Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I just want to add to the comments by our good friend Mr. LaHood. He will surely be missed in this great Chamber. He has added much to the dignity, fairness, objectiveness and to the thoughtfulness of this body. And I hope when decency, security and peace does return to Lebanon, he will be in this Chamber with us to share in that moment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the tremendous service to the working man and woman of America by a true friend, Rick Diegel. Rick recently retired after working for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) in a distinguished career that spanned 38 years. After a stint in the U.S. Air Force, Rick's IBEW career began in 1969 when he joined Corpus Christi Local 278 in his native Texas. Always active in politics, Rick also served three terms as mayor protem in the city of Ingleside in the early and mid-1970's. Rick was elected business manager for Local 278 in 1977, and he arrived upon the Washington political scene in 1983 when he was appointed IBEW's Political Director, the same year I was elected to Congress. Then, in 1998, he became director of the IBEW's combined Political/Legislative Department, the position he held until his retirement October 1st, 2007. Upon Rick's arrival in Washington, Rick Diegel immediately made an impact on public policy on behalf of the IBEW and its members. Through the support given to IBEW-endorsed candidates in local, state, and federal elections, the IBEW has been able to influence the agenda on vital kitchen-table issues such as job security, the minimum wage, healthcare, working conditions and safety, retirement, and trade. Rick became a major figure in the modern labor movement and helped lead the transformation of the IBEW into the 21st Century. Madam Speaker, I want to commend Rick's tireless dedication to the members of the IBEW and the labor movement as a whole over his almost four-decade career. He will be truly missed by me and the IBEW. Rick will be returning to Texas, where he will be able to have more time with his wife Theresa, his seven children, and four grandchildren. Fortunately, Rick isn't completely leaving the political arena though-- he has promised to be available to aid Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, so we won't be losing him entirely. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Rick Diegel for all of his hard work and dedication as IBEW's lead political architect for over 20 years and in wishing him and his family the best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 548) expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon, as amended.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what has been happening in Lebanon is extreme aggression in the classic sense of the word. Through a campaign of assassinations targeting Lebanese parliamentarians and political figures; bombings in public places; threats to establish an alternative extra-constitutional government; and the instigation of a jihadi insurgency by the Fatah al- Islam, Syria, Iran, their bootlegging proxies, Hezbollah, Amal, and Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, have brought Lebanon's government to a constitutional crisis. Yet again, outside actors have pushed Lebanon to the brink of civil war for their selfish interests. Just 6 days ago, on September 19, a massive car bomb killed Antoine Ghanem along with five other civilians, and left many dozens of other bystanders wounded. Mr. Ghanem, a member of the Lebanese Parliament and a supporter of the Siniora government, was just the latest in a string of 11 political assassinations over the past 3 years. As a consequence of this pattern of violence, the March 14 alliance is two parliamentarians away from being murdered out of their majority. Now is the time for this Congress to send a strong message of support for the democratically elected and fully legitimate government in Lebanon. Time, Mr. Speaker, is short. The Syrian-backed campaign for murder is creeping ever closer to its goal of destroying the majority of the Lebanese Parliament, bringing down the government of Fuad Siniora, and imposing again a pro-Syrian president on Lebanon. Fearing just this scenario months ago, I introduced H. Res. 548 with the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Pence, with Chairman Lantos and Representatives Issa and Boustany, two Members whose roots extend back to Lebanon. This bipartisan resolution expresses the strong support of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's elected government, and affirms our readiness to make that support tangible in order to help preserve and strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and independence. The resolution condemns Syria and Iran for providing arms to Lebanese militias, particularly the terrorist group Hezbollah, and the Palestinian factions in Lebanon, in clear contravention of Security Council resolutions. H. Res. 548 also endorses prompt action by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the Security Council to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Syria must know with utter certainty that the United States will never sacrifice justice in Lebanon to allow Damascus to escape accountability for its crimes. The current Lebanese Government, which is under siege, is both legitimate and representative of the majority of Lebanese. The attempts to undermine it are not some kind of retaliation. Lebanon's government is being systemically attacked only because it is unwilling to subordinate its authority and Lebanon's sovereignty to external and extra-legal demands. Quite simply, Lebanon is being bullied. And in light of this fact, the United States and the entire international community must come to its aid. I would urge all of our colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the distinguished ranking member has any additional speakers.

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

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the time, as well as for your tireless efforts in support of the legislation that we are considering today. There is no more imperative threat facing the world today than checking Iran's nuclear aspirations. Sometimes, in the midst of urgent debate over the right tactics to use to stop the mullahs' mad march towards the bomb, we lose sight of the big strategic picture. By focusing on the particular costs of each sanction, the monstrous reality of a world in which Iran possesses nuclear weapons can slip into the background. This loss of perspective is a terrible mistake. Critics of H.R. 1400, both here and abroad, see only the cost and the irritants of American sanctions. Their concerns focus on economic liberty and their own bottom line, on their national sovereignty, but not their national security. Protests are heard regarding our insensitivity to the Iranian regime and the likelihood of sanctions hurting the Iranian people. The critics are, unfortunately, missing the point. In a vacuum, sanctions always seem harsh unless you consider the nonpeaceful alternative. To fully and fairly judge the proposals in a sanctions measure such as H.R. 1400, we have to consider what a future without it might look like. If you don't want to see the complete collapse of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the rapid nuclearization of the entire Middle East, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to see Iranian proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, taking over the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Lebanon, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to see Iran accelerating its supply of arms and training to terrorists around the world, then you're for the bill. If you don't want the supply and the price of oil to be set in Tehran, then you're for the bill. If you don't want to even imagine a nuclear device exploding somewhere, anywhere in the Middle East, then you're for the bill. And, finally, if you do abhor war, if you really don't want to see military force used to stop Iran's nuclear program, if you hate the very idea of America attacking Iran's nuclear program, then you're for this bill. The official title is the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act. The proper title should be the Stop the Iranian Bomb by Every Peaceful Means Possible Act. This is the alternative. We are running out of time. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's mullahs are not inevitable; but to prevent such an international security catastrophe, we need every tool at our disposal now while there is still time. The longer we wait, the greater the danger and difficulty of the challenge we face. Now is the time to apply the absolute maximum diplomatic, political and economic pressure that we can muster. H.R. 1400 will crank up the pressure and help us avoid having to choose between military action and an Iranian atomic bomb. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 350th anniversary of the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance. Though sadly not as well known as some of our country's other founding documents, the Flushing Remonstrance's heroic call for religious freedom made this document fundamental to the establishment of our country as a land of religious liberty. On December 27, 1657, in Flushing, New Netherland, in the Borough of Queens, in New York City, 29 brave English citizens composed a document stating their unwillingness to tolerate or enforce an official mandate for religious persecution. These daring patriots rose in protest of Governor Peter Stuyvesant's call to persecute the area's new Quaker inhabitants, and affirmed their belief in the ``law of love, peace and liberty.'' Madam Speaker, some of the signatories of the Remonstrance were imprisoned, and many suffered for their actions. Nevertheless, by standing up for their beliefs, they successfully initiated the fight for religious freedom in the New World. We all owe the signers of the Flushing Remonstrance a debt of gratitude, as their appreciation of, and commitment to religious freedom has become the cornerstone of our democracy. Later this year, the Borough of Queens will celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance with many descendants of the document's signatories. The original document will be transported from the State Archives in Albany, New York and will be on display at the Queens Borough Public Library, Flushing, during the official celebration. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 350th anniversary of the Flushing Remonstrance, a document that pioneered the right to religious freedom in America and throughout the world.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the other gentleman from New York. Mr. Speaker, there are equities on both sides of this issue. 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 secured in order for 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 $10 billion 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 and how to proceed, there are equities on both sides. It has been my view that the first thing that we should do is fix the rule 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 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, in 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 in 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 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. 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 oppose the bill, because I serve on the Financial Services Committee and worked very hard under the leadership and tutelage of Chairman Frank who has done an immense job together with our Republican colleagues on the committee to bring a great bill to the floor only to find that it was subject to PAYGO. I've come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be looking to sidestep PAYGO. We should not be looking to make an exception to PAYGO. We should not be looking to work around PAYGO. What we should be doing is bringing common sense to the process and amending the PAYGO rules so that in the 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 has been in meetings with the Speaker of the House on this up until this very moment. And those who have intended to oppose the rule have received in writing from the majority leader, after consultation with the Speaker, an 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 PAYGO and make it right so that it makes common sense to the House and to the American people. I have that assurance, Mr. Speaker, that this process will be fixed and that we are engaged in an ongoing process, that this vote will not be the final step, that the vote after the rule on the bill will not be final, that this bill will not be brought before us in the conference, that we will reverse and put the horse in front of the cart. I would urge those with whom I have conferred, New Yorkers and others who were very, very concerned about this process, that with the assurance of the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the House with whom I have worked for 25 years and whose word is gold, that we will bring common sense to this process and fix it before this process is through.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, on September 11, in addition to the enormous loss of human life, the value of which cannot be measured, our Nation suffered catastrophic economic losses. The attacks of September 11 resulted in $30 billion worth of insured losses, the largest catastrophic insurance loss in the history of the United States, larger than any blizzard, tornado or hurricane. As a result, insurers and reinsurers began to worry about the likelihood and the cost of a future terrorist attack. Worrying about risk and then monetizing that risk is the key to the insurance industry, which is an essential element in a modern dynamic economy. As happened, businesses with legitimate concerns about their solvency, insurance and reinsurance firms withdrew from the market where the attack took place. As the supply of terrorism insurance rapidly decreased, New York City developers, for whom terrorism insurance was essential to secure financing for their projects, were put in a precarious position. They needed terrorism insurance to continue building, but the market for insurance simply did not have enough supply to meet their demand. Similar shortages began occurring throughout the country. In simple terms, there was a market failure. It was out of this dilemma that the critical need to address that original version of TRIA was born. TRIA increased the availability of terrorism insurance coverage by creating a Federal backstop that would share the burden of losses caused by any future attacks of terrorism with the insurance industry. In the wake of 9/11, we had hoped that a temporary, 3-year program would provide enough of a shield to allow the market to fully recover. By late 2005, however, the Financial Services Committee and others in Congress realized that TRIA had not resulted in as quick or as robust a recovery of the market as was originally hoped. TRIA was extended for an additional 2 years, and is currently set to expire on December 31 of this year. Mr. Chairman, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act is a major achievement. It eliminates the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. It incorporates group life insurance into the program. And, most importantly, this legislation extends TRIA for another 15 years. Let us be clear: the enemy of business is uncertainty. This is particularly true for multi-million or multi-billion dollar real estate development projects, the kind that breathe life into our Nation. Designing, securing capital and then contracting for construction is a multi-year process, and if we want these kinds of projects to go forward during these uncertain times, there is simply no alternative to providing a long-term terrorism insurance backstop. Extending TRIA by 15 years is not a whim. It is not an arbitrary number. A 15-year extension would allow developers to secure 10- and 15-year bonds when financing their projects and would cover the life span of construction for our Nation's most innovative and remarkable development projects. Equally as important to our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers is the inclusion of the so-called ``reset mechanism'' in this legislation. This language ensures that, in the aftermath of another catastrophic terrorist attack, the affected area or areas do not experience the same capacity problems that we experienced in New York following September 11. To be clear, however, the reset mechanism included in H.R. 2761 is not a special favor extended to New York. Under the language I worked out with Mr. Baker, representing the minority side, in the event of a terrorist attack with losses of $1 billion or greater, the deductibles for any insurance company that pays out losses due to the event immediately would lower to 5 percent, while the nationwide trigger for any insurer for any future event drops to $5 million. Mr. Baker and I also reached agreement on my proposal to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the total losses for two or more attacks that occur in the same geographic area in the same year, if the Secretary so chooses, so that if the total insured losses for those events are over $1 billion, the reset mechanism would be triggered. Permitting the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the losses of two or more attacks in the same year is absolutely essential to protect our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers from a scenario in which the same area suffers a loss of $1 billion in insured losses, either from two or more medium-scale attacks or from one large-scale attack. The reset language is a true bipartisan compromise with the minority, accommodating a vast number of their concerns, and one in which I think Members of both sides should be very pleased. The new language simultaneously addresses the need to boost capacity in our Nation's highest risk areas, while recognizing that in case America suffers another catastrophic terrorist attack anywhere in this Nation, capacity shortages could be expected not only in the geographic area surrounding the site of the attack but also, quite possibly, throughout the Nation as a whole. The chairman has asserted that he would accommodate the needs of those who have complained about the openness of the process, which I assure everybody is open. And as the leader of the conference, when the House goes into conference on this matter, Mr. Chairman, could you give us your assurance that this bill will come back in the kind of form that we will not have an issue?

Mr. ACKERMAN. This is a private letter from the leadership to myself. I will be glad to show it to a Member of the minority side that signed the letter.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I will share it with a Member of the minority side who signed the letter.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I think you have heard my answer.

Mr. ACKERMAN. This is the word of the majority leader to our delegation.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chairman. My name was cited, along with a list of other New Yorkers having opposed the original TRIA when it came to the floor. The reason we did so is not because of TRIA, it was because the minority side, the Republican side at the time, tried to use this as a vehicle to move tort reform and added all sorts of tort reform provisions to the TRIA bill, which we absolutely opposed because it was a politically motivated move and not because of TRIA.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, our friends on the Republican side pride themselves on being tough on terror, and rightfully so. To be honest, it is evident when you listen to President Bush and he says things like ``You're either with us or against us.'' But also the President said in the wake of 9/11, he said this here in this Chamber to the Congress and to the American people, and I quote our President, ``Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundations of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.'' Our President said that to us, Mr. Chairman. After looking over the amendment, I realize the gentleman from New Mexico was not yet elected to be here and probably didn't get the memo about what the President said, because the effect of his amendment would allow terrorists to tell us where we can and where we cannot build after a catastrophic terrorist attack. The bill would reset the deductible from 20 percent to 5 percent after a terrorist attack, which is good. The amendment that the gentleman proposes would increase the reset deductible to as high as 19 percent after a terrorist attack, which is almost the same as the original 20 percent. Small comfort. Undermining the purpose and the intent of the reset mechanism by eliminating the incentives created by the reset would price insurers out of areas affected by terrorist attacks, prohibiting developers from rebuilding. It would seem to me that to support this amendment is so blatantly to oppose the American resolve that President Bush claimed in the wake of September 11. Should we have left Ground Zero smoldering and not build the Freedom Tower? Should we concede defeat to Osama bin Laden? Should he dictate where we can and cannot build? I say to the gentleman from New Mexico, if we cannot build and rebuild in the areas where terrorists attack, that is a major defeat for our country and a resounding retreat from the spirit of our Nation. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I would just urge all of our colleagues to join with the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and Mr. Frank and myself and oppose this amendment before the House. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I further yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2929) to limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2929.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the cosponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)