[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24686-24694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2761, TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE 
                   REVISION AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 660

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance 
     Program of the Department of the 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 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and 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, are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 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

[[Page 24687]]

     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 an opponent, 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 against such further amendments are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with 
     such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2761 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  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 this 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 660.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 660 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and 
Extension Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour 
of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Financial 
Services. The rule also makes in order the 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 2002. The joint resolution, 
approving a certification by the Secretary of Treasury, in concurrence 
with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security and the Attorney 
General, that there has been an act of terrorism, would be considered 
by Congress under fast-track procedures.
  The rule makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules Committee 
report, each debatable for 10 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 11, 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.
  The original legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, referred 
to as TRIA, was set to expire at the end of 2005. The Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Extension Act of 2005 extended the government backstop for 
two more years, 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 attack, and how best to 
allocate the risk of terrorist attack between the government and 
private insurers. The rule provides for consideration of a bill that 
answers those questions.
  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 risk 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 will extend TRIA 
for 15 years and make necessary revisions aimed at furthering the 
development of a private market of terrorism risk insurance. Such a 
long-term extension is vital because it provides certainty and 
stability to the insurance and real estate markets.
  People may think that TRIA is only an issue for businesses in New 
York City, but that is clearly not the case. In the upstate New York 
district which I represent, small insurance companies like Utica First, 
Preferred Mutual and Utica National felt the dramatic impact that 9/11 
had on the private market. In the year that followed the September 11 
attacks, Utica First saw the volume of policies they were writing in 
the New York City area increase 27 percent as other companies ceased 
offering coverage. In order to do so, they risked 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 continued 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 insurers to offer coverage for 
nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist acts. Small 
insurers, like those in my district, are especially concerned about the 
effect of adding the nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological 
requirements to TRIA, 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 to happen 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 
2009, but also provides small insurers, those whose direct earned 
premium is less than $50 million, the ability to apply for an exemption 
of up to 2 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 $50 million. 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 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 adjourned this meeting without reporting out a 
rule so that alternatives to subverting the Rules Committee 
jurisdiction, while sticking to the Democrat pay-for 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 in history by providing an open and transparent 
legislative process, Members of this House were, once again, silenced 
by the heavy-handed Democrat leadership.

[[Page 24688]]

  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 the TRIA 
program in the 108th Congress, I fundamentally believe that it has 
helped the private sector to stabilize our Nation's economy by 
providing a functioning marketplace for policyholders to acquire 
terrorism 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 from 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 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 terrorists from abroad.
  Other aspects of this legislation, such as the inclusion of nuclear, 
biological, chemical, or 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's 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 vote, this rule contains language that skirts 
recent Democrat promises to abide by their own self-imposed PAYGO rules 
by shifting the responsibility of funding TRIA onto future Congresses.

                              {time}  1045

  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 insurers and policyholders with the 
certainty that they need to manage their exposure to the financial 
costs of terrorism, this bill simply kicks the responsibility down the 
road and by and large says ``we will let 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 and artful dodges of the 
PAYGO rule, I think that Members and their constituents deserve 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 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 Congresses, I 
believe that Members and their constituents deserve a bill that deals 
honestly with one of the most serious problems facing the American 
economy.
  Unfortunately, this bill provides none of these things and is a 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 it 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.
  I oppose this rule and encourage all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are several aspects of 
this. One is, of course, whether or not we should go forward with a 
renewal of terrorism risk insurance.
  There are, in our midst, people who 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 risk insurance from the outset and continue 
to because they say it should be up to the market. No one involved in 
the market thinks that makes sense. Indeed, we received a letter from 
the head of Goldman Sachs in 2005 saying there is 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 that into account.
  By the way, if the market could do it, it shouldn't because here is 
what the market would do, and we are talking about the insurance 
market: If you left this to the market or if you try to phase this out 
so the market would take it over, the principle of insurance says it 
should be more expensive to do business in those parts of the country 
which are likeliest to be hit by terrorists than not because that's the 
insurance principle. If there is a higher risk, you charge people more. 
We should not allow murderous fanatics who seek 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 it to be more expensive because of the murderers who would 
try to undermine this country to do business here or there.
  It is also the case that one of the principles of insurance is that 
you give it 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 is 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 
subcommittee and committee in which there were some disagreements but 
some agreements. A number of amendments offered by Republican Members 
were adopted and the bill had a very large vote coming out of 
committee.
  We then ran into a surprising obstacle. The Congressional Budget 
Office issued what seems to me an intellectually quite weak opinion. 
They said this is going to cost $10 billion over the next 5 years. Now, 
a $10 billion terrorism attack is not within our contemplation. I could 
see their saying it is not going to cost anything for this period or 
that it is 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 costs until there is an attack.
  My own view, frankly, was that this would have justified an emergency 
waiver under PAYGO. If being attacked by terrorists, if September 11, 
2001, was not an emergency, then I don't understand what the word 
means.
  We have been forced now to try to deal with this in other ways, and I 
understand that. It has been forced on us by CBO. The notion that we 
can say something now and leave it to future Congresses, the gentleman 
from Texas said it was unconstitutional. I am aware of no Supreme Court 
decision that would invalidate what we have proposed here. And it 
couldn't be binding. Nothing is binding of one on a future one. I think 
that would be a very high degree of probability.

[[Page 24689]]

  So we do have this approach which came up suddenly. It came up 
suddenly. It wasn't debated in our committee because the issue of the 
CBO estimate hadn't come before us in the committee. So we now have 
Members on the other side complaining that the rule was too 
restrictive.
  Mr. Speaker, when I hear Members of the Republican Party who ran this 
House in the most blatantly undemocrat fashion for so many years now 
complain about a lack of democracy, I feel like I am in a motion 
picture theater and I'm watching an Ingmar Bergman dark movie which 
features the Three Stooges. The incongruity 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 and a committee markup, and we dealt very much with 
those issues.
  My own preference would have been to allow a few more amendments, 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 CBO. Now, either you do a waiver of PAYGO or you make cuts now of 
$10 billion in programs on the possibility of there being a terrorist 
attack. It seems to me that is a great favor to terrorists. Let them 
cut programs now by just threatening to blow us up. 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, 
CBO estimate. And the CBO estimate basically says here is 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. And, by the way, 
industry is not just the insurance industry. It's the commercial 
building industry. They are the ones who are at risk here. The 
insurance industry can walk away, but if they walk away, we won't get 
commercial buildings built, particularly in our big cities, which is 
why the mayors of the big cities are so concerned and others are 
concerned about economic development.
  So we need further work to see how we can deal with this CBO issue, 
and I think we have a reasonable first cut. It is one where, it is 
true, we did not deal with it in our committee. What we dealt with in 
the committee in great detail with a number of amendments and a lot of 
compromise were all the other factors. And we now get this new issue. 
This is a good-faith effort to deal with the new issue but not in a way 
that is final. So I hope we can go forward.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield to the 
gentleman from 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 questioned the decision that was made, and it will 
help us to reflect upon an opportunity about how it could be done 
better.
  I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from San Dimas, California, the Honorable David Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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 11, 2001. We all, in the wake of that tragedy, the 
likes of which we had never seen in our Nation's history, came together 
and united in a bipartisan way to deal with the aftermath of September 
11 of 2001. One of the many things that we did was realize that we are 
a Nation at war, and in light of that, the private insurance industry, 
and I am 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. So I supported the notion of 
saying, you know what, when we are a Nation at war, the free market 
can't just automatically protect those who are victimized by that kind 
of attack. 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 in leading the fight.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what we are doing with this rule is 
undermining something that Mr. Arcuri said in his opening remarks that 
this bill creates: certainty. Mr. Arcuri said that this bill creates 
certainty. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this self-executed 
provision in this rule, and my friend Mr. Ackerman from New York 
understands this very well, is we are completely obliterating any kind 
of certainty.
  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 will say, 
oh, of course the Congress is going to take action, of course the 
Congress will do it. You know what, Mr. Speaker? That is 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 11.
  That is 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 multipage, self-
executing provision which undermines the jurisdiction of the Rules 
Committee. And that is why I am 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 cede the authority that we 
would have on this. And 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 5- and 10-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 certainty that is necessary.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I have 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 in the Rules Committee between a 
waiver of PAYGO, 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 has got to be another solution. And the reason is that this new 
Congress put into the rules this PAYGO provision, very well intentioned 
but very, very badly flawed, Mr. Speaker. So I think that if we look at 
what it is we are doing on this in the name of trying to avoid a waiver 
of PAYGO, this self-executing provision actually waives PAYGO 
completely.

                              {time}  1100

  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.
  Mr. ARCURI. I think the gentleman is right, this may be 
unprecedented; but the attack on 9/11 was unprecedented as well, and 
sometimes unprecedented events require unprecedented action, and that's 
what we are attempting to do today, create a rule to enact legislation 
like TRIA to create a backstop so that insurance companies can continue 
to create a stable environment for business to thrive in New York City.

[[Page 24690]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution setting 
forth the terms of debate for considering H.R. 2761 on the House floor.
  The adoption of this rule will allow the House to debate this must-
pass legislation to extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. We 
need to move 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 
that the 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 responds to an emergency 
situation and only becomes implemented after a terrorist attack. 
Because TRIA plans ahead for an emergency caused by terrorists, 
Congress should treat spending under this law as an emergency.
  PAYGO is an important rule that keeps Congress fiscally responsible. 
PAYGO, however, should not apply to all pieces of legislation, 
especially those bills that plan ahead for national emergencies caused 
by terrorists. My view is that all legislation should be fiscally 
responsible to 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 
reset.
  TRIA is not an entitlement program. It is a program for protecting 
the economic security of our Nation. H.R. 2761 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 in this rule 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.
  That said, Mr. Speaker, we must move the process forward. I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to support this rule on H.R. 2761.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
for his fine remarks. As a matter of fact, I agree with him, that I do 
not believe that it is proper or correct to have a mandatory bill which 
requires mandatory spending, but discretionary funding that's 
available. And that is 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 whether we're really serious 
about providing that or not. And I believe that that is a serious 
question that comes under question today about the serious nature of 
the policy of this.
  I don't attack the underlying legislation at all. The legislation 
does not bother me. I've supported this for years. That's what will be 
the underpinning of making 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 
within itself about whether they're really serious about their 
opportunity to bring to the table serious policy issues that face this 
great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from 
Texas and his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this remarkable rule, this martial-law 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as you 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, ``Because the debate has been 
limited and Americans' voices silenced 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, ``If we 
want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the 
thoughtfulness to debate all 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 Chairman Rahm Emanuel said before the election, 
``Let's have an up-or-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.
  Mr. 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 $100 billion. So this legislation represents a dramatic increase 
in exposure to the taxpayer. And that may be appropriate.
  I offered an amendment that would have allowed for appropriate PAYGO 
rules to make certain that we funded this bill. It went down by a 
partisan vote. My amendment would have protected the taxpayer dollars 
of hardworking Americans. There would be real offsets, a commonsense 
approach. If there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the 
American hard-earned 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, ``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 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.
  Mr. Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want 
to. The Democrats promised to use PAYGO rules for everything. Instead, 
they're picking and choosing when they do so. At home, we call that 
breaking a rule and breaking a promise. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't 
just be 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

[[Page 24691]]

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 PAYGO, 
real fiscal responsibility on this legislation. The American people 
deserve no less.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. 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 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, and the steps that we are 
taking today are necessary if we are going to create the stability in 
business that is necessary to continue and allow our economy to grow.
  I don't think it's absurd for the people who were there on 9/11. I 
don't think it's absurd for the insurance companies that now want to 
begin to insure the businesses and buildings in New York City. Oh, no, 
this is not absurd at all. This is the business of Congress. This is 
what we do, and this is what we do best.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(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.

                              {time}  1115

  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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, once again, 
another speaker from our friends on the Democrat side, talking with us 
about how they are going to fix it. We appreciate that.
  That is what we are asking for today. The best I can tell you is that 
the Republican Party is in favor of fixing it. We believe the best way 
to do it is on the floor of the House right now, because right now we 
could fix it where all the Members will understand what the 
ramifications are. The ramifications are either that we are going to 
say that terrorist attacks don't apply under PAYGO rules or that 
terrorist attacks would be in 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 is asking us to do is ``just trust me.'' 
Well, the first thing I would like to do is get a copy of the letter. 
It would be appropriate for me to ask for that. I know the gentleman, 
Mr. Ackerman, does not oppose my getting a copy of that letter. But 
what we are now being told is, ``now trust us that it will be brought 
back in a forum where there is debate, but it is either an up or down 
vote.'' We can't change that decision, nor can any other Member of this 
body change that. We have heard enough people talk today about how what 
is happening is wrong, should not happen, is bad policy. We ought to 
fix it today here on the floor if we are going to move forward and not 
say, ``trust me, trust me, wait 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation and certainly 
with very strong questions and reservations about the rule. Like Mr. 
Ackerman, I certainly came to the floor intending to oppose the rule. I 
will study the letter which Mr. Ackerman obtained from the majority 
leader. I agree with Mr. Sessions that this is a very uncertain way to 
proceed, relying on a promise from a letter. Not that I, in any way, 
question the intent to follow through on the promise, but again, how 
that could be interpreted, what the final language will be, does raise 
serious issues.

[[Page 24692]]

  Having said that, I commend Mr. Ackerman for his efforts. I do 
believe it is important that this process continue to go forward.
  The reason I support the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that 
this is not a New York issue, even though it is often focused that way 
because of the fact that there have been 2 major terrorist attacks on 
New York City, but it truly is a national issue. I want to commend 
Chairman Frank for his efforts at the committee level. I also want to 
emphasize that this was a bipartisan vote which voted this bill out of 
committee. I particularly appreciate the fact that, in the committee, 
an amendment was offered by myself and Mr. Ackerman which extends TRIA 
15 years, passed by a bipartisan vote.
  I know that, certainly on my side of the aisle, a number of Members 
are concerned about the reason that the 15-year term is essential. The 
fact is that any significant project is going to be of 15 years' 
duration. Both the preliminary work and the construction itself is 
going to go to 15 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 TRIA is extended. And also the insurers 
have the certainty that TRIA will be there for the 15 years, for the 
duration of the project.
  I have to emphasize that there 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 municipalities the 
certainty, so they can go forward with this development? Otherwise, we 
are allowing the terrorists to set the terms and conditions. We are 
letting them determine what is going to be built and not rebuilt. If 
this 15-year extension does not go forward, if TRIA is not extended, 
the reality is that there will not be a rebuilding of Ground Zero. 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 is and what our homeland 
security is. Passage of TRIA is an essential component of that.
  As the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and its 
ranking member, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware how New York and 
other cities in other parts of our country are in the crosshairs of 
Islamic terrorism. We know that attacks are inevitable. Whether or not 
they are successful is another story, but certainly attempted attacks 
are inevitable. I believe it is essential that no matter what part of 
the country you are from, you have the assurance that if, God forbid, 
you are attacked, that there will be insurance in place for you to 
rebuild. Because otherwise, you are not going to find insurers stepping 
forward. Places like New York, which was attacked, will not receive 
insurance that it needs to go forward. And the terrorists will have 
scored and attained not just the victory they attained on September 11 
where almost 3,000 people were murdered, but they will have the 
additional victory in that the area that they attacked will not be 
rebuilt.
  It could be New York. As I said, it was New York in 1993. It was New 
York in 2001. It could be any one of a number of other cities in the 
future. So let us protect ourselves in the ultimate essence of homeland 
security and have a complete component of security, and TRIA is 
essential to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the underlying legislation. I look 
forward to examining the letter which Mr. Ackerman procured and see 
what that signifies for the future. But the reality is that we have to 
have the absolute assurance. We cannot be relying on a vote sometime in 
the future. The government itself could be attacked. The Capitol may 
not be here. There may not be a quorum of Members attainable. We have 
to have that absolute assurance in place now.
  With that, again, I thank Chairman Frank. I thank, certainly, Mr. 
Sessions for his courtesy. I thank Mr. Ackerman for his efforts. I also 
thank Ranking Member Bachus for his cooperation and courtesy throughout 
this hearing.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New 
York (Mr. King) for his words. He has worked hard on the TRIA 
legislation, and we appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, reasonable people have differences of 
opinion on the base bill. There are a lot of things in here that I 
think different people can have different opinions on, the 15-year time 
limits and the triggers in the deductibles. A lot of them, almost all 
of them, are reasonable best guesses based on experience, and that is 
it. They are open to discussion. They are open to debate. There is no 
definitive answer as to which one is right. This bill is the classic 
example of compromise upon compromise to try to get to a bill that as 
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 is 
hard to argue. That is a gut feeling. There are no definitives and no 
real answers. But I will tell you that when the argument turns to 
fiscal responsibility and there is this false argument that someone is 
more fiscally responsible than someone else, it bothers me. It bothers 
me a lot, because I think that is beginning to get into the great lie 
to the American people: ``We are more responsible than you. We are more 
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. I respect 
that. If there is another route to take, fine. I am open to discussion. 
I am open to the proposals. But to pretend this bill is somehow going 
to spend taxpayers' money when it is not is ludicrous. To pretend that 
people here are more fiscally responsible than others when they are not 
bothers me even more.
  We had one major vote on PAYGO. One. And that was November 14, 2002, 
when the Republican-led House put forth a bill on this floor that 
basically gutted and terminated PAYGO. Only 19 Members of this House 
voted against that bill. Not a single Republican voted against it. Not 
one. And it gutted and killed PAYGO, according to CRS, to the tune of 
$560 billion. That was real money and real PAYGO that threatened a real 
sequestration over 5 years. Yet, the Republican-led House then, after 
the 9/11 attack, while we were in the middle of war, decided PAYGO was 
not important then. They killed it. If it wasn't important then, and 
yet today we are taking an action that we guarantee that no taxpayer 
money gets spent without additional action by this House, then I don't 
understand the logic. I see it as nothing but hypocritical.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I do appreciate my good friend, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, coming in and arguing, but his side 
has already given in on this point. They have already conceded that 
they don't like the way the bill is, the self-executing rule. There is 
already agreement on his side, ``Whoa, this is wrong. We don't agree 
with this. We will agree to fix it.''
  So, I love the gentleman from Massachusetts, he and I are very good 
friends, but they have already conceded that point. They have already 
said, ``We think there could be a better way to do it. We agree to fix 
it.'' So what did we say on this side? ``Thank you very much, Mr. 
Ackerman. We appreciate this. That is what we have been asking for. We 
are pleased that we got it.''
  I wish we had the agreement here today. I wish we knew what that deal 
was going to be before you brought the bill to the floor. That's why we 
held off in the Rules Committee for an extra day waiting for a better 
answer. Didn't get it, get to the floor.
  I would say to my good friends on this side, if you want us to be a 
better minority, you are going to have to be a better majority. We took 
seriously what Speaker Pelosi said, ``honest,

[[Page 24693]]

open, ethical Congress.'' We are still waiting for that through the 
Rules Committee. When she said, ``PAYGO is going to apply to 
everything,'' it implied that Republicans didn't do that. Then we took 
that at the surface of the words, not looking for fine print, not 
looking for how they are going to try and get out of it. So we are 
trying to make sure that we simply know what we are supposed to count 
on.
  They have come to the floor today, and they have said, ``We are going 
to work on it.'' I am pleased we are going to do that. I am simply 
saying that it should have been done before it got here. That is 
sloppy.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers on the rule. 
I yield to the gentleman from New York to run down his time, then I 
will make my closing statement.
  Mr. ARCURI. I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the 
previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for the 
consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution 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 to 
the American people about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved 
earmark rules.

                              {time}  1130

  As the Congress has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the 
Democrats' rule changes definitely sound good, they have not really 
lived up to their promise and have not really accomplished much, since 
the majority has repeatedly turned their head the other way when it 
comes to their actual enforcement.
  I acknowledge that the majority has given into the minority demands 
for enforcement of their own rules a handful of times when it comes to 
appropriations conference reports. Unfortunately, we continue to see 
non-disclosed earmarks in all sorts of bills, also.
  This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and 
honestly the validity and accuracy of 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' nonexistent 
credibility when it comes to enforcement of its rules, like we have 
seen once again today.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the fact that today, 
everything we hear from the other side is smoke and mirrors. They want 
to talk about everything except what we are here to talk about today, 
and that is the rule on the TRIA legislation.
  My friend from Texas infers that the Rules Committee is not open, 
honest and ethical. Well, I resent that. I think we are very open, we 
are honest, and we are very ethical. He knows that, and he shouldn't 
put petty partisan politics ahead of what we are here today to do, and 
that is to pass a rule on TRIA legislation.
  Protecting the security and safety of America is without question our 
top priority and the reason that we are here in Congress as Members of 
this institution. The horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
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 properties surrounding them. Reinsurers, 
those companies that insure the insurance companies, excluded terrorist 
events from coverage altogether.
  To address this market failure, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act, and that was under the Republican Congress, because it 
was the right thing to do. And we will continue to do the right thing 
here today.
  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 and we will be back where we were following the September 
11 attacks.
  H.R. 2761 extends TRIA by 15 years to provide added certainty to this 
vital sector of our economy that a mere 2-year extension cannot 
provide. The bill also lays the 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 unfairly 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.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 660 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page 24694]]

     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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________