Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, I want to say how much respect I have for Mr. McCrery. I think he is one of the most positive Members of this body. I think he has worked productively with Chairman Rangel, and I have great respect for my colleague. He will be leaving, and that will be a loss for the Congress. I wanted to say that before I begin.

Let me say that we have disagreements. However, and on the overall issue that he raised in closing about paying for this, he is accurate. Now, some of these extenders even pre-date the time when the Republicans were in the majority in 1995 and through 2006. But I think there is consensus on extending them. The difference is, should we pay for them? There are only a number of options, a few options available to us. We can pay for them, or our children can pay for them. Somebody will pay for them. There is not a free lunch.

My view is this supply side economics pretends there is somewhere out there where the tooth fairy is going to deliver the money. There is not a tooth fairy. It is the parent who delivers the money under the pillow when the tooth is lost. But we are the parents, and we need to act as adults. We need to pay for what we buy. And if what we buy is giving somebody a tax incentive because we believe that they will do something good that will advantage our community and our country, then that is fine. I am supportive of that. But we ought to pay for it, because that is our decision.

One of the gentlemen spoke about his two children. I have three children. I have three grandchildren, and I have one great- granddaughter. I'm equally concerned. I'm concerned about the $4 trillion in debt that we've added over the last 6-plus years, and now some $400 billion this year alone. But that is the general philosophy.

The specific philosophy here is we need to be energy independent. We need to be sure that our policies that we pursue do not continue to make us hostage to those who have petroleum products.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend Chairman Charlie Rangel and all of the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this very important, farsighted legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

This week the American people are paying, on average, $3.79 per gallon for gasoline. Mr. Hensarling observed that I was laughing when he said the Democrats have been in charge and look what's happened to gas prices. I was laughing because the absurdity is rejected by the American public, that somehow policies that we've adopted over the last year, when the President vetoes anything he doesn't want, has affected those gasoline prices to me is patently absurd and clearly rejected by the American people. It was, I thought then and think now, a laughable proposition to make.

Motorists are paying $4 per gallon, more than $2.50 per gallon more than they were paying when the current administration took office.

To show you the difference, when Bill Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001, gas prices rose from $1.06 to $1.46, 40 cents, or a nickel a year, a nickel a year during those 8 years. During this President's administration, prices are rising a nickel a week.

There is no doubt that this explosion in gasoline prices is squeezing hardworking families who live in every one of our districts who also are coping with the rising costs of food and groceries, health care and education.

This legislation is not a panacea to those immediate concerns. Would that we had one. But it does represent an important step in our continuing effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Among other things, the bill will establish a new tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic biofuel production from now through 2015, so that we can rely on the Middle West and perhaps other parts of our country, rather than the Middle East. It will extend this $1 per gallon biodiesel tax credit, and makes it available to all potential sources of diesel that can be made without petroleum. And it allows jet fuel produced from biomass to qualify for the credit as well.

Furthermore, this legislation will reduce our dependence on imported fuel for our electricity sector by extending and expanding tax incentive for sources of renewable energy including wind, solar and biomass.

It also will encourage the use of plug-in hybrid cars and provide incentives for energy conservation in residential homes, commercial buildings and appliances; all of which, I think, the American public applauds.

Additionally, this bill will help create hundreds of thousands of ``green jobs.'' It will spur American innovation and business investment, which will strengthen our economy today and in the future. And it will provide tax relief for millions of Americans, expanding the child tax credit for the families of 13 million children, helping 4.5 million families better afford college through a tuition deduction, and saving 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses, so when they buy something for their classroom, like a business expense, they'll be able to deduct it.

Now, many on the Republican side object to this bill because the Democratic majority, in keeping with our commitment to fiscal responsibility and pay as you go budget rules, insists that this legislation be paid for and not add to the national debt.

That's a fundamental difference between our two sides. One believes that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. Mr. Bernanke doesn't believe that, Mr. Greenspan doesn't believe that, but our Republican colleagues clearly believe it, and they've pursued that policy, which has, as I said, put us over $3 trillion in additional debt over the last 82 months.

To them I simply say: It is long past time that the Members here insist that our Nation pay for the things it buys. To not do so takes the discipline out of the democratic process, because if we can simply charge that which we buy, there will be no discipline on the part of the electorate to say no, we don't want to be taxed to buy that. And I guarantee the system would stop buying it. But if there is no discipline, if we're not paying, my grandchildren will not be able to vote and exercise that discipline.

History, I suggest to my colleagues, is littered with the stories of formerly great nations that began their demise through fiscal profligacy. It is within our power to ensure that the United States of America is never added to that list.

The method by which Chairman Rangel and the committee have paid for the cost of this bill is laudable. Important. This legislation closes loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investments overseas. And because our obligations do not stop, average working Americans, therefore, must pay more if the wealthiest among us who can seek tax havens do not pay their fair share.

This legislation is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our environment, create thousands of jobs and strengthen our economy, and provide tax relief to millions of hardworking Americans.

I commend Mr. Rangel, Mr. McDermott, the members of the committee, and I commend Mr. McCrery for his responsible stewardship as the ranking member and his working to try to bring consensus. We have not reached it in this instance, but I do commend him for his efforts.

And I urge my colleagues, support this important legislation which moves us towards energy independence and a fair and equitable tax system.

Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?

Mr. Speaker, clearly, what we are dealing with is an unfortunate situation. The unfortunate situation is that apparently-- and again I just learned about this about an hour and a half ago when Mr. Peterson, the chairman of the committee, told me he and Mr. Goodlatte were discussing this problem and how to proceed. Apparently what happened is title III, which I understand is not very controversial, but in any event, title III came up on the screen for the printing on the parchment that is sent to the President, but, unfortunately, for whatever reasons, it was not printed out and it was not caught in the proofing of that. Apparently, as well, the White House did not catch the fact that the bill was not inclusive of title

Well, as I said, everything that we voted on was passed by the House and the Senate in exactly the same form. Obviously, I agree with your premise that the bill as passed out of Congress was not the exact same bill because of the deletion of title III,

apparently by error. Title III, as I understand, is not particularly controversial. I understand that from the discussion between Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Peterson.

So a mistake was made. A deletion was made. The President and the White House did not catch it. We didn't catch it. The President vetoed a bill. The bill that he vetoed, he sent back here. We have now said notwithstanding the veto, we believe the provisions that we both passed should in fact become law.

Now the gentleman is correct, which is self-evident, and I can't disagree with your proposition that the bill was not in exactly the same form, and as I indicated at the beginning, because I only learned about this about an hour and a half ago, these are off-of-the-top-of- my-head opinions, and are probably worth that much.

Yes.

Will the gentlemen yield?

We hope to have, again, as result of discussions between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte, either by unanimous consent, which may not be possible, or under suspension because, again, I understand from Mr. Peterson that title III is not a controversial title. Clearly, title I was controversial. Other titles were controversial. But if that is the case, then we can pass this by suspension tomorrow with suspension authority and send that to the Senate and hopefully they will then in turn send that to the President that title which has not yet been enacted or, frankly, acted on by the President, would either be signed by him or vetoed by him and we would consider it in that context.

Will the gentleman yield?

The only thing, as I understand it, would be to make tomorrow a suspension day. It's not a suspension day. So we would have to make it a suspension day.

I am looking for the exact date, but the farm bill expires tomorrow, and we have to extend the farm bill or go back to the 1949 extension.

Again, I would say to my friend I am operating with some concerns about the questions that are raised. But, again, I say, first of all, what happened in the Deficit Reduction Act is that the bill that was sent to the President, the provisions were never passed by the Senate.

Every provision that was sent to the President was sent to the President after overwhelming votes from the House, overwhelming votes from the Senate in exactly the same position. Title III was passed by the Senate and the House, and inadvertently left out.

In the Deficit Reduction Act, figures were changed in the bill subsequent to passing the Senate and never passed by the House. So I would suggest that the analogy between the two is not apt. In addition, there was no bipartisan discussion on that change.

In this case, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte are both on the floor. I didn't participate in those conversations. But I was informed by Mr. Peterson, because I said, have you talked to Mr. Goodlatte about this. He said he had. There had been significant discussions about that. There was concern about getting the farm bill passed because of the expiration of the existing authorization.

As a result of those discussions, my personal thought was there was bipartisan agreement that we could proceed this way. We did proceed that way. I don't think I can amplify my response more than that.

Will the gentleman yield?

My suggestion will be that we have another vote. We are going to have some other business coming. We discussed this briefly in the hallway. My suggestion is before we make any motions, that we take the time, your leadership and our leadership, let's sit down and discuss this and then we can come back and do whatever each decides to do.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it's my understanding we voice-voted the last vote while we were all talking, and therefore, there are no more votes for the day, and we are finished for the week. Have a good weekend.

There will be no votes on Monday, but there is business on Monday. If you have a suspension bill in which you are interested, you need to be here to participate. We have agreed that there would be no votes on Monday, but there will be probably 30 suspension bills considered on Monday. Whatever votes are asked for, we will roll until Tuesday. We will be meeting Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for working tirelessly over the past year and a half to craft this farm bill--legislation that may not be perfect, but which takes our Nation in a new direction in agriculture policy.

This farm bill makes important reforms in the commodity title, while continuing to provide a safety net for our small- and mid-sized farmers--farmers like those I represent in southern Maryland.

The bill tightens payment limits, eliminates loopholes that have been exploited to get around those limits, and makes payments transparent by requiring direct attribution to a single individual.

I am proud that this bill takes important steps to ensure that our children and those in need will have the resources they need to live healthy lives.

Its nutrition title includes more than $10 billion to better stock food banks and pantries, provide healthy snacks to schoolchildren, and reform the food stamp program by tying it to inflation.

It is important to note that this bill also makes record investments in conservation, renewable energy, and rural development, which will enable our producers to better protect our environment and bolster economic development in our rural communities.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes $438 million in direct assistance over the next 10 years to help our farmers in their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay.

While we have been able to make some strides in our efforts to restore this magnificent estuary, it is clear that there is much work to be done.

Recently, the University of Maryland Center for Environment Science issued a report card which rated the bay's health a C-minus.

Ironically, this slight improvement over the previous year was largely due to drought conditions that limited nutrient and sediment runoff into the bay.

The funds included in this farm bill will help farmers throughout the watershed control erosion and reduce sediment and nutrient levels. Their efforts will help enhance, restore, and conserve this ecologically significant habitat.

The legislation also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give special consideration to producers in specific, targeted river watersheds, including those of the Potomac and the Patuxent.

Our concerted effort to restore these significant tributaries will go a long way to bolstering the health of the great body of water into which they all empty--the Chesapeake Bay.

Finally, I want to express my support for the Enhanced Use Lease Authority Pilot Program. This program seeks to create a national model at the National Agricultural Library and our Nation's flagship agricultural research facility--the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. This program will enable them to partner on-site with public and private facilities to enhance the mission of USDA-ARS and address much needed facilities upgrades in a timely and efficient fashion.

Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill--a farm bill that will be noted for putting America's agricultural policy on the right track and laying the foundation for more far reaching reforms in the future.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is not about petting dogs. This is about people who are hurting. This is trying to reach out to people who have been savaged in many ways by this economy and the policies that have led to an economy where average working incomes are down $1,000 and where gasoline prices have exploded over 200 percent from $1.46 to $3.56. I would remind you that under the Clinton administration they went from $1.06 to $1.46, 5 cents a year during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. They are going up 5 cents a week during this administration.

People are stretched.

I didn't hear people come to this floor and say $30 billion for Bear Stearns. It was outrageous, putting the taxpayers' money--Mr. Flake says he did. Thirty billion dollars. We just talked about $2.5 billion for literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps as many as 1 million people. There is a crisis, and they have asked us to respond.

I want to congratulate the chairman of our committee. I want to thank the ranking member of the committee. I want to thank all the members of the committee for giving this their attention and trying to come up with a solution that works. Was this a partisan, divisive solution? Absolutely not. The Secretary of the Treasury has said that this is a product that merits serious consideration.

For a time, I thought he was for it. I am not sure now. There seems to be some internal division within the administration. Mr. Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said that this is a good thing to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, today through this comprehensive landmark legislation, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, this House is going to act not to pet dogs but to help people. This House will take decisive action to keep hundreds of thousands of families at risk of foreclosure in their homes and will help stabilize the housing markets across the Nation that have been wracked by an unprecedented drop in home values over the last 2 years.

Make no mistake: The slumping housing market has had negative, rippling effects throughout our economy. It is not just people in houses that are having problems, but the subprime crisis has affected our entire country and the availability of credit. And thus it is imperative that we take responsible, reasonable steps such as this to strengthen our weak economy and ultimately benefit not just those who are at risk of losing their homes, but every American.

As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed out in a speech on Monday, Monday, just a few days ago, at Columbia University, ``High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy.''

And the answer is, don't pet your dog. It was bad behavior. Leave him alone. Or punish him. What we want to do is help people do the right thing.

He continued: ``Therefore, doing what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interests of lenders and borrowers, it's in everybody's interest.'' Those are Bernanke's words. Not Chairman Frank's. Not mine.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this legislation, the product of hard work by Chairman Barney Frank and so many others, is designed to do: Avoid preventable foreclosures.

There is little question that after an historic housing boom in the first half of this decade we now are faced with a housing crisis. Foreclosures soared to an all-time high in the last quarter of 2007. According to Mortgage Bankers Association, more than 1.2 million properties received foreclosure notices in 2007, up 75 percent from 2006. And 1 in 33 homeowners is projected to be in foreclosure over the next 2 years. So much for a great economy.

This legislation, in short, will expand the FHA program so that borrowers in danger of losing their homes can refinance into lower- cost, government-insured mortgages that they can afford to repay.

I've heard so much talk about a family-friendly Congress. Family values. Caring about children. What can be more family friendly than keeping families in their homes? I think not too many things.

But to be clear, this bill will minimize taxpayer exposure. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of putting homeowners into affordable loans under the bill would be not $30 billion, not $20 billion, not $10 billion, but a total of $2.7 billion. A few days in Iraq. A few days in Iraq. Not a month. A few days in Iraq.

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from some, this bill is not a bailout for irresponsible lenders or borrowers. Only primary residences are eligible. Investors and lenders must take significant losses, as they should. The owner of the old mortgage can only receive 85 percent of the current value of the home.

And in return for an FHA guarantee on the mortgage, borrowers must share with the government any profit from the resale of a refinanced home. The government will only have liability if the borrower defaults and the amount recovered in foreclosure is below the outstanding debt still owed.

Furthermore, this legislation includes tax provisions to expand refinancing opportunities and to spur home buying.

It increases the VA home loan limit for high-cost housing areas, which we passed before, enabling veterans to have more homeownership opportunities. We are having people come home from Iraq. We are going to be talking about that. They may have lost their home because they went to Iraq and they couldn't keep their home. This helps them get back in a home.

And it includes FHA modernization provisions that have already passed this House, as well as GSE reforms such as strengthening the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and raising their loan limits to increase liquidity in the mortgage market.

Chairman Frank has talked to Secretary Paulson about that. I have talked to Secretary Paulson about that. I am sure many of you on your side of the aisle have talked to Secretary Paulson about that. He thinks this is absolutely essential.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's mitigate the effects of the bursting of the housing bubble. Let's prevent hundreds of thousands, and perhaps up to 1 million people, from foreclosure and allow American families to stay in their homes through this responsible legislation.

Let's stabilize our housing market and help millions and millions of homeowners who are not at risk of foreclosure, but whose neighbors are at risk for foreclosure, and if they are foreclosed upon, will see their home values deteriorate. So the assistance is not just to those at risk of foreclosure, but to all those who are in communities where homes are at risk.

Let's pass this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation today and work to get it to the President's desk without delay. I am hopeful that the President will see fit to sign it. Vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' on the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Vote ``yes'' for the families of America.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday no votes are expected at this time.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A final list of suspension bills will be announced, as is the custom, by the close of business tomorrow. We expect to consider the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. In addition, we also hope to consider the farm bill conference report. And it is possible, if the budget conference were completed, that we might consider that as well.

It's likely that that will happen. I can't assert that, but I think it's likely.

As you know, the farm bill has been up to agreement and then back. I understand it is now agreed to and that Mr. Peterson would like to bring it to the floor, assuming that the agreement holds, on Wednesday. So I think it's likely.

If the gentleman will yield, I see the chairman on the floor. The chairman and I have discussed that issue, and that's why I indicate that it is likely. Mr. Peterson has worked extraordinarily hard, along with a lot of others. But because he's on the floor, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for the work that he has put in on this. It's been a very rough conference and a very rough agreement. But he and Mr. LaTourette have worked closely together, and I congratulate them both.

I said Mr. LaTourette. I'm sure he's worked hard, too, but Mr. Goodlatte is the ranking member.

First, let me say that I don't believe that the PAYGO, under the proposal that has been made, applies to the GI Bill, to the Webb bill, or to whatever bill there might be. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has a bill as well. Mr. Mitchell has worked very hard on his bill. But however that might be considered, we believe that technically it does not need a waiver of PAYGO. But, clearly, the unemployment insurance, which would be considered as an emergency, as was the stimulus for stimulating the economy, would be dealt with as an emergency.

Will my friend yield?

We were trying to get it done quickly this week. There were some delays, as I recall, in the process. That was not the only reason, as the gentleman has observed. But we hope to get it done quickly.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I will say that Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin has worked very hard on that. I'm sure Mr. Boozman has as well. The committee has addressed that bill. It's a good bill. It's not as extensive, as you know, as the Webb bill, which has also been worked on pretty hard by former Secretary of the Navy Webb, Jim Webb, the Senator from Virginia. Both bills obviously seek to make sure that our warriors who come back, those who have defended freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, that when they come back, we invest in their education so they, in turn, can grow our economy and our country and do what the veterans of World War II did. But we're looking at those and they're under discussion.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly agree with the sentiments he has just expressed, which is why, of course, we want to see this move forward quickly in the supplemental. But the alternatives that the gentleman has expressed are being looked at.

We certainly, as you know, passed a number of pieces of legislation which have attempted to look at a number of different issues. One, of course, was the manipulation by the OPEC nations to artificially inflate prices. The other thing we have looked at is price gouging at the pump. We passed that. The other item we looked at, of course, was the energy bill itself. And the other was we asked the FTC to look at manipulation. We wrote to the FTC about 3 weeks ago. The FTC gave

attention to our letter and is now exercising, as I understand, its jurisdiction under the legislation that we passed to look at prices.

In addition, we have numerous hearings scheduled. We've had some this week, next week, and the week after looking at various different aspects of this. Clearly, our consuming public, whether they be commercial, which are probably having the most critical problem because that's their livelihood, as well as those of us who are not driving for commercial sake but for important sake, to get to school, to get to work, to get to hospitals, to do all those things, we are very cognizant, as I know all of us are, of the strain that is being put on the consumers of our country.

Not only are they seeing an economic downturn, but at the same time that they are having reduced capacity to purchase things critical to them, gasoline and home heating oil are going up almost every week 5 to 10 cents. And so we are addressing that. We met with all the chairmen who reported out the energy bill last year and asked them to address this issue short term, medium term and long term.

Will the gentleman yield on that?

One of the things I know I am personally for, and I think the Speaker is for that, as well, and we have urged the administration to take action, is not purchase additional oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time. I would be opposed to taking oil out of the reserve. But if we stop purchasing oil for a period of time, reduce our demand as we fill the SPR, not only will we reduce demand, economists tell us that would have an effect on price, perhaps about the same as the gasoline tax holiday that you refer to.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. Mr. Welch has a bill. Mr. Lampson has a bill. And many, many other Members have a bill. The administration, we believe, can do this on its own. We think that would be good policy while we have this crisis to stop filling up, not reducing, but to stop filling up our own reserve and reduce demand. Economists tell us that would have a positive effect on bringing prices down as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say that both the Speaker and I believe that the administration, in reaching an agreement that you refer to, made a positive step in terms of incorporating within trade agreements a consideration of workers' rights and environmental concerns so that our manufacturers and our job producers in the United States had a fair, more level playing field in which to compete and that our workers were competing with workers who had the right to organize and were getting decent wages.

The Colombia agreement, as you know, was not sent down here after agreement between the administration and the House leadership. The response was to simply not take it off the agenda but take the time limit during which we might consider that. That was an interim step which did not, as the Speaker has pointed out, take Colombia off the agenda. It simply didn't put it on the agenda for immediate consideration. But that is still on the agenda. It is still available, a force, and it is still under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, for morning-hour debate.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I understand that there is substantial angst among the minority. I empathize with that angst. I've been there.

Having said that, I do not empathize with the abuse of process. And because

I do not empathize with the abuse of process, as I have said before, I am going to ask the Speaker to limit the time in which voting is allowed to that which is provided for in the rules. You did that; we're now going to do it.

Somebody said, ``About time.'' I agree with you. Abuse of process is when, and everybody knows this could be done. On our side in the minority we could have kept open for 2 hours with having every 30 seconds somebody come down the aisle. We all know that's possible. I've known that was possible for some period of time. We try to accommodate people who want to change their vote. We try to accommodate people who want to vote. We try to accommodate people who are late.

The problem with accommodating people who are late, if we make it in order in effect, not because of the rules but because of the comity of the House, to allow what just happened, we can, you're correct, in effect do a filibuster by vote changing. We don't have filibusters in the House. They have it in the Senate. I don't think the Senate works particularly well.

You can have your motions. I haven't said anything. Our Members haven't said anything. You're certainly entitled to that. But what just happened, as I said, in my opinion, is an abuse of the Chair's forbearance. The Chair has the responsibility to determine when the vote is concluded.

The vote changing on a motion to adjourn, I know that probably all of you did polls on that and focus groups on whether or not you should vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on that vote and that led to your changing your vote one way or the other, sometimes maybe twice because you were having difficulty deciding.

But I just want to let everybody know that while we cannot nor are we going to preclude you from doing your motions to adjourn, what just happened is not appropriate for the House, for either side, to simply use a device of changing votes, of voting late, of lining up in the aisle and coming down every 30 seconds or so with a ``one more vote.'' That, in my opinion, is not appropriate for the House to pursue.

Mr. Gingrich sent out a letter, as we have said before, said he was going to call votes 15 minutes and 2 minutes later. You've all heard from Mr. Gingrich lately. He has a lot of advice and counsel. I don't always follow it. But on this, he made the point that I'm making, that we have now had, I don't know, 20, 25 motions to adjourn in which we voted on, reconsiderations to be voted on. Nobody has said anything about that.

But I want to tell my friend, the minority leader, that, as I have said before, my inclination at this point in time will be to ask the presiding officer to limit the votes to the 17 minutes, the 15 minutes that is provided and 2 minutes which have been historically accorded.

I yield to my friend.

As I indicated at the outset, I understand your feelings. I said angst, but I understand your feelings. My point is that I understand while you have been making motions to adjourn and making your points, you've made it every time you've stood up, I have made the point that I remember voting on omnibus appropriation bills numerous times, 4 months, 5 months after the appropriations process should have been concluded, long after the year began, which were omnibus bills which we could not change. So we understood that that was, we didn't think, fair.

We understood that we sat here for an hour and 45 minutes while we were winning a vote, and no vote ever changed during an hour and 45 minutes, and the vote was not closed down until, in fact, you changed votes on your side and we lost. We understood that. We didn't like that. We thought that was unfair. I didn't think it was against the rules. I've said that. But I thought it was unfair.

All I am saying to my friend, the minority leader, and to my friends on the minority side, that what just occurred is not an acceptable, in our opinion--my opinion, forget about our opinion, I haven't talked to anybody else--in my opinion, way for us to operate the House. The motions, yes, but simply changing votes for the purpose of delay could take an hour, could take 2 hours depending upon how many times people wanted to change.

Mr. Gingrich, we don't hold to it, we understand that, but he said 15 minutes plus 2. I have said that before and some people cheered. Fifteen minutes plus 2, or 5 minutes plus 2 if it's a 5-minute vote, is what we have set as the norm and the comity and the fairness to individuals to exercise their deliberative judgment.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, it was not my purpose to stand here and exchange recriminations or look at history. I think both sides could do that.

It was my purpose to stand and say what we have just done we cannot allow because we would stop the business of the House. We're slowing down the business of the House, and that's allowable, but we're not going to allow the business of the House to be stopped by, we believe, conduct inconsistent with the rules.

Dilatory tactics are not allowed under the rules. Dilatory tactics are specifically provided for as being conduct which need not be countenanced by the House.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

That's correct.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think my comments go as spoken. I expect you to continue to follow those actions which you think are necessary, but I did want to put you on notice because I don't want anything to happen that you're not on notice of.

I yield to my friend.

I don't want to shock anybody on this floor. My belief is that comity requires that, not the rules. I believe comity ought to be followed to that extent. But if your contention is that you can have 200 people stand in that aisle and one every 20 seconds come in and take 20 seconds to change their vote and submit it and the Speaker is hostage to the 199 people waiting to step into the aisle while they're standing there, the answer to your question is yes, I believe the Speaker has the authority under the good order of the House, and I believe the presiding officer has the absolute authority.

Mr. Linder, who is sitting here, shut down a vote. I think he was within the rules. There were two people in the well. Now, that was changed----

You object to the action or the assertion?

I certainly will.

Let me correct my statement. They were not in the well. They were coming down the aisle. But I think the point is the same. Somebody was seeking to vote. Mr. Linder decided the vote was over. I think Mr. Linder acted within the rules.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Ladies and gentlemen, after consultation with the minority leadership, we will not be having any more votes tonight, it is my understanding. That's a happier announcement, I know, so I thought I would make it, trying to even things out here.

We will have a suspension vote at the end of the consideration of the Waters bill. The votes will be rolled until tomorrow, and so that there will be no more votes tonight. There will be a suspension vote, but the minority has indicated that there will not be a vote on that suspension bill.

We will then, tomorrow, finish the votes on the Waters bill, and then go to the Franks housing bill and complete that tomorrow. My expectation is we are probably talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 o'clock tomorrow, assuming that things are nice and pleasant and peaceful.

Have a good night's sleep.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected, and I underline ``expected,'' in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list of suspension bills will be announced, as is our practice, by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider legislation to address the housing crisis, including bills reported out of the Financial Services Committee regarding the Federal Housing Administration and H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008. We also hope to consider the farm bill conference report.

That is possible that they would be considered separately. I have not conferred with Mr. Frank, the chairman, so I can't definitively say that. I'm not absolutely sure, but the answer to your question is it's possible.

If I had my druthers and I could make it happen, all of them would be within the context of that 11 days to which you refer. The chairman of the Budget Committee is on the floor. I know he's been working very, very hard, and I believe that we are close on the budget conference. I think that may well be a possibility.

There may well be other conference reports available as well. I cannot tell you now specifically that there are bills that I am absolutely assured will be ready for that time frame, but I do believe that there will be significant pieces ready.

The DOD authorization bill will, of course, be considered on the week of the 18th, I believe. That's the week of the 18th. The supplemental is obviously on our radar screen, and we hope to pass the supplemental before we leave as well. I was hoping for next week. That still is a possibility, but I'm not assured that they will be in place, ``they'' being Mr. Obey in our discussions. I'm not sure what his plans will be, whether he can move it ahead that quickly.

The budget conference, of course the farm bill conference, the supplemental, and the DOD authorization are major pieces of legislation I want to see passed before we leave.

That is an option as well as in the best of all possible worlds, the conference would be completed and we could pass the bill itself. If that does not happen, we will contemplate an extension.

I think that's, candidly, still up in the air. I know that's of concern to you. I understand that concern, but I will tell you again, I think it's still up in the air.

Mr. Obey has been discussing with the Senate how they think we can best move forward as expeditiously as possible and so that we can try to achieve the end.

As you know, there is substantial discussion about what is in the supplemental. The President, as you know, has indicated that and Mr. Nussel has indicated that if anything above the dollars asked essentially for Iraq and Afghanistan are included for investment here in this country on various different items, perhaps dealing with unemployment insurance, perhaps dealing with energy credits so that we can ensure the expansion of alternative enterprises for alternative fuels, those are all being discussed to see whether they are possibilities in terms of passage and, hopefully, signature by the President.

We think that there are a number of items that are critically important to pass now that we think this bill is appropriate for but we don't have agreement on at this point in time. But Mr. Obey is working today and hopefully tomorrow, and we have a number of meetings today to see if we can move that forward.

So I regret I do not have a more definitive answer for you, but that is the candid answer.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As it relates to the first item, the GI Bill, there is a comprehensive GI Bill, as you know, sponsored by Mr. Webb. Also Ms. Herseth over here and others have legislation which tries to respond to the critical need that our veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq now have because they have substantially less generous benefits and, therefore, less opportunity to reintegrate themselves into the community and stabilize themselves and their families. We believe that is a cost of the war.

I don't believe that under the current suggestion, and I'm not suggesting that it's in or out at this point in time, I'm not suggesting there is anything in or out in terms of proposal, but it is my belief that that would not require a waiver of the PAYGO given the context in which it may be considered. What I mean by that, and not to be too esoteric, is that we may respond to the need this coming year as opposed to a longer term.

Will the gentleman yield?

As you know, we came together and we agreed on the passage of a stimulus package. We passed a stimulus package because we thought our economy was either about to go in recession or was in recession-- not at the time when we passed it, but that

seems to be the case now--and the stimulus package was designed to either keep us out or to bring us out of a recession and to try to help our people who are at risk. As you know, we did that on an emergency basis. The reason we did that on an emergency basis, we felt, in terms of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same time. So the answer to your question, for instance, on unemployment insurance, that may well fall in the same category from our perspective.

I thank the gentleman for his observations. I think he and I have a difference on the perception of some of the items that he mentioned as being analogous to some of the other items that we have discussed.

On the AMT, for instance, there is a disagreement on that alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was not intended, I don't think by any of us, to impact the people that it is now impacting. I believe strongly that we ought to fix the AMT, not just for this coming year, but permanently, and we ought to pay for that. And the reason I think that we ought to do that is, A, it clearly falls within the ambit of PAYGO, and secondly, because I think that our generation incurred this liability and we ought to pay for that liability.

But some of the things that we have already mentioned I think are more analogous, not to tax extenders, giving additional tax relief or fixing the AMT, but are, as the UI is, unemployment insurance, directed to an emergency that confronts us as a result of a substantial downturn in the economy, which is analogous, I think, to the stimulus package, which is why we didn't consider that to be a PAYGO issue and were prepared not to address it in a PAYGO way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You mentioned the States. One of the things that we're very concerned about is the very substantial fiscal adverse impact to the States that will be caused by the change in the Medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. That is one of the items under consideration because that change, as I understand it from Mr. Waxman--as a matter of fact, we just talked about it--will have a very great adverse financial impact on the States. I'm sure you received a letter similar to the one that I received from both Democratic and Republican Governors asking us to address that.

So there clearly are some items which have impact on the States. Very frankly the discussion is, how many of those do we try to address, if any, in the supplemental? How many do we address in the stimulus package? Or how many do we address in separate legislation?

One of the positive aspects of the stimulus package, as you will recall because you and I were in the room, was that Secretary Paulson, on behalf of the administration, the Speaker, you and I and Mr. Boehner sat down together and talked about how we can get from where we were to where we wanted to get, and we came to agreement. We have been unable to do that, as you know, on some of these things that we think are of serious concern, and the Medicaid regulations are an example of that.

I thank the gentleman for his observation. He has made it before. I will say that other Members, for whom I have a great deal of respect, on your side of the aisle have discussed this with me. I think your point is well taken, and that is under discussion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't have information now about the status of that bill, where it is. Obviously it's a bipartisan bill, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Walden and others. It is a bill that, very frankly, has been brought up in the context of whether it might be included in some other pieces of legislation, so that it obviously has bipartisan support. I will look at it and discuss it with Mr. DeFazio and let you know where we are on it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Without going into the polemics of the politics that we exchange on this of what legislation we have passed through here, which was, we think, directed at trying to address the short-term problems, dealing with OPEC, dealing with manipulation of prices, dealing with price gouging, which many, if not all of you, on your side voted against. Suffice it to say I think all of us are concerned about the high prices of gasoline. Suffice it to say that all of us, if we're honest, know that in the short term it's going to be very difficult to impact on that. Thirdly, that the solution longer term is obviously moving towards alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy.

We passed a major piece of legislation last year. Happily we passed it in somewhat of a bipartisan fashion, not totally, I don't mean everybody unanimously voted for it. But the President did sign it. The President said it was a step forward. For the first time in a very long period of time it said our automobiles need to be more efficient. For the first time in a very long time it required the use of alternative fuels. So that we addressed initially, and there's much more that needs to be done, longer term solutions.

Short-term solutions are tough. There is discussion about the SPR. There are discussions about taxes, gasoline taxes, as you know. There are other discussions. If you have ideas, we would be glad to have them in terms of what can be done in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, many of you have heard me, and Mr. Dreier as well, over the years speak to how extraordinarily advantaged we are in the House of Representatives, and the American people are, by the quality and commitment of the staff that serves this institution.

It doesn't serve Republicans or Democrats, but it serves the purposes of assuring that this institution runs in a way that gets the business of the American people done in a way that's productive and positive for them and for our country.

Regretfully, I am going to observe the retirement of one of those people. Happily, I can extol his virtues. I've known him for a very long period of time. I've seen his work, conscientious, able, and a very positive impact on this institution.

Mark O'Sullivan, who is sitting just to my left on the second-level rostrum, has been with us 31 years in the House, and he commutes from Baltimore every day. I don't know whose district he is in, maybe Mr. Cummings' or Mr. Ruppersberger's. I'm not sure whose district he is in, but I'm sure they are happy that he is living there, although he's totally bipartisan, I'm sure.

He has done an outstanding job. I have always found him to be in even humor, even in the toughest of times. Even in the times when the body sometimes gets more loud and uproarious than at other times, he maintains an even demeanor. And, as I say, the competency and the talent and the commitment and the character he has brought to his job has advantaged our country and the House of Representatives.

Mark, we thank you. Congratulations to you. We wish you the very best, and we look forward to seeing you back here in the near future and repeating it.

Madam Speaker, today we commemorate one of the most tragic chapters in human history: the Armenian genocide, whose 93rd anniversary is marked today. From 1915 to 1923, officials of the Ottoman Empire carried out a systematic campaign of massacres and forced deportations of Armenians from their homeland. All told, 1.5 million innocent men, women and children were murdered in this genocide, and 500,000 became refugees and displaced persons.

And sadly, we see this pattern--of genocide--repeating itself today. It is no coincidence that on this very day of commemoration, the news from Darfur grows only worse. While the world's worst humanitarian and human rights crisis continues to unfold, the regime in Khartoum continues to stymie the implementation of a peacekeeping force, and the peace process has ground to a halt. From the U.N. come frightening new figures--300,000 dead and the vast majority of the region's population, 4.27 million out of 6 million, now ``seriously affected'' by the conflict.

Clearly, patterns repeat themselves. Which is all the more reason why, in commemorating the 20th century's first genocide, one cannot help but feel compelled to redouble our efforts to resolve the 21st century's first genocide--that of Darfur.

The Genocide Convention speaks not only of addressing genocide after it has happened--but also of preventing genocide. This day of commemoration should remind us all that we have a responsibility not only to honor the victims of genocide and their families, not only a responsibility to the past, but to the future. In the face of continuing genocide, we have a responsibility for action--not apathy.

In a July 24, 1915 cable, American Consul Leslie Davis said of the genocide of Armenians, ``I do not believe there has ever been a massacre in the history of the world so general and thorough as that which is now being perpetrated in this region or that a more fiendish, diabolical scheme has ever been conceived by the mind of man.'' Today, those words strike us not only as tragic--but as outdated. The troubled 20th century showed us, again and again and again, that the mind of man is more than capable of such diabolical schemes.

Today, burdened by the memory of those crimes, we remember and rededicate. Today we return to the origin of genocide, and we honor the dead. Let us find in their memory not only grief, but new resolution-- to speedily end today's atrocities, to prevent those of tomorrow, and to punish all those who would attempt or carry out evil on such a scale.

I thank the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list of suspension bills, as usual, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act.

Finally, Members should note that on Wednesday, the Prime Minister of Ireland, The Honorable Bertie Ahern, will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate.

Yes.

Yes.

I thank my friend for yielding.

As you have read, we are discussing how to process the supplemental. As I indicated to you, it is my intention that we will pass the supplemental prior to Memorial Day. By that, I mean in sufficient time so the Senate can do so as well so we can pass it finally.

That is my hope and my intention. We are still working on the components of the supplemental, and very frankly, it has not yet been finally decided as to how that might be processed. Obviously, at times in the past it has been added to other legislation. In other times, it has been passed as a free-standing bill. Committee consideration, obviously, is part of the regular order, if we go that way, but there are other ways to go. We want to facilitate the passage of it as quickly as possible.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Our intent obviously, as I said, is to pass this bill. Obviously we are considering the best way to do so, giving every Member an opportunity to vote as they see fit on various component parts of the supplemental, and we are considering how best to do that.

I understand, certainly, the committee's concern, having served on that committee for about 24 years, and having considered a number of supplementals. As a member of that committee, I understand that concern. But I will tell the gentleman that we are trying to proceed in a way that will facilitate the passage of this bill to the Senate and hopefully transmittal to the President prior to the Memorial Day break.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will tell the gentleman that very definitely it's being discussed. We believe this is a cost of war. We have over 4,000 families who have lost husbands, wives, brothers and sisters. We have over 30,000 severely injured. Obviously, the GI bill for those who came home from World War II and Korea had very good benefits that were helpful to them. Unfortunately, particularly with respect to our Guard and Reserve, that is not the case.

Jim Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy, now the Senator from Virginia, as you know, has introduced a bill. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on this side has also introduced a bill. Others have introduced legislation trying to make sure that the veterans who are coming home from Iraq that have been deployed for long periods of time, have had their lives very substantially disrupted, their families' lives disrupted, fighting for their country, that this is a cost of war.

We are trying to address this, and the gentleman is correct, there is discussion about, as a cost of war, having this proceed to the President perhaps on the supplemental. That is under discussion. That decision has not been made. But it's certainly very high on our priority list to take care of these veterans that have come home and give them the kind of benefits that we think they are due as great patriots who have sacrificed for our country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the good news is that certainly on the farm bill, Mr. Peterson indicates that progress is being made. As you know, we extended it to May 2 to give the conference committee a little more time.

They have been working at it very diligently. It's difficult. There were substantial differences, not so much partisan differences, but substantial differences between the two Houses. The Democrats and Republicans, frankly, on both sides of the issues.

We believe that progress is being made. I am hopeful that we can, in the next week, have a conference report on the farm bill on the floor. I am hopeful. I am not predicting that, but I am hopeful.

As to the budget, I think progress is being made there as well. There are some thorny issues. We are very committed to PAYGO. You mentioned PAYGO as it relates to the GI bill. We are committed to PAYGO. I was very pleased to hear that some of your members want to make sure that the veterans bill is paid for. The war costs, which we believe the veterans benefit are a part of, are not paid for, as you know, in the President's proposal.

But with respect to the third conference, the higher education bill, let me see if I have a note here. We are also making progress, it says, on the higher education conference. But it is likely, according to the chairman, that we will need a short-term extension next week because apparently they are not sure that they will get it finished by next week. So we may need an extension. If so, we will bring one to the floor. I presume that will be in agreement with both the ranking member and the chairman.

I would just say we are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of Ireland.