[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 163 (Saturday, December 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12056-H12059]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 623 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 623
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Saturday, December 17, 2005, for the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
relating to the following measures:
(1) The bill (H.R. 4519) to amend the Public Health Service
Act to extend funding for the operation of State high risk
health insurance pools.
(2) The bill (H.R. 2520) to provide for the collection and
maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment
of patients and research, and to amend the Public Health
Service Act to authorize the C. W. Bill Young Cell
Transplantation Program.
(3) The bill (H.R. 4568) to improve proficiency testing of
clinical laboratories.
(4) The bill (H.R. 3402) to authorize appropriations for
the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2006 through 2009,
and for other purposes.
(5) The bill (H.R. 4579) to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the
Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend by one year provisions requiring parity in the
application of certain limits to mental health benefits.
(6) The bill (H.R. 4525) to temporarily extend the programs
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other
purposes.
(7) The conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1281)
to reauthorize the human space flight, aeronautics, and
science programs of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and for other purposes.
(8) The conference report to accompany the bill (S. 467) to
extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
of 2002.
(9) A joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides that certain specified measures
may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the
legislative day of Saturday, December 17, 2005.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has set forth a
positive legislative agenda for the remainder of this week and the
balance of the first session of the 109th Congress. The goal of this
plan is to address a number of outstanding issues remaining on
Congress's calendar before we adjourn that maintain our commitment to
improving America's economy and national security.
Over the past year, we have passed a number of important new
education, health care, tax, trade and national security bills that
will keep Americans safer and healthier, create new jobs and improve
our economy. This rule will allow the House to consider a number of
additional bills today under suspension of the rules that will ensure
that Congress can complete some additional important work before we
adjourn for the holidays.
This rule makes in order the consideration of nine bills under
suspension
[[Page H12057]]
of the rules. These bills accomplish necessary and noncontroversial
goals, such as extending funding for the operation of State high-risk
health insurance pools, providing for collection of human cord blood
stem cells for medical treatment and research, and improving the
proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.
The suspension authority will also allow us to consideration
legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice,
improve medical benefits for patients, extend important educational
programs and help NASA to continue its human space flight, aeronautics
and science programs.
Perhaps most notably, it provides for consideration of the conference
report to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
Extending TRIA is a goal upon which I have worked very closely with my
friends and fellow House conferees, Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman
Richard Baker, and I commend them for their hard work in preparing this
bill for President Bush's signature.
This legislation represents a fiscally responsible response to the
threats that acts of terrorism pose to the American economy. It also
includes important taxpayer protections and will ensure that this
important program does not expire and leave the marketplace for
terrorism insurance in uncertainty.
After the tragedy of September 11, the marketplace for terrorism
insurance largely disappeared. This lack of terrorism coverage
terminated or delayed billions of dollars in commercial property
financing, threatening business operations and development and job
creation and our overall economy.
TRIA has proven its ability to stabilize the market, and it will
continue to provide essential protection for businesses of all sizes in
our country. I urge my colleagues to take the opportunity later today
to follow up on this program's successful record and to reauthorize
TRIA so that the program does not lapse and hurt businesses and
policyholders around this great Nation.
Like TRIA, all of the bills scheduled for consideration by the
Republican House leadership on behalf of all Americans enjoy broad
support from Members of both the majority and the minority parties.
This rule simply provides us with the tools needed to ensure that all
of the important work is completed before we adjourn to our families
and communities to celebrate for the holidays.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this uncontroversial and balanced rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is appropriate that we are providing for
suspension of the rules, since we learned yesterday that the President
has suspended the law regarding spying on American citizens. I heard
one of our colleagues earlier say that it was the law. I would remind
him that this House has passed no such measure permitting spying on
American citizens, even babies know that.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already noted, this rule will permit
the House to consider nine pieces of legislation under suspension of
the rules. While I will not oppose this rule and intend to support the
nine bills to which the rule applies, and I say that advisedly, taking
into consideration the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my
distinguished colleague, who will explain in detail the circumstances
regarding Labor-HHS and the drastic implications for the finances of
certain agencies.
I am deeply concerned that the House is again operating outside the
boundaries of regular order.
{time} 1430
For the last year, my friends in the Republican leadership have
consistently convened the House a mere 3 days a week, occasionally 4.
They have regularly sent Members home earlier than anyone else in this
country gets off work. Sure, I certainly, and I believe all of us,
appreciate going home a few hours earlier during the week. But forgive
me, Mr. Speaker, if I am not the most sympathetic Member when the
leadership cries legislative crisis time and time again over situations
that it created.
There is a better way to run this body, and the Republicans continue
to show that they are incapable of leading the House in an efficient
and regular manner.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I, like my wonderful colleague, Mr.
Hastings, am here doing the work of the American people. We are proud
of what we are doing. It is just 1 week before Christmas, and we have a
lot of work left to do. That is why we are here. We are here to work.
There are a number of my colleagues who showed up for work today
prepared and ready. We know they miss their family and friends. Nathan
Deal of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia, and John Shimkus of Illinois are
just an example of three Members of Congress who, even on a weekend and
even a week before Christmas, show up.
So it is my hope that this same spirit we all talk about today, of
accomplishing our work on behalf of the American people, the importance
of completing our work because we said we would do it, to be
responsible to the people of this whole country, all the people, that
that spirit will carry through because that is why we are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was struck
by the gentleman from Texas crediting his fellow Republicans for
showing up. Because if it were not for the combination of institutional
incompetence and ideological extremism that dominates the Republican
Party, none of us would have had to be here. So I guess we all deserve
recognition as victims of that.
I actually think this motion should have been retitled. It should
have been called Subversion of the Rules, not Suspension of the Rules,
because that is what is happening. We are being at almost gunpoint, the
metaphorical, parliamentary equivalent of gunpoint, being asked to
debate under very restrictive measures bills that deserve more.
Let me talk about one, the terrorism risk insurance. I think it is an
important bill, and I agree substantively with what the gentleman from
Texas said. Unfortunately, the right wingers who dominate this
administration and much of the congressional leadership in both Houses
do not agree. They tried to kill this thing, until finally, at the
overwhelming insistence of people who are involved in the economy of
this country said that that would be irresponsible, they did the next
best thing. They have forced us to deal with it in a constricted and
inappropriate way.
We did take it up in the House, and we had a full markup in our
committee, and we voted on it on the floor. In the Senate, and let us
praise the rule change that now allows us to tell the truth about what
goes on in the Senate, the Senate passed a very restricted version of
this. The Senate chairman of the banking committee then refused to
appoint conferees.
Interestingly, we are going to have to amend this rule, because the
rule, reasonably, said let us take up on suspension the conference
report on TRIA. And then the Rules Committee had to be reminded that
there is no conference report on TRIA, because the Republican Senate
chairman, knowing that he would have been outvoted in the conference,
refused to allow one and, instead, individually dictated what would be
in it.
So we are going to have to amend it, because if we had a vote on a
conference report on TRIA, we would have no TRIA. They would not have a
conference. The regular order has been totally subverted.
Unfortunately, we have to accommodate it because we are up against a
December 31 extension.
By the way, if the House Republican leadership had not delayed
consideration of this bill, we could have done it months ago and not
been vulnerable to that kind of extortion.
What we have now is a bill that leaves out, for example, the
commission on how to deal with terrorism insurance that the families of
September
[[Page H12058]]
11 have asked for. We will go into that further when we debate it, but
the families of September 11 asked for a commission. We included it in
the House bill. Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker accommodated that
reasonable request. It is not in the Senate Bill. And because of this
outrageously high-handed legislative procedure, we do not have a chance
to include it.
An important provision was adopted here in the House, sponsored by
the gentlewoman from Florida, to prevent people who are traveling to
what some insurance companies think are dangerous areas, like Israel,
from being denied life insurance. That is not in the bill. Maybe some
people do not like it, but we should have been able to have had a forum
in which it could be debated and decided.
Instead, we have the right wing that controls the executive branch
and both Houses of Congress grudgingly allowing a bare bones and, I
think, inadequate form of extension. It is better than nothing. It is
important to the economy, and the gentleman from Texas is right. But
here is a combination of ideological extremism and a refusal to
recognize the legitimacy of a democratic process here.
As we salute democracy in Iraq, and I am glad we saw it yesterday, I
guess I am starting to get jealous of the Iraqis, because as of now
there is more democracy being practiced under American auspices in Iraq
than the leadership here in the House of Representatives is allowing on
the floor of this body.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has very
appropriately talked about this important act, this TRIA legislation;
and I would like to take time to thank the ranking member of the
Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts) for not only
his work for a long time on this bill but for working clearly and
closely with industry and consumer groups to make sure that what we had
control over of here in the House that we passed.
I do admit that there is frustration. There is frustration on my
part, too, as the gentleman is well aware. And I will tell you that the
process that has taken place may not be perfect, but I want to thank
the gentleman not only for his support of the work that we were able to
accomplish but for sticking with it.
The good part is there will be a process here today and the gentleman
will be able to speak very clearly about his thoughts on that, and we
will move forward.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
for just a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for his graciousness
on that, and I appreciate that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this particular moment I am
privileged to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to put the House on notice that I intend to ask for a
rollcall on this rule. And if we do have a rollcall, I am going to vote
against it, and I want to explain why.
One of the bills that this rule makes in order is the continuing
resolution. At this point, this Congress has not passed the defense
bill. It has not passed the Labor, Health, Education and Social
Services appropriations bill. Together that equals about 65 percent of
all the discretionary spending in the budget. We still have not passed
those bills almost 3 months into the fiscal year.
Now, this resolution will allow the continuing resolution, which
expires today, to continue until February 15. Now, it also says that we
will not be able to amend the CR. However, there is nothing to prevent
the Senate from amending the CR when it goes over there, and I fully
expect them to try because they have a different set of priorities than
the Republican House leadership. If you do not believe that, just ask
Mr. Stevens.
There is another problem with the CR, and that is that it funds both
the Defense bill and the Labor, Health, and Education bill at a very
much lower level and on a very much more restricted basis than I think
is healthy. Example: on the Defense side, if the Defense appropriations
bill does not pass, it means that money will trickle out to the
military, but they will not be able to do the advanced procurement
expenditures that they need if you are going to have intelligent
planning.
On the Labor-Health side, what it means, and this is even more
serious, I think, because I think there is a better chance that the
defense bill may pass, but the Labor-Health bill right now is so
inadequate that the majority leader in the Senate cannot get enough
votes to pass it. And so now what they are doing is setting up this
scenario: they are going to fund Labor-Health programs at a level $1.4
billion below the House-passed bill and $3 billion below last year. And
because of the peculiarities of the formula, programs such as the
Community Service Block Grants are going to be funded at a level 50
percent below last year. You might as well gut that program if you let
that happen.
And why are they doing it? I think the reason they are doing it is
because they know they cannot pass that turkey of a Labor-Health bill
now as it is, so they are trying to set up a scenario in which in
February Senators will have to vote for that inadequate bill in order
to escape from the crisis which was manufactured by this inadequate and
rigid CR.
I think House Members, if we are going to be asked to pass another
CR, ought to have an opportunity to amend it. Coming from an
agricultural State, I am told that the agreement just reached between
the House and the Senate is going to allow Senator Cochran to put $2
billion wherever he wants it in agriculture, and I would kind of like
to see some of that money going to the MILC program. But it is not
going to under the way this is set up.
I would also like to amend the funding rate for a number of programs
so that you do not indirectly, under the table, without a frontal vote,
gut programs like the Community Services Block Grant.
So I want to put the House on notice, despite any agreement at the
leadership level, I intend to ask for a rollcall vote because this is
nuts.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I hope that the general body heard and understood Mr. Obey's
explanation, the fact remains that it would devastate programs in this
country that people are totally relying upon; and, more importantly, my
friends who espouse their support of the military, put the military in
a position of not being able to do advanced procurement and to live at
restrictive levels. That is not right. Therefore, we need to pay
particular attention to the continuing resolution.
I would urge Members to be prepared to come back for this particular
measure, in light of the explanations offered by my colleagues Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Obey.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions:
In the 8th paragraph, strike ``conference report to
accompany the''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle for their thoughtful comments this morning about the
circumstances, as we are here on December 17, almost a week before
Christmas. I would like to thank all my colleagues for coming down and
speaking clearly.
There is a lot of frustration, but I believe the process is important
for us to follow through. I am proud of what we are doing. We can
accomplish it all together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
[[Page H12059]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 190, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 663]
YEAS--213
Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--30
Akin
Baca
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Cardoza
Clay
Cubin
Cummings
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, M.
Ehlers
Gilchrest
Hoyer
Hyde
Istook
Kolbe
McCarthy
McCrery
Myrick
Pastor
Platts
Spratt
Stearns
Waters
Watson
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Young (FL)
{time} 1518
Ms. HERSETH changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 663 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________