Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of John Brennan, a resident of my congressional district in upstate New York, and his extraordinary record of service for World War II veterans. In the spring of 2004, John formed a committee with the goal of giving World War II veterans from Herkimer County, New York, a historic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. The first 3-day, 2-night trip was in September 2004, and two more followed in May and September 2005. In total, approximately 190 Herkimer veterans traveled to D.C. These all-expense paid trips, financed entirely by private donations, are believed to be the first of their kind in the Nation. Because all of their expenses were covered, every veteran who wanted to, and was physically able, made the trip. In 2007, he was approached about duplicating the Herkimer project for the World War II veterans from Oneida County, New York. In the course of four trips, more than 400 Oneida veterans made the journey to Washington. After the Hamilton County, New York, legislature contacted John, 17 World War II veterans from Hamilton joined the last Oneida trip. The son of James and Grace Brennan, John was born and raised in Cohoes, New York. He graduated cum laude from Siena College and Albany Law School. Currently, he is employed as the principal law clerk for Michael E. Daley, the State Supreme Court Justice for Herkimer County. In addition to his work for veterans, John's service to the community includes organizing the Oneida and Herkimer Counties Bar Associations' participation in the Herkimer County Marine Corps League's Holly Days Toy Drive and serving as an assistant coach in the Herkimer Youth Basketball Program. He is also active in many community associations, including serving as the vice-chair of the Valley Health Services board of directors and on the advisory boards of the Herkimer County Salvation Army and the Herkimer County Child Advocacy Center. In addition, he is on the district council of the Boy Scouts of America, Revolutionary Trails Council and the Herkimer County Law Library Board. John has been the recipient of numerous awards for his commitment to the community. He has received the Oneida County Bar Association Director's Award, the Mohawk Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross's Volunteer Leadership and Faithful Service Awards and the New York State Unified Court System's Merit Performance Award for Community Service and Humanitarian Pursuits. Veterans' organizations, including the Herkimer Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #4915, the Herkimer County Veterans Council and the Ilion Marine Corps League, have also recognized his work with awards. John's exceptional dedication to veterans is to be commended. Thank you, John, for all you have done.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, all year this Democratic Congress has worked to live up to our promise to move the Nation in a new direction. In many ways, we have been successful, raising the minimum wage, fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and making college more affordable. We are proud of these accomplishments, but there are many other important bills that have been passed with strong bipartisan support here in Congress, only to be vetoed by President Bush. We sent the President a bipartisan bill that restored harmful cuts to No Child Left Behind, job training programs, and research grants for cures for life-threatening diseases. President Bush said no with his veto pen. We sent him a bipartisan bill that would ensure 10 million children have access to quality health care. President Bush said no with his veto pen. We sent him a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of next year. Again, President Bush said no with his veto pen. Madam Speaker, President Bush has stood in the way of real progress, but know that we in Congress will continue to fight to move our Nation in a new direction.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. ARCURI. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. ARCURI. All of our speakers have spoken, so I would reserve the balance of my time and ask my colleague if he wishes to close.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Frankly, all we have heard lately, especially in the Rules Committee debate, is that this bill is not going to pass the Senate, this bill is going to get vetoed by the President, and therefore the House should follow what the Senate is going to do and the House should follow what the President suggests. That is not the reason 435 Members of this House were elected. We were elected to do what we think is best for this country, and not what the Senate thinks is best, and not what the President thinks is best, but what the House of Representatives thinks is best. That is what this bill is attempting to do, give what the House of Representatives thinks is best in this important piece of legislation. Protecting the safety and security of America is, without question, a top priority of this institution. The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had a devastating effect on many people in this country. The attacks also had a devastating economic effect on the commercial insurance market. TRIA has 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 at the end of the month and we will be back where we started after the September 11 attacks. We have debated this bill before and the House passed a similar version in September, with the support of 312 Members. I hope that the TRIA legislation we will consider here today will enjoy the same overwhelming bipartisan support. We must not allow the threat of future terrorist attacks to endanger or close valuable businesses because they cannot afford insurance. This is not an exercise in futility, as my colleague said in his opening, but rather an exercise in necessity. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, as a representative from New York, I can say that there is no nonsense about this. This is a critically important piece of legislation, something that is necessary not only for New York but for the entire country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, who has been a champion of this legislation, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 862 provides for consideration of H.R. 4299, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4299 except those arising under clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks brief. We have debated the substance of this bill before, and the House passed a similar version in September with the support of 312 Members of this body. The measure we will consider today contains many needed revisions to the terrorism risk insurance program to ensure our national and economic security. The terrorism risk insurance program was originally enacted as a short-term backstop for an insurance industry hard hit by the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 of 2001. In the years since, we have seen that the private insurance market is unable to cover the risk of both domestic and foreign acts of terrorism without assistance. Experience has shown 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 11, 2001, many companies opted to exclude terrorism risks from private insurance policies, leaving no coverage in the event of another attack. TRIA requires primary insurers to make terrorism insurance available to commercial clients that wish to purchase it while at the same time helping those insurers manage their exposure to risk of loss. The legislation this rule provides for consideration of would extend TRIA for 7 more years. This is a shorter extension than the 15-year extension that the House originally passed but still far longer than the 2-year extension that was enacted in 2005. A 7-year extension will provide greater certainty and stability to the insurance and real estate markets than presently exists, and that is good for business. The 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, where the government backstop kicks in, to $50 million, where it was in 2006. It would expand the program to provide for group life insurance coverage; would decrease deductibles for terrorist attacks costing over $1 billion; and reduce the trigger level in the years following such an attack. The TRIA bill which the House approved in September would have required insurers to include coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks in policies they offer. However, this provision has been removed from the bill because some insurers, particularly the smaller insurers, raised concerns regarding their ability to cover the additional risk when private reinsurance does not exist. To address these concerns, the legislation will mandate a study by the Government Accountability Office on the availability and the affordability of private insurance coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks. This provision represents a commonsense first step in addressing the economic fallout of such an attack. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical in protecting our national and economic security in the fight against terrorism. It will also help many of the small- and medium-sized insurance companies located in my congressional district provide coverage in this ever-changing 21st century. I commend Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their bipartisan effort to bring this vital, time- sensitive piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 862.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 862 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I stand today in strong support of this rule, a rule that supports a very important bill, a fix for the AMT, that does it in a way that is fiscally responsible, which is extremely important. When I look at the things that this House has done this year, things like appropriating money so that student loans are increased, Pell Grants are increased so that our children who go to college leave college with less debt, less saddled for the future; when I think of the sacrifices that parents make so that they can help their children through college, so that when their children finish college they're not saddled with debt; those are the kind of considerations that we need to take into consideration today in fixing the AMT so that we don't saddle our children with incredible debt in the future, that we fix the AMT and we do it in a responsible way. So I am proud to support this rule.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, so the record is clear, as the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction VA subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, so eloquently stated many times right here on the floor of this House, there is a clear difference between the new Democratic majority's approach to veterans and the previous Republican leadership approach. The difference is that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic majority, supporting veterans is one of the highest priorities of this Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that we are leaving veterans out in the cold. As elected Federal representatives, we are accountable for not only our words but our actions as well. What the other side won't tell you is that we had passed a continuing resolution in the beginning months of this Congress because the previous Congress failed to ever pass the MilCon-VA appropriations bill last year. They also won't tell you that the continuing resolution included an increase of $3.4 billion for veterans health care. The other side doesn't want to talk about the emergency supplemental spending bill we passed a few months ago which included an additional $1.8 billion for veterans discretionary spending. I am no mathematician, but $3.4 billion and $1.8 billion add up to $5.2 billion, which is larger than any increase in veterans spending passed by the previous Republican leadership. I admit I am a new Member, but I can still look back at the record to see that the last time the previous Republican leadership passed the Veterans appropriation bill on time was 1996. It sounds to me like the other side of the aisle is suffering from a case of selective memory. The new Democratic majority has not forgotten about our veterans. We have already passed legislation which has been signed into law that will provide an additional $5.2 billion for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. The new Democratic majority has and will continue to provide for our Nation's veterans. Back to the issue, we are facing a national crisis with hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes and an expected 2 million more over the next 2 years. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act provides long-overdue and much-needed protection to those families. As I said earlier, every American deserves the opportunity to achieve the American Dream of home ownership. It is because of the leadership and bipartisanship of Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus that I am proud to stand here today as we make meaningful, commonsense steps to help more American families achieve that dream. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 825 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. ARCURI. I am prepared to close, yes.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 825 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. I have no additional speakers.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for purpose of debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 825.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Congress is wrapping up its first year with a proud record of providing real support for our Nation's veterans that starts to make up for lost time. We have passed historic increases in veterans health care benefits totaling nearly $12 billion to meet the needs of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to make up for the President's past shortchanging of our veterans and to keep new fees from hitting veterans families. Along with focusing on veterans who are returning with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries, we address the military health and disability crisis brought to light by the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, and we are providing the necessary oversight to ensure a scandal like that never happens again. This new Democratic majority is also working to make sure troops and their families, strained after multiple deployments in Iraq, get a 3.5 percent pay increase, which the President called unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, we commemorated Veterans Day this past weekend. Democrats are proud of our accomplishments in honoring our veterans by providing them with health care benefits they deserve.