us begin this morning by acknowledging the presence of god the almighty lord we praise you for having giving us given us this good earth and having called us to take care of her resources lord you have blessed us with opportunities and freedom for people of all backgrounds lord inspire our nation's leaders to seek justice defend liberty and unite diverse cultures and languages lord bless our nation's representatives here today fill them with their wisdom to make laws that will provide for all lord you made us in your own wonderful image look with compassion on families remove the arrogance and hatred that impacts our hearts break down walls that separate us unite us and bonds of love work there was struggles to accomplish your purpose in time all people will serve you in harmony lord god almighty we humbly humbly ask you to bless us now and forever a the chairs examine the journal of the last days proceedings and announces to the house her approval there of pursuant to cause one of rule one the journal stands approved madam speaker for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the she can right madam speaker pursuant to clause one role one i demand a vote on a grant to the speaker's approval of the journal thank you the question is i'm agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal those in favor of please say i those opposed no the  it the journal stands approved and speaker i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present make the point of order that a quorum is not present pursuant to cause a just rule twenty for the proceedings on this question are postponed without objection the gentleman from california miscellaneous is recognized for one minute thank you madam speaker and good morning to all it's a privilege and honor today to welcome a dear friend of mine father richard a straw to who travel from los angeles to be here to provide the house with its opening prayer i'm delighted to present father's strada to my colleagues and i want to thank him for taking the time for being here as we celebrate hispanic heritage month it is fitting to have father's s strada has dedicated his entire life to serving those less fortunate than us particularly the homeless and at risk youth he is the founder and executive director of holderness inc a nonprofit organization which serves the homeless in at risk immigrant youth and other disadvantage individuals from the east los angeles area he is the associate pastor of our lady of queen of angels catholic church la plus sita the oldest church probably in the country received a bachelor of arts degree from the university of san francisco and studied theology and pastoral counseling at the graduate school of theology in berkeley california the mexican american cultural center in san antonio texas and fred nile school in whittier california in addition to his advocacy on behalf of the homeless and young people fathers strada is a champion for the humane treatment of all immigrants and their families in fact i recall him asking me to go with him across the border to place bottles water for those immigrants that were dying in the fields and in the desert i asked my colleagues to welcome father richard to the house today and we have before us a great man of honor and compassion thank you and i  entertain up to fifteen one minute on each side what purposes gentleman from ohio arise one morning without o have close ties to vice president cheney and are large donors to president bush the deal also appears to undercut the goal of oil revenue sharing but is predictably consistent with the administration's attempt to privatizing iraqi oil assets both hunt oil company in kurdistan are strong allies with the bush administration and as i've said for five years this war is about oil the bush administration desires private control of iraqi oil but we have no right to force or activity give up control of their oil we have no right to set preconditions for iraq which lead iraq to giving up control of their oil the constitution of iraq designates that the oil of iraq is the property for all iraqi people i'm calling for a congressional investigation to determine the role of the administration may have played in the one kurdistan deal the effect the deal would have on the oil revenue sharing plan and the attempt by the administration to privatizing iraqi oil the administration misled congress and the media into thinking that expired oil the new majority promised that they would quote drain the swamp the new majority seem to recognize that the political cost of earmarks far outweighed the benefits and modest reforms were instituted to make the process more transparent however it soon became clear that the year mark reform rhetoric was not matched by reality the old majority seems just as mired in the mud as the old still still it was with some excitement that i recently discovered in the house passed interior  fifty thousand dollar earmarked for the great swamp national wildlife preserve in new jersey predictably this remark was not to drain the swamp but to preserve it this begs the question if we can stop passing earmarks to preserve swamps how will we ever drain the omark swamp mr speaker our constituents in this institution deserve far better let's follow up on our promises for earmark reform with actual reform you'll back what first gentleman from north carolina rise without objection mr speaker the news about health care in our nation continues to get more discouraging especially when it comes to health insurance for children new census data shows that the number of children without health insurance in the united states has grown over the last year by seven hundred thousand to nearly eight point seven million children this means that now one in nine american kids does not have health insurance to try and reverse these unacceptable trends the democratic congress voted last month to reauthorize the children's health insurance program our legislation will provide an additional five million low income children with health insurance they need to live have thier lives these kids are already eligible but not enroll mr speaker president bush has threatened to veto this legislation despite bipartisan support it received in congress and from our governors in the face of these discouraging new census numbers it is time for the president to end his veto threat and pledges support for this legislation that will provide eleven million children with the health care coverage they need and passengers pay but now this increased revenue isn't enough for some they want to tax flyers even more to fly right now the citizen buys a typical round to trip ticket the fares about two hundred thirty dollars but additional taxes raised the fare another forty five dollars so the passengers now paying two hundred seventy five dollars airports now want to collect more federal taxes from each passenger by increasing the passenger facility charge another word for text to seven dollars per passenger per segment what that means is a family of four flash from odessa texas to washington d c with a stopover in dallas they're going to pay another hundred twelve dollars in more taxes airports already get plenty of money they sell bonds they get millions in federal city and state taxes they charge airlines for gates in the right to land they get taxes off rental cars and they lease airport space to businesses airports should make do with the abundance of revenue they already get from the taxpayers don't raise taxes anymore own passengers and that's the way it is what purpose do women from vermont rise without objection thank you well president bush is asking congress and the american people to give his failed policy in iraq more time even some of the president's closest allies don't believe the strategy will work and last week it was reported the hunt oil company of dallas texas had signed an oil exploration and production deal with the kurdish region regional government that hunt oil company is owned by ray hunt a major campaign supporter of president bush and a member of the president's foreign intelligence advisory board his decision to bypass the iraqi government in baghdad and negotiate directly with the kurds shows his lack of confidence that iraq will develop a functioning government in the near future and undermine important efforts for the iraqi oil sharing law which collapsed last week but president bush is asking our nation to sacrifice more of our brightest young soldiers and to spend hundreds of billions more in taxpayer dollars in pursuit of his iraq strategy one of the president's closest allies travel throughout my south central michigan district i have learned over the past few months in town hall meetings small group meetings or coffees that virtually all americans believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have worn the uniform in service to our country unfortunately democrat leadership in both chambers appears willing to make the veterans appropriations bill which funds are now a nation's veterans health care become part of political gamesmanship in washington it appears democrats may withhold sending this bipartisan veterans funding bill to the president in an effort to ensure greater spending levels for their pet projects there's a chance democrats will hold off on final passage of this legislation so they can conclude it in a massive budget busting spending bill at the end of the year let me be very clear the funding of veterans should not be a political issue congress should swiftly pass this important legislation and republicans and democrats should jointly celebrate when it becomes law and i yield back what birth mr speaker last week president bush told the american people that the status quo would continue in iraq for another ten months last year the american people demanded a change of course in iraq they wanted us to begin the process of bringing our troops home the president's response a troop escalation plan that sent an additional thirty thousand troops to iraq at the time he said that if there were the iraqi government did not meet certain economic and political benchmarks they would lose the support of our nation after months of delay september became the moment of truth and despite the fact that the nonpartisan g a o report found that the iraqi government had failed to fully meet fifteen of the eighteen benchmarks the president said the troop escalation plan is going to continue until next summer mr speaker it's now clear that the president's only plan for iraq is to stay the course until we can hand off the war to his successor the time for stalling is over staying the course is no longer acceptable it's time for republicans to join us in charting a new course i yield back the balance of light for what purpose and gentle lady from michigan writes in and then to address the house for one minute revise and extend without objection mr speaker there has been a great deal of talk over the years that the big three domestic auto companies have been too generous in providing pay and benefits to their workers which has made them less competitive well i think it is wrong that these companies that helped literally helped create the american middle class have been attacked in such a way but detractors of our domestic auto industry fail to understand that blatant cheating by foreign competitors and foreign governments on such matters as currency manipulation and piracy of intellectual property distort the marketplace and give foreign companies a competitive advantage detractors now want to expand the attack on our domestic auto industry by imposing direct kone in fuel economy standards that will benefit foreign companies and cost american jobs enough is enough the american auto companies and the u a w are poised to revolutionize the way health care and other benefits are delivered to auto workers retirees and their family members and at the same time the companies and their incredible scientists are working on new technologies for the vehicles of the future that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil now is not the time for increased government regulation that will simply kill american jobs or you'll back what person gentleman from new jersey rise without objection was the speaker elections do make a difference last november democrats promise that if the american people and trust us with control of congress one of our top six priorities will be putting college in reach for more america's this week the democratic congress delivers on the promise sending the college cost reduction and that's a fact that a precedent for the president says he will sign it which is good news for millions of students and families who are trying to fulfill the american dream the landmark legislation is the largest college aid expansion since the g i bill in one thousand nine hundred four under the legislation the maximum pell grant the scholarship will increase by more than a thousand dollars over the next five years more than five point five million low and moderate income students w receive an immediate boost of almost five hundred dollars in the pell grant scholarship the legislation also cuts into a space in here on student loans which will save the average student one thousand four hundred dollars over the life of the college alone  y to call attention to the unnecessary delay in passing this year's veterans appropriations this year's veterans appropriation passed with an overwhelming majority in both houses four hundred and nine to two in this body and ninety two to one in the senate this kind of bipartisanship makes it clear to all that congress takes its obligation to our nation's veterans very seriously i sincerely believe americans veterans want to see a final versions of veterans funding quickly passed so they can may receive the desperate needed funding however after the illness will not be the case last week one democratic aide asked about this year's veterans appropriation was quoted in roll call saying these bills can constitute the little bit of leverage we have  speaker and the sacrifices of great young men and women that our young men and women are making in iraq and afghanistan are not leverage the tragedies that occurred at walter reed are not leverage veterans health care is not political leverage we must recognize that veterans funding is critical and should not be used for partisan politics i urge my colleagues to rise above the partisan bickering in the past these are veterans are demanding to not betray us what mr speaker according to the u s department of education an estimated two hundred thousand academically qualified students are not able to go to college every year because they can't afford the cost this is a dangerous trend for our nation but it's not surprising under the bush administration prices at public colleges have increased my by forty percent after inflation and under republican rule pell grants remain stagnant for four years in a row when our democratic majority was elected we pledged to address this growing crisis and this week or for fulfilling that place by sending the college cost reduction and access act to the president's desk this important legislation provides the single largest increase in college aid since the g i bill increases the maximum pell grant over the next five years and cuts interest rates in half on needs based and loans mr speaker this legislation will kill millions of students across our nation afford a college education without saddling themselves with thousands of dollars in debt and it is the latest example of what the democratic what first generated from tennessee  without objection thank you mr speaker i rise today is a strong supporter of the state children's health insurance program as chad and i support a responsible reauthorization of this very successful program everybody knows it's going to expire on september thirtieth unless congress passes reauthorizing legislation by this date however the democrat leadership in the house and the senate have been unsuccessful in completing the package and i'm proud today to stand as an original co sponsor of legislation that would reauthorize says chip for a period of eighteen months by reauthorizing the program for an additional eighteen months we are taking the politics out of s chip policy and protecting the children who are in this program and who deserve the care it is an extension of the program that we need and if it's not enacted at least twelve states are going to find themselves without s chip funds there is a very simple solution to the speaker last month the bush administration dealt yet another blow to the uninsured americans this time focused on millions of uninsured children in our nation new guidelines set forth by the administration require the children must go without health insurance for at least one year before states will be allowed to provide them with coverage under the children's health insurance program the administration also require states to enroll at least ninety five percent of the children below two hundred percent of the federal property level before they can provide health coverage to other low income children a standard that no state in the country can currently meet the bush administration is limiting the very flexibility that is made the chip program successful mr speaker it is unsuccessful it is unconscionable for the president to require low income children to spend a year of their lives without health insurance especially when we have a program in place that can provide them with the coverage they need today it is time for the president to stop point political games with the children's health care and deval to work with us to strengthen not weaken the chip program thank you and i you back the balance of my time what purpose generally from minnesota  objection mr speaker too often we hear about the negatives of america's teenagers but today i rise to congratulate the work of a wonderful young accomplished woman from my district the sixth district in minnesota her name mr speaker's miss and marin of hugo minnesota she's a very complex young woman representing the next generation of american dairy farmers being an american dairy farmer herself at age nineteen she descends from a long line of minnesota dairy farmers living on a century dairy farm and she was just recently crown princess kay of the milky way and minnesota this is a pretty big deal at the state fair she was crown princess k in and near and will begin a year of speaking and promoting minnesota area dairy farms i'm privileged to represent the area with the largest number of dairy farms in the state of minnesota even more privileged to have married a dairy farmer myself and i join your great parents the mayor fran mirren of hugo minnesota marianne mirren and the people of minnesota to wish you a wonderful year promoting dairy farming in the state of minnesota i yield back for a purpose owner new jersey rise one minute mr speaker without objection mrs speaker president bush says progress is being made in iraq but many of the examples he pointed to in a nationally televised speech last week were overestimated or overly optimistic let me just cite a couple of examples first president bush said that and i quote iraq's national leaders are getting some things done such as sharing oil revenues with the provinces but according to the washington post the president's statement ignored the fact that u s officials have been frustrated that none of these actions have become law and that a possible compromise has collapsed the president also thinks and i quote the thirty six nations who have troops on the ground in iraq but if you had to check with his own state department he would realize that only twenty five countries are still involved in war supplying only eleven thousand six hundred troops now that's less than seven percent of the size of the u s forces still on the ground mrs speaker this is nothing new the president has been painting rosy scenarios for the situation in from the very beginning time and time again they have been proven wrong the status quo simply can't continue it's time to change course first gentleman from california arise which a reform defies it which of course is the foreign intelligence surveillance act mr speaker probably in the three years that i've been here in my second tour of duty as a member of congress no more important bill did i vote on than voting the passage of a reform of fison the admiral indicated that to two thirds of our foreign terrorist targets were blinded from our review as a result of a phase a court decision under the old fison that's why we needed to pass the reform we put a six month leash on it that is it will go out of existence in six months there is no more important thing for this body to do than to pass a reform of that makes permanent the changes that we adopted just a month and a half ago our nation depends on it our children our grandchildren's future depends on it let's make sure we act responsibly what purpose gentleman from north carolina wri without objection that you missed figure traveling to the holy land in august i saw firsthand the challenges facing our ally and friend israel from the syria the terrorist state in the north to lebanon in the chaos existing the further to the north to the enemies that surround the state i saw the challenges travelling down the galilee to the jordan down to the dead sea and going to the capital jerusalem while it is our my great privilege to walk on that sacred holy eye opening national security issues that they face as a nation israel is our greatest ally in the war against islamic extremists and it's our function to support them in israel it is our imperative to to support them that's why our ten year security agreement that we recently signed between the united states and israel is so necessary for the ongoing security not just of israel but of the united states israel's enemies are our enemies we share a common cause and it is necessary that we stand strong for israel because it makes us that much stronger and i encourage the american people to support our greatest ally in the middle east israel and i yield back  back for what purposes gentlemen from new york rise this is speaker by direction of the committee on rules i call a post resolution six six zero and ask for immediate consideration kirtle report the resolution house calendar number one seventeen house resolution six sixty resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker mang pursuant to clause to be of rule eighteen declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill r twenty seven sixty one to extend the terrorism insurance program of the department of treasury and for other purposes the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause nine or ten of rule twenty one general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman ranking minority member of the committee on financial services after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five minute rule and shall be considered as read all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended or wade notwithstanding clause eleven of roll eighteen no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and off honan shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole all points of order further amendments as may have been adopted the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments there to two final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instruction section two during consideration in the house of h r twenty seven sixty one pursuant to this resolution not withstanding the operation of the previous question the chair may postpone further consideration when of the bill to  a time designated by the speaker your art is recognized for one hour thank you mr speaker for purposes of debate only i yield the customary thirty minutes to the gentleman from texas mr sessions all time yield the during consideration of this rules for debate only of my time such as you have myself such time as i may consume i also ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the house resolution six six zero without objection thank you mr speaker house resolution six six zero provides for consideration of h r two seven six one the terrorism risk insurance provision and extension act of two thousand and seven under a structured rule the rule provides one hour of general debate to be controlled by the committee on financial services the rule also makes in order to substitute reported by the committee on financial services modified by the amendment in part a of the rules committee report as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the self executing amendment in part a would ensure that the bill complies with the new paygo requirements it would require the enactment of a joint resolution to permit federal compensation under the terrorism risk insurance act of two thousand and two the joint resolution approving a certification by the secretary of treasury and concurrence with the secretaries of state homeland security and the attorney general and there has been an act of terrorism would be considered by congress under fast track procedures the rule makes an order to amendments printed in the rules committee report each debatable for ten minutes mr speaker the terrorism insurance program was originally enacted as a short term backstop for an insurance industry that was very hard hit by the terrorist attacks that occurred on september eleventh two thousand and one in the years since we have seen that the private insurance market is unable to cover the risk of both domestic and foreign acts  terrorism without assistance the original legislation the terrorism risk insurance act referred to astraea was set to expire at the end of two thousand and five the terrorism risk insurance extension act of two thousand and five extended the government  backstop for two more years through through the end of this year but left the long term questions surrounding the program unanswered those unanswered questions include whether the government run terrorism insurance program is really necessary how to manage the possibility of a nuclear biological chemical or radiological attacks and how best to allocate the risk of terrorist attack between the government and the private insurers the rule provides for consideration of a bill that answers those questions experiences show that there is a true need for government involvement in terrorism insurance the exposure for private companies is just too great in the wake of september eleventh two thousand and one many companies opted to exclude terrorism risks from private insurance policies leaving no coverage in the event of another attack tree requires primary insurers to make terrorism insurance available to commercial clients that wish to purchase a while at the same time helping those insurers manage their exposure to risk of loss the legislation this rule provides for consideration will extra extend tria for fifteen years and make necessary revisions aimed at furthering the development of a price of a private market of terrorism risk insurance such a long term extension is vital because it provides certainty in stability to the insurance and real estate markets people may think of tria is only an issue for businesses in new york city but that is clearly not the case in upstate new york district which i represent small insurance companies like utica first preferred mutual and utica national felt the dramatic impact of nine eleven had on the private market in the year that five followed september eleventh attacks utica first saw the volume of policies they were writing in new york city area increased twenty seven percent as other companies ceased offering coverage in order to do so they risk both their existing surplus and their industry ratings and also incurred greater expense because their own reinsurance required that they purchase a separate terrorism cover small companies like this that continue to offer coverage are to be commended for taking on greater risk exposure in order to provide the necessary coverage and allow businesses to continue in business and people to continue to work to support their families the legislation would also require insurance to insurers to offer coverage for nuclear biological chemical and radiological terrorist acts small insurance like those in my district are especially concerned about the effect of adding the nuclear biological chemical and radiological requirements to trea but the risk of such an attack is real and not having any system in place would enhance the devastating effect such a horrific attack would have if it were happened again in our country this bill strikes a good balance because it not only phases in the nuclear biological chemical and radiological coverage beginning in two thousand and nine but also provides small insurers those whose direct earned premium is less than fifty million dollars the ability to apply for an exemption of up to two years with the possibility of further extending that exemption this legislation would also make several other critical changes to the terrorism risk insurance program it would change the definition of terrorism under tria to include domestic terrorism and reset the program trigger level at fifty million dollars it would expand the program to provide for group life insurance coverage would decrease the doctor bills for terrorist attacks costing over one billion dollars and reduce the trigger law well in the event of such an attack finally it would require studies on the development of a private insurance market for terrorism risk insurance mr speaker this legislation is a critical step in protecting our national and economic security in the fight against terrorism thank you and i reserve the balance of my time cell research this time so much from texas thank you mr speaker mr speaker i rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule that shuts down debate in the house to every member of this body except the chairman of the financial services committee who has already had ample time and opportunity to modify this legislation and to one token republican amendment two nights ago in the democrat rules committee which over the last year has truly solidified its reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the house of representatives we had a wide ranging discussion from members on both sides of the aisle about their proposals to improve this legislation we join this meeting without reporting out a rule so that alternatives to subverting the rules committee jurisdiction while sticking to the democrat paper rule could be studied unfortunately when the opportunity came for the majority to make good on its campaign promises to run the most honest ethical and transparent house and history by providing an open and transparent legislative process members of this house were once again silenced by the heavy handed democrat leadership while i am no longer surprised by the democrat leadership's decision to allow politics to prevail over good government i'm still disappointed because as the sponsor of legislation to extend tree a program in the hundred eighth congress i fundamentally believe that has helped the private sector to stabilize our nation's economy by providing a functioning marketplace for policyholders to acquire terrorism or insurance and for insurers to provide it to them in fact many of the positive aspects of this bill mimic policy proposals included in my legislation and in legislation introduced last congress by my good friend louisiana richard baker like these republican bills today's legislation would extend the current program providing both policyholders and insurers with the certainty needed for long term projects and our domestic economic health to move forward and like prior republican legislation today's bill would eliminate the false dick distance distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror as we have learned from the london bombings and from the recent foiled terrorist plots in germany and in new jersey no country is insulated from home grown terrorism which can be just as destructive and as costly as terrorist from a bar abroad other aspects of this legislation such as the inclusion of nucular biological chemical radiology radiological coverage mimic past republican proposals without including market based modifications that our proposals also contained in order to make this coverage both taxpayer friendly and cost efficient unfortunately there is one proposal in today's legislation that is unprecedented and that i simply cannot support written in the rules committee without any consideration or debate in the financial services committee and then self executed by the rule so that it receives no up or down down vote this rule contains language that skirts aeration recent democrat promises to abide by their own self imposed  rules by shifting the responsibility of funding trade on to future congresses by including this mandate on future congresses which the supreme court has roundly rejected as unconstitutional the market stabilization benefits of tria completely evaporate rather than helping to provide insurance and insurers and policyholders with the certainty that they need to manage their exposure to financial cost of terrorism this bill simply kicks the responsibility down the road and by and large says well that's somebody else worry about that rather than clearly signaling to the private sector what the federal government will spend in the event of another attack on the united states and what their own costs and responsibilities would be this hastily drafted language shoved in in the middle of the night reintroduces political risk into this financial transaction by leaving these hard decisions up to the whims of a future congress mr speaker i think this congress should do better and they can do better than this instead of closed rules an artful dodge as of the pay go rule i think that members and their constituents disserve the openness promised by democrat leadership instead of procedural trickery and inserting language of a mysterious origin into this rule without any minority input or open debate i think that members and their constituents deserve trans perry transparency which was promised by the democrat leadership and most of all instead of leaving the hard decisions and potential costs of this program to future congress i believe that members and their constituents deserve a bill that deals honestly with why of the most serious problems facing the american economy unfortunately this provo bill provides none of these things and is far less responsible approach to dealing with the real world economic problems posed by terrorism to our country more than past republican proposals in fact about the best thing that can be said about this bill and the process under which is being considered today is the fact that perhaps it will spur the senate to provide the american people with a more serious proposal in dealing with tria so that all of the flaws of this legislation can be worked out in conference oppose this rule and encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do the same i reserve the balance of my time john reserves this time john from new york you may be very you five minutes the gentleman from massachusetts believe in the free market so firmly that they believe in it the way other people believe in unicorns they believe in it even when it does not exist there are people who oppose terrorism has concluded from the outset and continue to because they say to be got to the market no one involved in the market thinks that makes sense indeed we received a lot of that a golden section two thousand and five saying there was no evidence that this can become a market item his name was henry paulson and  he quite clearly said at the time the market wouldn't do it we then proceeded with a bill that took general count by the way if the market could do it it shouldn't because here's what the market would do we talk about  if you mess this to the market or if you try to phase this out to the market would take it over the principle and sure and says it should be more expensive to do business in those parts of the country we can likeliest to be hit by terrorists th because that's your its principal if there is a higher risk you judge people more we should not allow murderous fanatics who sheikh to damage this country to dictate what the cost of doing business is in different regions that's not a market decision that's a national security decision i don't want to be more expensive because of the murderers who would try to undermine this country to do business here or there it's also the case that one of the principles of insurance is that you give in and you give incentives to the insured to reduce the risk and you price in a way that gives those incentives people can't avoid the risk there's nothing you can do to stop the terrorists as private citizens from attacking you so we were going ahead with the bill now we had a set of markups in both subcommittee and committee in which there were some disagreements but some agreements a number of amendments offered by republican members were adopted  the bill had a very large vote coming out of committee we then went into a surprising obstacle the congressional budget office issued what seems to me intellectually quite weak opinion they said this is going to cost ten billion dollars over the next five years now a terrorism attack would cause either a ten billion dollars terrorism attack is not within our kind of patient i could see them saying it's not going to cause anything for this period or that it's going to cost hundreds of billions apparently they calculated the probability of a terrorist attack and imputed that cost there will in fact be no course until there's an attack by oh you frank it was at this were justified an emergency waiver under paygo if being attacked by terrorists of september eleventh two thousand and one was not an emergency that i do not understand what the word means we have been fortune out of trying to deal with this in other ways and i understand that it's been forced on us by zero the notion that we can change something now and leave it to future congresses general texas said it was unconstitutional i am aware of no supreme court decision that would invalidate what we have proposed here and the question would be it could be binding the thing is binding a one on a future one i think could be a very high degree of probability so we do have this approach which came up suddenly came up suddenly one debate in our committee because the issue of the c b l estimate hadn't come before us in the committee and so we now have members on the other side complaining that the wall is too restrictive mr speaker when i hear members of the republican party who ran this house in the most blatantly undemocratic fashion for so many years now complain at an act of democracy i feel like i'm in the in a motion picture theater and i'm watching an angle mark burgman dark movie which features the three stooges the in congress woody of these masters of authoritarian legislative procedure now complaining because there isn't enough democracy is one of the great conversions of all time and i would have to say to my born again believers in an open process that in this case at the committee level we had a hearing we had a subcommittee markup an markup and we dealt very much with those issues my own preference would have been two of our few more amendment but the fundamental issues have been debated and the key issue is unfortunately the one that has troubled them is how do you deal with the c b o now either you do a waiver a pay go or you make cuts now with ten billion dollars in programs on the possibility that be a terrorist attack it seems to me that's a great favor to terrorists but then cut programs now or you try to come up with some set of procedures that say we really intend to do this but we can't make it absolutely binding i do not think the set of procedures we have here will be the final say it was a difficult situation that we found with that i thought she'd be a watchman the c b o s m it basically says here's what we say but it's probably not going to be this way and i hope as we go forward there will be meetings with industry by the way industry would not use the insurance industry it's the commercial building industry they're the ones who would wish here intrusions you could walk away but if they walk away we will get commercial buildings built taken in our big cities which is why the mayors of the big cities are so concerned and others concerned about economic development so we need further work to see how we can deal with the c b l issue and i think we have a reasonable first cut it is one where it is true we did not deal with it not committee what we dealt with in the committee in great detail with a number of amendments and a lot of compromise where all the other factors california who will help us to understand a little bit more clearly about the uncooked and i believe sloppy work that was presented to the rules committee such that many many many members on a bipartisan basis question the decision that was made and it will help us to reflect upon an opportunity about how it could be done better i will yield five minutes to the gentleman the ranking member of the rules committee gentleman from sandy was california  don't recognize five minutes speaker a week ago yesterday we marked the sixth anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our nation's history that being september eleventh of two thousand and one we all in the wake of that tragedy the likes of which we ha never seen in our nation's history came together and united in a bipartisan way to deal with the aftermath of september eleventh of two thousand and one one of the many things that we did was realize that we're nation at war and in light of that the private insurance industry and i'm a free marketeer the private insurance industry needed to have some kind of federal backdrop if another horrendous terrorist attack is thrust upon the american people and so i supported the notion of saying you know what when we're a nation at war the free market can't just automatically protect those who are victimized by that kind of attack and so i became a supporter of this and i worked on it early on and supported the extension of it and as i stand here today i still believe that we are a nation at war and it is imperative that we do everything possible to ensure that we the federal government stand up and play the role that we have to  leading the fight well mr speaker unfortunately what we're doing with this rule is undermining something that mr are curies said in his opening remarks that this bill creates certainty mr curie said that this bill creates certainty mr speaker what we're doing with this self executed provision in this rule and my friend mr ackerman from new york understands this very well we're completely obliterated any kind of  now this was designed as a mandatory program mandatory why because if we face the attack there needs to be certainty that the federal government is behind it now i know that many people say oh of course the congress is going to take action of course the congress will do it you know what mr speaker that's not good enough for people who are investors people who are in an industry that is responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the kind of attack that we saw on september eleventh that's why i believe it is absolutely imperative that we oppose this rule we need to do everything that we can in a bipartisan way to defeat this rule why because we have been given this multi page self executing provision which undermines the jurisdiction of the rules committee and that's why i'm really hard pressed to believe that any member of the house rules committee the traffic cop for this institution i believe the single most important committee in this institution how any member could basically see the authority that we would have on this then you look at the other committees of jurisdiction that are completely ignored the judiciary committee the budget committee clearly should be involved in this process we need to have budget process reform our committee our rules committee mr speaker should be holding hearings on this we should look at the issue of dynamic scoring yes the hands of the congressional budget office are tied because they have to look at five and ten year projections what we need to do is we need to bring about the kind of responsible reform that can ensure that can ensure that we have the kind of certain the that is necessary and so mr speaker i've got to say that i know that there is strong bipartisan concern about this issue this is not the way to deal with it i said if given a simple  choice the rules committee between a waiver of pay go which is i believe a very flawed rule that was put into place at the beginning of this congress or this provision this self executing provision sure i'd prefer that waiver over that but there's got to be another solution and the reason is that this new congress put into print into the rules this paygo provision very well intentioned but fatally that very very badly flawed mr speaker and so  i think that if we look at what it is we're doing on this in the name of trying to avoid a waiver of paygo this self executing provision actually waives paygo completely and so i've got to tell you this is a horrible rule it is a horrible process it is unprecedented and i hope the democrats and republicans alike will join in saying yes we need to have a responsible terrorism risk insurance measure passed but we need to come down with a provision that responsibly budgets that and this is not it without i real back to balance my time back as time went from new york i think the gentleman is right this may be unprecedented but the attack on nine eleven was unprecedented as well and sometimes on president events require on precedent that action and that's what we are attempting to do today and create a rule to enact legislation like tria to create a backstop so that insurance companies can continue to create a stability a stable environment for business to thrive in new york city i'm speaker i yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania  seven sixty one of the house floor the adoption of this role will allow the house to debate this most must pass legislation to extend the terrorism risk insurance program we need to move on this process forward as quickly as possible i know that some participants in today's debate will raise concerns about the structure of the rule concerning the method by which it addresses issues related to the paygo rules i must concede to them  proposed rule is imperfect in this regard throughout the debate on this legislation the chairman of the financial services committee the gentleman from massachusetts and i have agreed that the terrorism risk insurance program is very important it protects america's economy from terrorist attacks certainly the federal government has a role in protecting our nation from terrorist events moreover this federal backstop only response to an emergency situation and only becomes implemented after a terrorist attack because therea plans ahead for an emergency caused by terrorists congress should treat spending under this law as an emergency paygo is an important role that keeps congress fiscally responsible paygo however should not apply to all pieces of legislation is especially those bills that plan ahead for national emergencies caused by terrorists my view is that all legislation should be fiscally responsible in the maximum extent possible accordingly i have had concerns about costs throughout the development and debate of this legislation in fact i voted in many instances to control those costs such as limiting the length of the extension and increasing the private sector's responsibilities after a  not an entitlement program it is a program for protecting the economic security of our nation h r twenty seven sixty one is a necessary piece of legislation that will maintain stability in our economy after a terrorist attack on our nation rather than waiting for the government to develop an ad hoc plan after an event while we cannot predict when or where the terrorists may choose to attack us we can prudently plan ahead for such a possibility like many participants familiar with this debate i have concerns about the requirement misrule to have a separate vote of congress on funding for the program after an attack with federal payments conditioned on a congressional vote even under expedited procedures much of the certainty of the program is taken away it is my hope therefore that we will continue to work on a better solution before this bill comes back to the house floor in a conference report speaker mr speaker i'd like to a congratulate the gentleman for his fine remarks as a matter of fact i agree with them that i do not believe that is proper correct to have a mandatory  bill which requires mandatory spending but discretionary funding that's available and that's exactly what this new democrat majority is doing they are saying we would be absolutely required mandatory to spend the money but discretionary as to what we're really whether we're really serious about providing that or not and i believe that that's a serious question that comes under question today about the serious nature of the policy of this i don't attack at all the underline legislate and that all legislation does not bother me absent board this for years that's what will be the underpinning of bike in our country stronger and better and preparing us for what may be in our future but you can't require something and then not provide the money especially under paygo rules that you had initiated yourself so this is simply a debate that the new democrat majority is having with its set within itself about whether they're really serious about their opportunity to bring to the table serious policy issues that face is quite nation mr speaker this time i'd like your three minutes to the gentleman from georgia dr  speaker's you'd likely know the new majority is becoming much more creative with their rule writing and frankly it would be humorous if it weren't so serious at the beginning of this congress this new majority promised us a fair and an open process but again the majority has failed to live up to that promise speaker pelosi said quote because the debate has been limited and americans voices silenced on by this restrictive rule i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule that's what she said before the election last year well i agree with the speaker we ought to vote against this restrictive rule chairman louise slaughter of the rules committee said before quote if we want to foster democracy in this body we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule an open process should be the norm and not the exception well i agree mr speaker now is that a broken promise or is it political expediency democrat caucus chair rahm emanuel said before the election let's have an offer down vote don't be scared don't hide behind some little rule come on out here put it on the table and let's have a vote well mr speaker i agree with speaker there were five amendments in total that were submitted to the rules committee last night two were made in order what's the rush mr speaker which idea was so scary that the new majority decided to shut down debate in the wake of a terrorist attack as a result of this legislation the liability of the american taxpayer is over one hundred billion dollars so this legislation represents a dramatic increase in the exposure of the tax perry and that may be appropriate i offered an amendment that would have allowed for appropriate pay go rules to make certain that we funded this bill it went down by partisan vote my amendment would have protected the taxpayer dollars of hardworking americans there would be real often offsets a commonsense approach if there is to be a taxpayer subsidy as good stewards of the american harder and taxpayer dollars we should provide the specific spending decrease to offset any new spending required by this legislation instead mr speaker we get a budget gimmick that many of my friends and i believe is likely unconstitutional and that's not only the opinion of those on our side of the aisle i have here a letter to speaker pelosi and majority leader hoyer from the office of congressman ackerman a respected member on the other side who said quote it is our strong belief that making the entire program contingent on congress passing a second piece of legislation completely undermines the intent and the desired effect of the legislation not only unconstitutional mr speaker but irresponsible well welcome to the theater of the absurd only in washington would someone think that requiring an additional vote at some time in the future have additional minute two minutes and paragraph for additional two minutes thank you miss baker only in washington would someone believe that requiring an additional vote at some point in the future for congress to be able to release funds where paygo won't apply that it would diminish the cost to the hard earned american taxpayer or even that it's possible to do so as speaker rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to the democrats promise to use paygo rules for everything instead they're picking and choose and when they do so at home we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise fiscal responsibility shouldn't be just something that we trump out there during campaigns and on the campaign trail what idea what amendment was so scary that it inspired this incredibly draconian and restrictive rule i urge my colleagues not to be scared don't hide behind as mr emanuel said some little rule vote no on this rule so we can have real pay go real fiscal responsibility on this legislation the american people deserve no general from new york thank you speaker the gentleman from georgia asks what is the rush he then talks about the theater of the absurd what i find to be absurd is the fact that we are we are doing everything that we possibly can to try to prevent this legislation from being passed this is critical legislation this is important not just to new yorkers this is important to the entire country this is a critical piece of legislation that must get passed on the steps that we are taking today are necessary if we are going to create the stability in business that is necessary to continue our economy to grow i don't think it was absurd for the people who were there on nine eleven i don't think it's absurd for the insurance companies that now want to begin to insure the businesses in the buildings in new york city oh no this is not absurd at all this is the business of congress this is what we do when this is what we do best mr speaker i now you first of all i think that we all have to and do understand that in order for any major development project to go forward developers have to put together a plan they have to put together their financing financing has to be secure financing to be assured insurance has to be issued for any major project to go forward there is no insurer that i can think of that would put ten billion dollars on the line without some backup in this day and age by the federal government and i think that we're all pretty much in agreement to that in this argument of what to do on this rule how to proceed there equities on both sides it has been my view that the first thing that we should do is fix the rules so that in case this country is under a terrorist attack anywhere in the country and this is not just new york city we've been attacked we've been attacked already but anywhere in the country where a terrorist attack involving huge amounts of money that the federal government would would step in and we would not worry about the budget and the bottom line and balancing any city any town any state any american community deserves to know that if america is attacked and attacked in their city in their neighborhood and their community that america stands behind them and will help make them whole and help put them back together again so it makes tremendous sense that the rule on paygo that was instituted and put into the rules of this house be made to accommodate the situation that says in the case of war and the case of a terrorist attack nothing is going to stop us from moving forward doing the business of america and assuring the american people my friends on the republican side understand that and they were helping to try to put this together but the approach that that we have taken up until this very moment and that is putting the bill forward and then looking to find a fix later on down the road in my view was putting the horse in back of the cart and that has to be fixed and that has to be addressed i originally came down here with the intent of opposing the rule opposing the rule not because i opposed the bill because i serve on the financial services committee and worked very hard under the leadership into religion of chairman frank who has done an immense job together with our republican colleagues on the community to bring a a great bill to the floor only to find that it was subject to paygo i've come to the conclusion miss the mr speaker that we should not be looking to sidestep paygo we should not be looking to make an exception to pay go we should not be looking to work around pay go what we should be doing is bringing commonsense common sense to the process and amending the peg or rules so that in case of a terrorist attack paygo is not applicable not that we make an end run around it in the last few moments mr speaker i have after consultation with the majority leader received a letter from him and he's been in meetings with the speaker of the house on this up until this very moment and those of us who have intended to oppose the rule have received in writing from the majority leader after consultation with the speaker on assurance in writing in this letter to us that this process will not go forward in its final form for a second vote in the house until we not sidestep paygo but address the issue of pay go and make it right so that makes common sense of the house and to the american people that assurance mr speaker that this process will be sick and that we are engaged in an ongoing process that this vote will not be the final step that the vote on the after the rule on the bill will not be others who were very very concerned about this process that with the with the assurance of the speaker of the house in the majority of the majority leader of the house with whom i've worked for twenty five years and whose word is gold that we will bring common sense in this from our friends on the democrat side talking with us about how they're going to fix it we appreciate that that's what we're asking for today the best i can tell you is that the republican party is in favor of fixing it and we believe the best way to do it is on the floor of the house right now because right now we can fix it or all the members will understand what the ramifications are and the ramifications are either that we're going to say that terrorist attacks don't apply under paygo rules or that terrorist attacks would be and fine print that now perhaps the democrat majority wants to put in that all this spending applies but perhaps not under certain circumstances i think we could craft a deal here but now what the gentleman's asking us to do is just trust me well the first thing i'd like is i'd like to get a copy of the the letter and that would be appropriate for me to ask for and i know the gentleman mr ackerman does not oppose me getting a copy of that letter but what we're now being told is now trust us that it will be brought back in a forum where there's debate but it's either an up or down vote we can't change that decision nor can any other member of this body change that we've heard enough people talk today about how what is happening is wrong should not happen is bad policy where to fix it today here on the floor if we're going to move forward and not say trust me trust me white for fine print or disagreement later i appreciate the gentleman mr ackerman i thought it was not only very nice what he did but well spoken and i appreciate the gentleman very much i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york my friend mr king john from new york recognized for three minutes i was speaker i thank the gentleman from texas and i rise in strong support of the underlying legislation and certainly with very strong questions in reservations about the rule like mr ackerman i certainly came to the floor intending to oppose the rule i will study the letter which  ackerman obtained from the majority leader i agree with mrs sessions that this is a very uncertain way to proceed relying on a promise from a light and not that i in any way question the intent to follow through on the promise but again how that could interpreted what the final language will be does raise serious issues having said that i commend mr ackerman for his efforts and i do believe it's important that this process continue to go forward and the reason i support the underlying legislation mr speaker is that this is not a new york issue you know it's often focus that way because of the fact that there have been two major terrorist attacks on new york city but it truly as a national issue i want to commend chairman frank  his efforts at the committee level i also want to emphasize that this was a bipartisan vote with your vote of this bill out of committee i particularly appreciate the fact that in the committee a amendment which fact is that any significant project is going to be a fifteen years duration but the preliminary work and the construction itself is going to go to fifteen years the insurance money for instance in new york where they are attempting to rebuild ground zero would not be available at this time unless tree was extended out and rescue insurers have the certainty that we will be there for the fifteen years for the duration of the project and i have to emphasize that it will be not one nickel spent of this money unless new york or chicago or los angeles or any other city in the country is attacked by terrorists so if any city were attacked we know the government would step in why not have that precaution now why not give the insurers the certainty and the mission power is certainly if they go forward with this development otherwise we are allowing the terrorists to set the terms and conditions we are letting them determine what's going to be built and rebuilt if this if this fifteen year extension does not call for victory was not extended the reality is there will not be a rebuilding of ground zero and if ground zero is not rebuilt then this is a magnificent victory for a horrible horrible force islamic terrorism so we should be the ones determining what our economic security what our homeland security is and  essential component of that as a former chairman of the homeland security committee and as ranking member mr speaker i am very much aware how new york and other cities and other parts of our country are in the crosshairs of another story but certainly attempted attacks are inevitable and i believe it's essential that no matter what part of the country you're from you will have the assurance of god forbid you are attacked that there will be insurance in place for you to rebuild because otherwise you're not going to find insurance stepping forward a place like new york which was attacked will not receive insurance that it needs to go forward and the terrorists will score not just and it's a not just the victory they attain on september eleventh most three thousand people were murdered but they will have the additional victory in that area that they attack will not be rebuilt and it can be new york as i said it was new york in one thousand nine hundred three was in new york in two thousand and one if we any of a number of other cities  in the future so let us protect ourselves and the essence ultimate essence of homeland security and have a complete component of security and trea is essential to that so with that i urge adoption of the underlying legislation and i look guesses based on experience and that's it they're open to discussion they're open to debate and there is no definitive answer as to which one is right this bill is the classic example of compromise upon compromise a competent compromise to try to get to a bill there's many people can support and feel comfortable with as possible if the debate here right now or later on is on the base bill that's hard to argue this is a gut feeling there is no definitive no real answers but i will tell you that when the argument turns to fiscal responsibility and this false argument that someone is more fiscally responsible than someone else it bothers me it bothers me a lot because i think that's beginning to get into the great lie to the american people we're more responsible than you your less responsible we do this you do that well the truth is not a single penny of taxpayers money will be paid out in this bill under this rule unless congress acts again not one penny now i understand that some people find that uncomfortable and i respect that and it is another route to take finding i'm open to the discussion i'm open to the proposals but to pretend this bill somehow going to spend taxpayers money when it's not is ludicrous to pretend the people here were more fiscally responsible than others when they're not bothers me even more we had one major vote on paygo one and that was november fourteenth two thousand and two when the republic going lead house put forth a bill on this fo that basically gutted and terminated paygo only nineteen members of this house voted against that bill not a single republican voted against it not one and it gutted and killed pay go according to c r s to the tune of five hundred and sixty billion dollars that was real money a real pay go that threatened a real seaquest ration over five years and yet the republican led house then after the nine eleven attack while we were in the middle of war decided paygo was not important then and they killed it if it wasn't important then and yet today we are taking an action that would guarantee that no taxpayer money gets sp in arguing but his side has already given in on the point they've already conceded they don't like the way the bill is the rule self executing rule there's already agreement on his side whoa this is wrong we don't agree with this w agree to fix it so i you know love the gentleman from massachusetts ian are very good friends but they've already conceded that point they've already said we think there could be a better way to do it we agreed to fix it so what did we say on the side thank you very much mr ackerman we prefer this that's what we've been asking for plays that we've got it now i wish we had the agreement here today i wish we knew what that deal was going to be before you bought the bill to the floor that's why we held off on the rules committee for an extra day waiting for a better answer didn't get it get to the floor and i would say to my good friends on this side if you want us to be a better majority of you if you want to be a better minority you're going to have to be a better majority we took seriously what speaker pelosi said honest open f a call congress we're still waiting for that through the rules committee when she said pay go is going to apply to everything because republicans implied republicans didn't do that then we took that at at that the surface of the words not looking for a fine print not looking for how they're going to try and get out of it and so we're trying to make sure that we simply know what we're supposed to count on they've come to the floor today and they've said we're going to work on it please we're going to do that i'm simply saying should have been done for got here that's sloppy mr speaker at this time i have no additional speakers on the rule and i would yield to the gentleman from new york to  ssion that i have not heard talked about today but the concepts are in that that i will call the earmark accountability rule at the beginning of this congress a number of promises were made the american people about the democrats supposedly new and improved earmark rules as a congress has worn on however i have noticed that while the democrats rules changes definitely sound good they really haven't lived up to their promise and have not accomplished much since the majority has repeatedly turned away turn their head the other way when it comes to actual enforcement agnostics that the majority has given in to the minority demands one forced one of their own rules a handful of times when it comes to appropriations conference reports unfortunately we continue to see non disclosed earmarks and all sorts of bills also this rules change would simply allow the house to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmark earmarks contained in all bills not just appropriations bills if we defeat the previous question we can address that problem today and restore this congress's nonexistence credibility when it comes to the enforcement like we have seen once again today i ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the record just prior to the vote on the side is smoke and mirrors they want to talk about everything except what we're here to talk about today and that's to rule on the tree of legislation my friend from texas talks about the rw infers that the rules committee is not open honest and ethical why resent that i think we are very open we are honest and we are very ethical and he knows that and he shouldn't put petty partisan politics ahead of what we're here to do today and that is to pass a rule on trio legislation protecting the safety and security of america is without question our top priority in the reason that we're here and congress and members of this institution the horrible terrorist attacks of september eleventh two thousand and one had a devastating effect on so many people in this country not just new yorkers but people all over this country it also had a devastating economic impact on the commercial insurance market many primary insurers stopped writing policies special guidelines were instituted when insuring buildings thought to be likely terrorist targets and other property surrounding them reinsurers those companies that insure the insurance companies excluded terrorist events from coverage altogether to address this market failure congress passed terrorism risk insurance act and that was under the the republican congress because it was the right thing to do and we're continue to do the right thing here today tree ahead been a success primary insurers are able to write policies and business owners are able to obtain coverage stability was restored to this vital market if we do not act now to extend tria this program will expire and will be back where we were started the september eleventh attack h r two six seven one extends tria by fifteen years to provide added certainty to this vital sector of our economy that a mere two year extension cannot provide the bill also lays groundwork for the inclusion of coverage for nuclear biological chemical and radiological terrorist acts while at the same time allowing for an exemption for small insurers that would be unfair really impacted by this necessary expansion the circumstances before us are unlike anything we have confronted in our nation's history we must not allow terrorist attacks to force valuable businesses to fail because they cannot afford insurance i am proud to stand here today as a member of the new democratic majority watching out for the interests of our nation's business community by providing much needed predictability in the terrorism risk insurance market mr speaker i urge you yes vote on this rule and i and on the previous question i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution the question is on ordering the previous question those in favor say aye those opposed say nay in the opinion of the chair the nos have it the speaker i pursuant to clause eight of rule twenty further proceedings on the question are postpone