But they keep moving the goalpost. And every time they move the goalpost a few yards farther, we still pass the bill. We keep meeting their demands, and they keep saying it's not good enough. A clean AMT patch is on the way to the Senate. It's already been declared dead on arrival. It seems in the other body they can't take ``yes'' for an answer.

As my colleagues here know, this bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This has to be done. This needs to get under way.

I want to thank Chairman Rangel for asserting the constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives in moving this legislation and within this body, the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter.

In my home State, 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for their out- of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies, 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in the U.S.

The R&D tax credit is important. Without this bill, 121,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take a deduction on their college tuition expenses.

This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. There are many well-crafted positions and provisions in this bill. There is not enough time to mention them all this morning.

Let me conclude by simply saying that Chairman Rangel has crafted a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation.

I urge support of this bill, and let's send a strong message to the Senate and to the President. We want this tax relief bill done now, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way.

Madam Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, provides tax relief by extending generally for 2 years various energy tax incentives and other temporary tax provisions. I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill, JCX75-08. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov. Madam Speaker, the Senate has not sent a bill over to us. None of us got elected here to defer to what the other body happens to think on any given day. We have repeatedly sent them good legislation over the course of the last year and a half, only to have it summarily rejected.

I want to submit today, I bet you during the course of Mr. Camp's career, along with mine, that will be the last time he quotes the majority leader of the United States Senate on a piece of legislation.

This is a responsible bill, and it is the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate this legislation. What is the sense of being on the Ways and Means Committee if you defer to the other body on these matters? We have separate responsibilities for good reason, and that's what we are entertaining today.

A reminder--there is no Senate bill to consider. They have not sent one over. How about the idea that they have said if they don't have the paperwork by 11 o'clock, they're not going to consider this bill. Why be on the Ways and Means Committee? Why be a member of the House of Representatives?

We have done a good job with these legislative matters and sent them back to them responsibly. We have rules here, and we adhere to them. That is the fundamental difference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a grim reminder: There are 4,000 businesses in Mr. Herger's district and State that employ high- tech researchers who need the R&D tax credit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, my friend and a long-time member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield myself 1 minute and will ask the gentleman a question: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

I would yield.

Would you answer the question yes or no from our constitutional perspective: Do Members of the House of Representatives serve under the President of the United States?

We serve with the President of the United States.

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Doggett.

I yield the gentleman 15 more seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and a very good member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Berkley.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut, a member of the Appropriations Committee and my friend, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I understand it's the opportunity for the minority leader on the Ways and Means Committee to use his time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 20 years. I want to tell you something today. This is a good piece of legislation. This deals with the energy needs of the country, and I want to say to my friend, Mr. Camp, I consulted with him on major portions of this legislation. There are provisions in this legislation that Mr. Camp and I worked hand-in- glove on.

We are here this morning where the minority side says, ``Well, we have to check with the President.'' We didn't get elected to be members of the executive branch; we got elected to be Members of the legislative branch. Every

school child in America knows that. Since when do we submit here without asking any questions of the executive to the whims of what they might want to do?

I want to say this today. The reason that historians will write about the last 7\1/2\ years being as difficult as it has been for the American people, including what is in front of this Nation today, is because the minority today, who were the majority for the first 6 years of the Bush administration, they abdicated their responsibility.

The job of this body is to occasionally ask a question of the President of the United States. Instead, it was, ``Yes, Mr. President.''

``Can we move quickly enough, Mr. President?''

``Weapons of mass destruction? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Invasion of Iraq? Yes, Mr. President.''

``$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts? Yes, Mr. President.''

``Regulations thrown out the window? Yes, Mr. President.''

Since when do Members of this body ask themselves is it okay with the United States Senate? Is it okay with the President of the United States?

Our job here is to help the 660,000 people that sent us here, and that means occasionally clearing your throat and saying, ``No, Mr. President.''

This bill addresses many fundamental issues for the American people. The R&D tax credit is very important. When the Senate says to us they're not going to act on our legislation if we don't get it over there by 11 o'clock, they haven't even submitted a bill to us to act upon.

This deference all of a sudden to the United States Senate surprises me. We have a separate responsibility here to move forward with what we believe to be in the best interest of the American people and not to accept automatically what the executive branch says or what the Senate says.

I've been associated with some good legislation, and from time to time perhaps in this body over two decades, some not-so-good legislation. This, Mr. Speaker, is a good piece of legislation, and the minority was included in the writing of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I make a point of order.

I make a point of order that the gentleman's motion to recommit includes provisions within the jurisdiction of other committees, and, as such, is a violation of clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7005) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide alternative minimum tax relief for individuals for 2008.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record.

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

The provisions of H.R. 7005, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, as scheduled for floor action today, provides alternative minimum tax relief.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and the ranking member, Mr. McCrery, have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the joint committee's Web site at www.jct.gov. I want to thank Mr. Rangel for his diligent work on a flurry of last minute bills here. There is some urgency to the bill we are debating today. I also want to acknowledge, to his everlasting relief, that this is the last time Mr. Reynolds will have a chance to speak on the issue of the alternative minimum tax.

If we do not pass this legislation today, 25 million families will pay higher taxes this year. That is right, this tax relief is for this year. I might add to this conversation that one of the nice things about this bill, despite how tumultuous these days have been for Members of Congress and for the American citizens watching what has happened to their 401(k) plans, this legislation actually provides middle class tax relief. The current patch expired at the end of the last year, and it is urgent that we pass this relief now.

Of those 25 million families facing higher taxes, 84 percent of them earn less than $200,000. In my constituency alone, families paying alternative minimum tax will rise from 8,000 to 69,000 if we do not enact this patch, and only 500 of those unlucky 69,000 people earn more than half a million dollars annually. Clearly, the alternative minimum tax is not the millionaire's tax it was designed to be.

For the last decade I have sought to repeal or radically reform the AMT because of the unfairness it wreaks on our progressive tax system. The AMT patch we are considering today costs more than $60 billion, and a reminder to all, next year, $70 billion. But unlike the version we considered earlier this year, we should acknowledge, this one is not offset. Despite partisan efforts in outreach to the other side on the issue of fiscal responsibility, we have, unfortunately, been unable to find common ground. We have run up against the reality of the closing days of Congress, and this legislation simply must be accomplished.

Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Rangel on crafting a responsible bill and one which picks up on the good work of our colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland and Mr. Johnson of Texas, on the issue of incentive stock options. For a decade, Mr. Johnson and I have tried to find relief for those taxpayers unfortunately caught with a massive AMT bill on phantom stock gains, and today's bill provides relief by abating penalties and interest on underpayments and by allowing quicker recovery of AMT credits.

The bill we are considering today is a true hold-harmless patch because it not only extends but increases the AMT exemption level. It also extends protection from AMT for taxpayers with personal, nonrefundable credits, such as education credits and the dependent care credits. Otherwise, taxpayers might lose these essential credits to

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a fine member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend, Mr. Dreier's, comments, about the alternative minimum tax and how we are going to proceed today, but, let me be blunt, over my objections for the last 8 years, what we talked about today is simply this for the American people that might be viewing this discussion, we are going to borrow the money. I object to it, but I have tried time and again to find concurrence on the other side with a common way forward and have been unsuccessful.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada, a very valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Berkley.

Madam Speaker, I want to agree with some of what Mr. Reynolds said, but I also want to remind the American citizenry today, we have now borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to fix the alternative minimum tax, only to discover that a temporary patch is hardly a fix.

Think of what we might have done had we adhered to some fiscal rectitude and actually paid for this legislation as opposed to borrowing the money.

The reality is, in a legislative body, that there are some days that you can't get the votes to do what you would like, and this is one of those days.

But be mindful as we proceed to the next session of the Congress that the request for fixing the alternative minimum tax, or patching the alternative minimum tax, you will be out $70 billion, the following year $80 billion, maybe more. Then when you calculate the interest that attends to the issue, we quickly find that we will be at $500 billion to have temporarily patched alternative minimum tax, when we have offered a remedy here to do away with it?

We can argue about percentage of GDP that results in taxation to administer the Federal Government. I have heard that argument. The difficulty with that argument is that it doesn't take into consideration the reality of what we might have done in the intervening time to address the issue.

We have put very thoughtful pieces of legislation to permanently repeal it, to put it behind us once and for all, alternative minimum tax, only to discover that we have had difficulty securing the necessary cooperation to get it done. So, I will be standing here next year, talking about alternative minimum tax, asking for a permanent repeal. I hope, in the atmosphere of tax reform, that we might accomplish that task.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a classmate of mine from 1988, my friend, Mr. Engel.

I would be prepared to close upon listening to the eloquence of the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, let me, as I close, acknowledge the work of Chairman Rangel. He has given me considerable latitude not only on this issue but on a range of other issues within the jurisdiction of the committee. We have come up with some pretty good pieces of legislation during the last couple of years.

What is striking about this debate is we find ourselves in the same predicament where we will once again convene next year to discuss it. Mr. Rangel's legislation that I helped to author actually repealed the alternative minimum tax and did it in a responsible manner. The fact that we are here today because we couldn't find enough numbers in the House to move forward on the proposal, I think, demonstrates the frustration that we all feel with what has now become a very onerous position for the Congress to entertain.

But I do want to thank my friend, Tom Reynolds. And he is my friend. We probably on tax policy disagree on where the sun rises and the sun sets, but it is an example of a friendship

that has been able to supersede any of those differences because after the debate of this House is over, socially he has been a good pal for a long time. And I have the impression that he is not going to miss debating alternative minimum tax when he is back in New York. His position has been steadfast in this arena on the issue of AMT, and we have really worked hand in glove with one minor difference: I think rather than borrow the money, I think we should pay for it. And at the same time, I must tell you, he has been a good and humorous friend along the way, and we will miss his presence in the House and on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to come before the House to introduce legislation ending the advantage of offshore reinsurance entities over American companies. In the past, I have offered a number of bills to limit offshore tax avoidance and have even previously offered bipartisan legislation on the issue of foreign reinsurance specifically. I am here today to try a different approach to tackle the problem of excessive reinsurance to related foreign entities and I hope my colleagues will join me in this timely effort.

Now, some may question why it would be timely to offer this legislation considering that one of the largest U.S. insurance companies was just bailed out by the Fed. I think it is precisely the time to shore up the U.S. market. Already, the speculation has begun as to what parts of AIG will be sold off. A leading insurance industry research entity, Dowling & Partners, posed the question yesterday: ``Will the offshore tax issue be highlighted once again, with much of AIG's business potentially moving to competitors offshore?'' With the advantage of a no- or low-tax jurisdiction from which to operate, you can bet that foreign competitors are already eyeing purchases of the AIG business.

There is no doubt that there is a legitimate role for reinsurance. It is a fundamental business technique for risk management and is to be fostered. But just as Congress and Treasury have attempted to measure what is legitimate in sharing debt and earnings between affiliates, there have been attempts to appropriately characterize reinsurance between related entities. Unfortunately, as recent data shows, those attempts have been unsuccessful.

Since 1996, the amount of reinsurance sent to offshore affiliates has grown dramatically, from a total of $4 billion ceded in 1996 to $34 billion in 2007, including $19 billion alone to Bermuda affiliates. These insurance profits are shuttled out of the U.S. and then the investment income on those profits is also sheltered from U.S. taxes. It is easy to see why foreign reinsurers, with such a tax benefit, enjoy a significant market advantage.

Now we are beginning to see a new problem: the offshore affiliates are writing direct insurance here in the U.S. We have seen in the last decade a doubling in the growth of market share of direct premiums written by groups domiciled outside the U.S., from 5.1 percent to 10.9 percent, representing $54 billion in direct premiums written in 2006. Again, Bermuda-based companies represent the bulk of this growth, rising from 0.1 percent to 4 percent. And it should be noted that during this time, the percentage of premiums ceded to affiliates of non-U.S. based companies has grown from 13 percent to 67 percent. Bermuda is not the only jurisdiction favorable for reinsurance, and in fact earlier this year, one company moved from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland citing ``the security of a network of tax treaties,'' among other benefits.

Congress first recognized the problem of excessive reinsurance in 1984 and provided specific authority to Treasury under Section 845 of the tax code to reallocate items and make adjustments in reinsurance transactions in order to prevent tax avoidance or evasion. In 2003, the Treasury Department testified before Congress that the existing mechanisms were not sufficient. In 2004, Congress amended this provision to expand the authority of Treasury to not only reallocate among the parties to a reinsurance agreement but also to recharacterize items within or related to the agreement. Congress specifically cited the concern that these reinsurance transactions were being used inappropriately among U.S. and foreign related parties for tax evasion. Despite this grant of expanded authority, Treasury has still been unable to stem the tide moving offshore.

Recently, a coalition of U.S.-based insurance and reinsurance companies has been formed to express their concerns to Congress. With more than 150,000 employees and a trillion dollars in assets here in the U.S., I believe it is a message of concern that we should heed.

That is why I am filing legislation today to disallow deductions for excess reinsurance premiums with respect to U.S. risks paid to affiliated insurance companies that are not subject to U.S. tax. The excess amount will be determined by reference to an industry fraction, by line of business, which will measure the average amount of reinsurance sent to unrelated parties. The legislation provides Treasury the authority to carry out or prevent the avoidance of the provisions of this bill.

My colleagues may be thinking that this sounds similar to another provision in the code, and they would be right. The tax code currently tries to limit the amount of earnings stripping--that is, sending U.S. profits offshore through inflated interest deductions--by disallowing the interest deduction over a certain threshold. In the reinsurance context, U.S. affiliates of foreign based reinsurance entities may be sending offshore excessive amounts of reinsurance to strip those premiums out of the purview of the U.S. tax system. My bill limits the deduction for those premiums to the extent the reinsurance to a related party exceeds the industry average.

I hope that in the coming weeks, my colleagues and experts in the industry will carefully review this new proposal and provide constructive commentary on it. A fuller technical explanation of the bill will be posted on my website, which will provide some background on the industry as well as a technical description of the bill. Madame Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this important matter and I assure my colleagues that I will continue my efforts to combat offshore tax avoidance, regardless of what industry is impacted.

Mr. Speaker, as the House considers tax legislation to promote the development and deployment of alternative and renewable energy technologies, I rise today in support of the proposed plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit and, in particular, making the tax credit even more robust and immediate by including in the credit road-certified two-wheel vehicles and low-

speed neighborhood electric vehicles. I support the underlying bill, but hope as it progresses that this clean energy incentive may also be included.

I know that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and the House Leadership are committed to renewing existing energy tax provisions and enacting new incentives for environmentally-friendly, domestic energy production. And I believe that the tax credit for plug- in electric drive vehicles is a critical component of that commitment. This tax credit will encourage the ongoing efforts to develop and bring to the marketplace the technology that will be necessary for these vehicles to become a common occurrence on our roads and highways. Tailpipe emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel are by far the largest contributors to climate change and the air quality problems that exist in many regions of our country. This tax credit will go directly at addressing these issues by displacing foreign oil with electricity that is domestically produced with--it is my hope--a significant and growing renewable component.

The plug-in electric drive vehicle tax credit is so vital to our alternative and renewable energy priorities that it should begin working as soon as it is enacted, but it can only do so by expanding the credit to include both road-certified two-wheel vehicles and low- speed neighborhood electric vehicles, which are now in retail production. These vehicles are specifically designed to address the short-haul transportation needs of urban and suburban communities. Because the first mile of a trip creates the most tailpipe emissions, these vehicles can play an important and significant role in mitigating the unique contribution of urban and suburban transportation to our air quality and climate change problems.

If enacted, the plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit will be an important element of our policy to encourage the development and deployment of alternatives to the consumption of foreign oil. As the manufacturers of electric drive two-wheel and low-speed vehicles already are demonstrating, this policy also has the added benefit of creating quality jobs here in the U.S.

While the technology for plug-in electric cars is still being developed, road-certified two-wheel vehicles and low-speed neighborhood electric vehicles can begin reducing our reliance on foreign oil today, and including these vehicles in the tax credit will help develop a consumer market for them, just as the credit will help create a market for plug-in electric automobiles and trucks that are expected to come on-line in a few years.

Again, I thank the Speaker and Chairman Rangel for their important work on the critical issue of ensuring our Nation's energy security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Research and Development tax credit, a credit which has been championed here in the House by my friend and colleague, Representative Sander Levin. He has authored legislation to extend this important credit and I have joined him in this effort.

Today, I want to highlight a letter sent to all Members of Congress signed by 3,400 American workers, representing 43 States and well over 100 U.S. companies, ranging from small to large. In this letter, these workers in the research industry urge us to extend and strengthen the R&D tax credit, which expired on December 31, 2007.

Already, the House has passed legislation to extend the R&D tax credit. But our Senate colleagues have been unable to do the same. As many of my colleagues already realize, this tax credit is like no other. Without this credit, much of this innovative research would likely migrate to other countries, many which offer their own incentives.

Congress needs to enact a seamless and retroactive extension of this credit to ensure that these highpaying technology jobs stay in America.

As the 3,400 workers in the R&D industry aptly stated in their letter to Congress:

We write to you--from companies across the country both

large and small--to address an issue that we believe will

affect the likelihood that high-skilled jobs such as ours are

located in our communities and in our country.

Simply put, we are dismayed that Congress has allowed the

R&D tax credit to expire. We know that most of you have

lauded the benefits of the credit, and we appreciate this

support. We urge you to act now to enact into law an

extension of a strengthened credit because research-dependent

jobs are at stake.

I ask that this letter be included in the Record immediately following my comments.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to contact their counterparts in the Senate to demand immediate action on tax extenders. American workers are waiting and these jobs are simply too good to lose.

September 10, 2008.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid: Our country has always been a

hospitable place for invention. It is a reflection of our

values and ingenuity. Government policies such as the R&D tax

credit are expressions of our desire to innovate and create.

We write to you--from companies across the country both

large and small--to address an issue that we believe will

affect the likelihood that high-skilled jobs such as ours are

located in our communities and in our country.

Simply put, we are dismayed that Congress has allowed the

R&D tax credit to expire. We know that most of you have

lauded the benefits of the credit, and we appreciate this

support. We urge you to act now to enact into law an

extension of a strengthened credit because research-dependent

jobs are at stake.

The signatures you see on this letter represent just some

of the tens of thousands of real people who have benefited

positively from the effects of the credit over the past 26

years. You can read studies and surveys, but we are living

proof that the vast majority of R&D credit dollars go

directly to pay the wages of highly skilled American workers.

Between high gas prices and falling home values, it is a

difficult time for all Americans. As you work to boost U.S.

economic activity, please act quickly to reinstate and

strengthen a program with a track record of more than two

decades of success. We thank you for your commitment to our

country and to U.S. workers.

Sincerely,

Signed by 3,400 workers in the R&D industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3221.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, Finance Committee Chairman Frank and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of this legislation. The technical explanation, JCX-63-08, expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee on Taxation Web site, at www.jct.gov. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

I want to begin by commending Mr. Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for their tireless efforts on behalf of this bill. It has certainly not been an easy task.

With bank failures and foreclosures continuing to headline the news, the pressure to respond has been most remarkable. I have seen it in my back yard. Massachusetts is the sixth in the Nation community for foreclosure activity. In Springfield, the heart of my district, 300 homes have been foreclosed this year, and over 2,000 mortgages will reset to higher interest rates through 2009. In response today, we have a tax title with broad bipartisan support.

The tax provisions in this bill are an appropriate mix of incentives for home purchasers, owners, renters, for builders, developers and lenders. Quite simply, they help the housing and real estate industry regain their footing; and they offer struggling home owners a lifeline. How critical that provision.

This bill offers hope that if we can get this industry up and moving again, and provide security for distressed home owners, maybe the economy will respond and get back on track as well. We all know how important the housing industry is, not only to American economic security, but to overall economic gain.

The provisions in the tax title include:

A $7,500 refundable tax credit for first-time home buyers which is available for purchases through next July.

An additional standard deduction for property taxes for those who do not itemize. I can't emphasize how important that provision is and how well received it will be. It will be a huge benefit, especially for seniors who have paid off their mortgages but still face property tax bills.

A temporary increase in the low-income housing tax credit, which provides affordable housing for working families in all 50 states.

A temporary increase in State-issued mortgage revenue bonds and a provision allowing the proceeds to be used to refinance certain subprime loans.

The tax title of this bill is fully paid for with three previously approved offsets. I want to just point something out. We have had significant Republican support in the past for these offsets, meaning simply that Republicans have supported the pay-for provisions that we've used.

First, the bill uses the Bush administration's credit card reporting proposal which obligates third-party financial institutions that process credit card payments to report to the IRS on annual credit card receipts to a business.

Second, the bill delays for 2 years the worldwide interest allocation rule. This tax benefit was enacted in 2004 but delayed until 2009. We simply push off for 2 years a benefit these companies haven't used yet to claim more foreign tax credits and lower their U.S. tax bill.

Finally, the bill limits the exclusion of gains on vacation homes. This provision will limit the exclusion of gains to the amount of time a vacation home was a principal residence over the total time owned after January 1, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, these tax provisions, along with the provisions brokered by Mr. Frank, are urgently needed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a quick response.

The FHA, which supports this legislation, is a part of the Department of HUD which is appointed by President Bush. In addition, Secretary Paulson, I believe, supports this legislation, and the White House has withdrawn their veto threat.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), also a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who's had a longstanding interest from the executive branch of government to the legislative branch of government in housing matters, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 30 seconds.

The role of the speculator will be enhanced if we allow this virus to continue to spread. As the homes fall into foreclosure, the speculator and the reach of the speculator will drive prices down in communities across the country.

I acknowledge, as the gentleman defined the problem, the challenge, but at

the same time, not to act today would be irresponsible.

And with that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a former mayor, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a reminder that the Bush administration and the Secretary of the Treasury, one might argue the most important appointment the President of the United States makes, they have been party to this proposal, they have been involved from day one, they support what we are doing here today.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, as usual, we appreciate the judicious approach to legislation that Mr. McCrery has offered today.

As is always the case with legislation that comes to this floor, there are parts of it that some of us don't care for. But he addressed the issue of urgency. The Secretary of the Treasury spoke to the issue of urgency. President Bush dropped his veto threat. And a reminder, the people that are responsible for the tax title portion of this legislation voted for it 35-5 in the Ways and Means Committee.

This is complex legislation. There is a virus that is moving through the housing market across America. The result is everywhere for us to see.

The softening of markets everywhere are directly related to what's happened in the housing market. We have a chance today to stem the tide of those effects. We should take advantage of it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6327) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6327.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman Oberstar for their tireless efforts in trying to seek a long-term funding solution for our Nation's aviation programs.

Last year, I was honored to chair a hearing in the Select Revenue Measure Subcommittee where we heard from all sides on this issue, including the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the Hill have not been able to secure an agreement, and that's really why we're here today to provide some additional time for negotiations.

H.R. 6327 extends the financing and spending authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The trust fund taxes and spending authority are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. H.R. 6327 extends these dates at current rates for 3 months through September 30, 2008.

Previous legislation extending these taxes were unanimously reported out of the Ways and Means Committee with bipartisan support. The substitute amendment makes one change from the bill as introduced. It deletes section 5 which would have transferred $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund. This provision would prevent cuts in highway programs next year. CBO has informed us that it would have no budgetary impact.

While that provision enjoys significant bipartisan support, a number of Republican Members have indicated strong opposition. It is imperative that we enact the FAA provisions this month. To ensure that we have the necessary two-thirds support to pass this bill today, we decided to remove the highway language. This bill will keep the Airport and Airway Trust Fund taxes and operations in place until a long-term FAA reauthorization act is signed into law.

The bill also includes a number of authorizing provisions under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which worked with Ways and Means to develop the legislation.

The most important of these is the Airport Improvement Program, or AIP. This program funds grants for projects throughout the country. Many of our airports rely on this program to help finance critical modernization and expansion efforts.

The bill would extend the AIP for another 3 months. The other authorizing provisions are also 3-month extensions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a temporary extension of an essential funding mechanism for our aviation programs, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) whose knowledge of transportation and aviation initiatives in Illinois is not only extensive but most impressive.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue has been vetted in committee. The House has had an opportunity to work its will, and we're simply asking for an extension based upon the bipartisan support demonstrated here today. I urge adoption of the resolution and urge adoption of the extension.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Murphy and thank Congressman Shuster, as well as Jim Oberstar, a long time friend here, for offering the support to this proposal that it deserves.

Establishing a New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter line would do much to improve the transportation needs of the Northeast Corridor. In addition to contributing to the national effort to reduce carbon emissions, this commuter line would greatly promote economic development for the cities and towns along the line. Union Station, with the help of Mr. Oberstar's committee, is now underway and great work we expect to happen there in Springfield.

Mr. Chairman, Connecticut has already dedicated funding for the commuter line and is in the predevelopment phase. And today, the Massachusetts House is expected to approve a $1.3 billion transportation bill authorizing $90 million for the commuter developing road transportation line from New Haven to Springfield. A New Haven to Springfield line would also allow for more connections to existing Amtrak routes as well as other planned commuter rails, such as a Boston to Springfield line, which would further extend economic benefits to the region.

Due to improved service, Amtrak ridership has increased in the past few years, and commuters want this progress to continue, particularly in light of gas prices. The Murphy amendment will help maintain this progress and promote this much-needed commuter line. The benefits of incorporating new commuter lines with Amtrak is undeniable and worth the investments.

Commuter rail service would help other industrial cities like Springfield to better connect with regional economies and offer a smarter and cleaner transportation option.

Thanks to the individuals who have stood with us today, and I hope the Murphy amendment will be successful.