Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, Democrats made a promise last November to bring accountability back to Congress and the Federal Government. In just a few short months, we have conducted thorough and meaningful oversight on a series of issues that would have been swept under the rug by the previous Republican leadership, which sadly was often more concerned with protecting the administration than doing the right thing. Earlier this week, the Justice Department, at the request of congressional Democrats, released thousands of pages of e-mails and internal documents related to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the administration. The documents indicate that the administration's contention that the attorneys were dismissed for performance-related reasons simply is not true. This Congress is seeking to attain the rest of the story by asking senior White House officials involved in the U.S. Attorney scandal to testify under oath. Unfortunately, the administration does not want to comply and provide the American people with the facts. As a former elected district attorney, I know how critically important it is for prosecutors to be independent and to perform their job without fear of retaliatory firings. It is time for this administration to do the right thing and hold those responsible for the scandal accountable.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, it is time to rein in this administration's prevalent use of no-bid contracts. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the Accountability in Contracting Act. In the last five years, spending on ``no-bid'' or ``sole-source'' contracts has more than doubled. The administration contends that in every one of these cases there were ``urgent and compelling needs'' that required these contracts to be awarded without a competitive bidding process. In the case of the emergency response to disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I don't dispute that the need was urgent, but for non-emergency contracting needs, we must get our fiscal house in order. Just as any family has a budget to stick to, shouldn't we reach a point after an emergency when there has been enough time to consider multiple, competitive bids? A point after which the ``compelling needs'' are a little less urgent? By last June--nine months after Hurricane Katrina--$10.6 billion had been awarded to private contractors for recovery efforts, but only 30 percent of that had been awarded competitively. I know of no small business in Upstate New York, who could get by without reasonably budgeting for their expenses--even in times of emergency. Why should taxpayer dollars be spent differently? Oversight of these contracts has been no better. Audits have revealed that post-Katrina contractors have over-billed, double-billed, and billed for work that was never completed. The Defense Contractor Audit Agency found that through fiscal year 2006, over $10 billion in contractor charges in Iraq have been identified as ``questioned'' or ``unsupported.'' Under this administration, the use of ``cost plus'' contracts has increased more than seventy-five percent. These cost-plus contracts guarantee a contractor a fixed profit, regardless of how efficiently they spend the government's money--taxpayers' money. These contracts provide no incentive to look after the bottom line because they guarantee there will always be money off the top. When indefinite, no- bid contracts contain ``cost-plus'' provisions, the opportunity for foul play is only amplified. The Accountability in Contracting Act addresses these concerns. This bill limits to roughly 8 months the time that federal no-bid contracts can last. It requires each federal agency that has awarded at least $1 billion in the preceding fiscal year to develop and implement a plan to minimize the use of contracts entered into using no-bid procedures and cost-reimbursement type contracts. The bill also establishes a system to increase competition in contract bidding and requires agencies that enter into a no-bid contract to make ``justification and approval'' documents public within fourteen days after awarding a contract. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way. And the Accountability in Contracting Act will help reach that end by providing much-needed transparency to the way the federal government awards contracts.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, accountability is a word often used but seldom implemented. For the last 12 years it is as if Congress forgot one of its principal responsibilities is to demand accountability from the administration and protect the American people from waste, fraud and abuse. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which this rule provides consideration for, will provide additional transparency and accountability for the way the Federal Government spends tax dollars of the hardworking Americans. It is no secret that the only way we can truly gather firsthand accounts of instances where waste, fraud and abuse occur is from the people on the inside, the Federal employees. Unfortunately, not all Federal employees are currently protected from being fired if they unmask corruption or other fraudulent activities going on inside the administration. This legislation goes right to the heart of the issue by extending much needed whistleblower protections to Federal Government employees working on national security, government contractor employees and transportation security employees, including baggage screeners at our airports. It only makes sense that Federal employees, especially those who have undergone extensive background investigations, obtained security clearances and handled classified information on a routine basis, be afforded the same rights and whistleblower protections as all other Federal employees. In addition, this legislation takes some very important steps. It would abolish the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction for overhearing whistleblower appeals cases, taking away its Supreme Court-like jurisdiction and allowing the appropriate Federal appeals courts in the respective circuit where the incident took place to hear such cases. For instance, if the instance of whistleblowing were to occur in New York, in my district, that is the Second Circuit. The initial decision rendered by the Second Circuit should be appealed in the Second Circuit. It should not be required to come to the Federal Circuit here. The current appeals structures for hearing whistleblower cases not only places a hefty financial burden on individuals who would have to travel from across the country to D.C. just to have their appeal heard, it also provides a disservice to our Nation's legal system by overburdening one court. As a former district attorney, I know from experience that having the ability to draw on decisions from similar cases rendered from different courts around the country would greatly improve our legal system. It would benefit all parties involved, and further enhance our Nation's exceptional legal system. Further, by allowing other Federal circuit appellate courts to hear whistleblower appeal cases increases the opportunity for those cases to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, it is time to level the playing field for all Federal employees who have the courage to stand up for the American people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, after 4 years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, we simply cannot reward failure with a blank check in the war in Iraq. I refuse to rubber-stamp more failed policies. In the weeks ahead, we have the opportunity as representatives of the people to change the direction in Iraq without jeopardizing the safety and well-being of our troops. We must finally require Iraqis to take control of their own country and their own destiny. The President has threatened to veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq; provides our troops with the training and equipment they need; and ensures that when our brave soldiers return home, they get the kind of care that they deserve. Our legislation also commits additional funds to fight the forgotten war in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda, strengthening our national security. Mr. Speaker, the people of New York's 24th District sent me here to address the war in Iraq and to start this country on a long overdue new direction for America.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet the week of March 12 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 1 p.m. on Monday, March 12. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations. In addition, the Rules Committee intends to meet next week to grant a rule that may structure the amendment process on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 13. Amendments must be drafted to the bill as ordered reported on March 8 by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A copy of that bill will be posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, the treatment some of our wounded military personnel are receiving at Walter Reed Army Hospital and other facilities around the Nation is outrageous and should be fixed immediately. The conditions and the neglect that many of these wounded soldiers are facing is just another example of this administration's failure to plan for the war in Iraq. It was bad enough that the administration went into this war without properly planning for the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. It is inexcusable that the same administration does not have an acceptable plan to care for wounded soldiers who return from combat in Iraq. We have all heard the stories about soldiers being moved into Building 18 with mold, mice, and cockroaches because Walter Reed had simply run out of space. Time after time this administration has cut the Veterans Administration budget during a time of war. And now the President wants to send an additional 21,000 troops into Iraq. How can we think of sending more troops into Iraq when we don't have enough space here in our military hospitals to provide the wounded with the care they rightfully deserve? We promise our veterans the quality care they need and deserve when they sign up to serve our country. It is time we make good on that promise.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 195 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 195 provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007 under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee on Financial Services as an original bill for purpose of amendment, which shall be considered for amendment by section with each section considered as read. The rule provides that any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee or her designee and shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, foreign investment creates jobs and serves as a vital component of our Nation's economy. However, we as a Nation cannot afford to sacrifice the safety and security with a foreign investment review process that jeopardizes American lives. Take, for instance, our Nation's ports, which employ thousands of Americans and handle a large majority of U.S.-bound cargo. New Yorkers and many of my colleagues take the security of these ports very, very seriously. We as a country cannot go halfway on port security. We must take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of our infrastructure and, more importantly, our constituents. We took a giant step in the right direction on port security a few weeks ago when we approved legislation that would require screening of 100 percent of all U.S.-bound shipping containers over the next 5 years. And today we are taking another step by reforming and strengthening the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, also known as CFIUS, process by which the Federal Government reviews foreign investments in the United States for their national security implications. As a new Member of Congress, I am new to this institution, but the controversy surrounding the Dubai Ports scandal last year echoed far beyond the Washington Beltway. I, along with many of my constituents, was troubled by the administration's approval of a deal to allow a company owned by a government of the United Arab Emirates to manage terminal operations at six major U.S. ports. It was clear that the administration dropped the ball and that the national security review process for foreign investments had failed. The National Security FIRST Act would significantly reform the foreign investment review process so that we never have another Dubai debacle, by ensuring that the proper steps are taken to keep our ports, our cities, and our citizens safe and secure. The National Security FIRST Act also requires the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a 30-day review of any national security-related business transaction. After a 30-day review is conducted, it would be required to conduct a full-scale, 45-day investigation of the effects the business transaction would have on national security, if deemed necessary. In addition, the legislation requires the committee to file semi- annual reports to Congress, keeping the American people informed and shedding some much-needed sunlight and transparency on foreign investments in the U.S. infrastructure that could have potentially devastating consequences to our security and our citizens. And while the legislation strengthens and reforms the process, it also allows the critical flow of foreign investment into the United States economy to continue, which is critical if we are going to successfully compete with the rest of the world in this age of globalization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of Financial Services.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, last night during the debate in the Rules Committee, some questions were raised as to the appropriateness of an open rule as opposed to bringing this bill under a suspension of the rules. I think that question was answered clearly in that 12 amendments were filed on the bill, three by Democrats and nine by Republicans. I think that question was clearly answered, an open rule is preferable and there are amendments filed. Protecting the safety and security of Americans is without question our top priority as Members of this institution. It is overwhelmingly clear that the current process is in place for the Federal Government to review foreign investment is broken. The National Security FIRST Act will provide the necessary reforms to the process and keep our infrastructure, our cities, and most importantly, our constituents safe and secure. It will also ensure that a debacle like the one that occurred last year at Dubai Ports does not happen again, while still continuing to encourage the very important foreign investment in our economy here in this country. I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and the previous question. Mr. Speaker, 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, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the Auburn Maroons of Auburn High School for making history in winning the Class AA New York State Football Championship on November 25, 2006--their first-ever Class AA State championship. The athletes of Auburn High School in New York's 24th district and their coach, Dave Moskov, proved their ability and dedication as they brought 10,000 fans to Syracuse University's Carrier Dome, cheering them onto victory. In the championship game, the Maroons defeated the Monroe-Woodbury Crusaders in overtime by a score of 27-26. Having played football at Proctor High School and later, at SUNY- Albany, I know how much hard work and commitment goes into developing a successful football team. I commend these players and Coach Moskov for their outstanding efforts. They have certainly made their families, their friends, and their community very proud. I am honored to have such skilled athletes and committed fans as part of my constituency and would once again like to congratulate the Maroons on this notable accomplishment.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the truly honorable life of Mr. William Griffen of Tully, New York. Mr. Griffen was a student, an educator, an activist, a writer, a father, a husband, a friend, a neighbor, and an inspiration. Mr. Griffen will be remembered for the enthusiasm and sincerity he brought to his work throughout his 78 years. Mr. Griffen attended SUNY Cortland where he received his B.S. in Education and went on to attend Cornell University, earning his M.A. and Ed.D. Mr. Griffen taught in Brentwood and Marathon, New York, for several years before returning to Cortland to become SUNY Cortland's longest-tenured Professor of Education. A beloved institution, Mr. Griffen was also honored as a distinguished alumnus of the university, ``teaching for over forty years and diligently working for peace and social justice at the local, state, national and international levels.'' Mr. Griffen aspired to influence our country on many levels, running for Congress twice, in 1968 and 1990. His extensive contribution through his writings has been seen in over 50 articles addressing war, technology, civil rights, and revolution. Additionally, he coauthored the book of Lessons of the Vietnam War--A Critical Examination of School Texts and an Interpretive Comparative History Utilizing the Pentagon Papers and Other Documents. During the Vietnam War, he was responsible for starting the Cortland Citizens for Peace organization and went on to become very active in the anti-war movement. Mr. Griffen's dedication to activism also led him to Mississippi and Tennessee with the historic, pioneering freedom riders, where he worked to register minority voters so they could have a voice in government. Even in his later days, Mr. Griffen continued his spirit of activism, helping the American Cancer Society by participating in a new program for people diagnosed with prostate cancer. He trained volunteers in upstate New York to counsel cancer patients and served on the speakers' bureau at the Syracuse Man-to-Man Cancer Support Group. Many say that Mr. Griffen was truly a renaissance man, with interests in baseball, jazz, nature, photography, and the environment. He and his wife, Judy, had three children: Mark, Kimberly, and Amy. William Griffen gave his heart and soul to improve the lives of the people he touched. His contributions and his sacrifices will live on for generations in upstate New York and around our great country. Thank you, Mr. Griffen.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I first of all would like to thank my fellow New Yorker and the dean of our delegation, Chairman Rangel, for his very hard work in bringing this very important bipartisan bill to the floor. I think it shows the depth of his knowledge and understanding of the issues, and I think it is very critical that we address this bill today. Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion in tax relief for our small business owners is the kind of sensible, responsible tax relief I am proud to support. Let's help small businesses do what they do best, and that is create jobs and strengthen our economy. During the debate at the Rules hearing, some of my colleagues were asking the question why we had to move so quickly on this bill, why we couldn't wait until Congress came back in session. I couldn't help but think of the old adage, why put off until tomorrow what you can do today. People who earn $5.15 who want the minimum wage raised have been waiting for 10 years. People in small business who pay more than they need to want tax breaks. It is the sensible thing to do, and it is the sensible thing to do right now. As I said earlier, this is a win-win scenario, because passage of this bipartisan fiscally responsible legislation will also clear the way for a much-needed and well-deserved increase in the minimum wage. America's workers have been waiting far too long for a pay raise. Let's not make them wait any longer. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question, because our small business owners need some relief and American workers deserve a raise. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 161 Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida On page 1, line 6, strike the period and insert ``, and the bill (H.R. 60) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the deduction of State and local general sales taxes.''.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 161 is a rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, under suspension of rules at any time on the legislative day of Friday, February 16, 2007. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must provide for consideration of these motions. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how honored I am as a member of the distinguished Rules Committee to manage the rule for consideration of such an important piece of legislation that will provide $1.3 billion of tax relief for our Nation's small business. This legislation, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, is strongly supported by a host of business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Restaurant Association. Small businesses are the backbone of this Nation's economy. Every day we as Americans utilize the services of small business owners, whether it is dropping off our dry cleaning, grabbing a bite to eat at a local diner or pizzeria, or waiting in line to pick up a prescription at a local pharmacy. We depend on our small businesses. It is a constant struggle for most small businesses just to keep the lights on. Utility costs continue to skyrocket, and larger companies continue to expand services, pushing out the mom-and-pop stores in cities and towns across the country. My constituents in Upstate New York have experienced this loss of economic activity firsthand, but that trend has continued. The Small Business Tax Relief Act would help small businesses grow and hire new workers by extending and expanding tax provisions that encourage investment in new equipment and promote the hiring of disadvantaged workers, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way that meets the pay-as-you-go requirements. Small business owners have to balance the books and stay on budget each month. It is only fitting that we do as well. Specifically, the bill would help small businesses invest in new equipment by extending and expanding expensing options for 1 year and increase both the amount small businesses can deduct from their taxes and the number of small businesses that can take these deductions. The bill would extend the work opportunity tax credit, which provides incentives to employers to hire individuals that frequently experience barriers to work for 1 year, and expand it to cover disabled veterans. In other words, it helps those who need jobs by giving employers tax credits for creating jobs. It would enhance the current tip credit for small businesses by maintaining the current tip credit that small businesses take for the Social Security taxes they pay on their employees' tips, instead of allowing it to drop with the long-overdue increase in the minimum wage this legislation will help achieve. The bill also contains a provision that would simplify tax-filing requirements for businesses owned jointly by a husband and wife, providing much-needed relief for the many small firms throughout this country. Right now, there is a glitch in the Social Security tax law which only allows one spouse, most often the husband, to get credit for paying into Social Security. This leaves women who work as equal partners in an unfair situation. The Small Business Tax Relief Act fixes this glaring inequality by ensuring that both partners, equal members of the team, receive their justly deserved entitlement benefits. Moreover, this legislation does not only help small businesses. It is a win-win, because passage of the Small Business Tax Relief Act is also a critical step in finalizing an increase in the Federal minimum wage for 13 million hardworking Americans. I made a promise to my constituents that I would go to Washington to fight for a long-overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage. Passage of this measure takes us one step closer to fulfilling that promise. I want to be clear. I support a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, like the legislation we passed a few weeks ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. However, 10 years is too long for any hardworking Americans to wait for a wage increase. Let's not force them to wait any longer. The time to act is now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate purposes only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 161 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).