[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15334-H15339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4299, TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE 
                  PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 862 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 862

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4299) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the 
     Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions of the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 4299 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 862.
  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 862 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 4299, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2007. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of H.R. 4299 except those arising under clause 9 
and clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks brief. We have debated the 
substance of this bill before, and the House passed a similar version 
in September with the support of 312 Members of this body. The measure 
we will consider today contains many needed revisions to the terrorism 
risk insurance program to ensure our national and economic security.
  The terrorism risk insurance program was originally enacted as a 
short-term backstop for an insurance industry hard hit by the terrorist 
attacks that occurred on September 11 of 2001. In the years since, we 
have seen that the private insurance market is unable to cover the risk 
of both domestic and foreign acts of terrorism without assistance.
  Experience has shown that there is a true need for government 
involvement in terrorism insurance. The exposure for private companies 
is just too great. In the wake of September 11, 2001, many companies 
opted to exclude terrorism risks from private insurance policies, 
leaving no coverage in the event of another attack. TRIA requires 
primary insurers to make terrorism insurance available to commercial 
clients that wish to purchase it while at the same time helping those 
insurers manage their exposure to risk of loss.
  The legislation this rule provides for consideration of would extend 
TRIA for 7 more years. This is a shorter extension than the 15-year 
extension that the House originally passed but still far longer than 
the 2-year extension that was enacted in 2005. A 7-year extension will 
provide greater certainty and stability to the insurance and real 
estate markets than presently exists, and that is good for business.
  The legislation would also make several other critical changes to the 
terrorism risk insurance program. It would change the definition of 
terrorism under TRIA to include domestic terrorism and reset the 
program trigger level, where the government backstop kicks in, to $50 
million, where it was in 2006. It would expand the program to provide 
for group life insurance coverage; would decrease deductibles for 
terrorist attacks costing over $1 billion; and reduce the trigger level 
in the years following such an attack.
  The TRIA bill which the House approved in September would have 
required insurers to include coverage for nuclear, biological, 
chemical, and radiological attacks in policies they offer. However, 
this provision has been removed from the bill because some insurers, 
particularly the smaller insurers, raised concerns regarding their 
ability to cover the additional risk when private reinsurance does not 
exist.
  To address these concerns, the legislation will mandate a study by 
the Government Accountability Office on the availability and the 
affordability of private insurance coverage for nuclear, biological, 
chemical, and radiological attacks. This provision represents a 
commonsense first step in addressing the economic fallout of such an 
attack.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical in protecting our national 
and economic security in the fight against terrorism. It will also help 
many of the small- and medium-sized insurance companies located in my 
congressional district provide coverage in this ever-changing 21st 
century.
  I commend Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank and Ranking 
Member Bachus for their bipartisan effort to bring this vital, time-
sensitive piece of legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, despite my long-term support for 
TRIA, because passing a bill that has already been pronounced dead on 
arrival in the Senate foolishly puts the reauthorization of this 
important program in jeopardy as its expiration date at the end of the 
year draws ever closer because

[[Page H15335]]

the Democrat House leadership has decided to continue to play political 
games on this issue.
  By engaging in this game of what I call ``legislative chicken'' with 
the Senate, the House is setting itself up for potentially allowing 
this important program to expire, an outcome that I believe is bad for 
continued growth of the American economy and is an outcome that I 
strongly oppose.
  But even if the Senate were somehow to miraculously pass this 
legislation, the Statement of Administration Policy regarding this 
legislation that was released by the Office of Management and Budget on 
Tuesday makes it clear that President Bush will veto this bill in its 
current form and that any extension of the TRIA program must be 
temporary and short term, include no program expansion and must 
increase private sector retentions.

                              {time}  1215

  At this time, I will submit a copy of the Statement of Administrative 
Policy for substantially similar legislation explaining the futility of 
today's legislative exercise in the Congressional Record.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, December 11, 2007.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 2761--Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

       The Administration believes that the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act (TRIA) should be phased out in favor of a 
     private market for terrorism insurance. The most efficient, 
     lowest-cost, and most innovative methods of providing 
     terrorism risk insurance will come from the private sector. 
     Therefore, the Administration has set forth three key 
     elements for an acceptable extension of TRIA: (1) the Program 
     should be temporary and short-term; (2) there should be no 
     expansion of the Program; and (3) private sector retentions 
     should be increased.
       The Administration continues to believe that any TRIA 
     reauthorization should satisfy these three key elements. 
     However, the Administration will not oppose the version of 
     H.R. 2761 passed by the Senate on November 16, 2007. The 
     Administration strongly opposes any amendments that move the 
     Senate-passed version of the bill away from the 
     Administration's key elements. Accordingly, if H.R. 2761 were 
     presented to the President in the form to be considered by 
     the House, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto 
     the bill.

  Mr. Speaker, the Senate version of this legislation is not perfect. 
However, I do believe that on behalf of terrorism insurance 
policyholders, American workers and businesses, the health of our 
insurance marketplace and the continued growth of the American economy, 
it is important for the House to stop playing games with TRIA and to 
pass a bill that can advance through the Senate and be signed into law 
by President Bush.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this exercise 
in legislative futility so that the Rules Committee can instead bring 
to the floor a rule that would provide for consideration of the Senate 
compromise bill that the House has already received.
  It's time to stop playing games on this important issue and for the 
majority to finally grow up and lead to protect the American economy 
from the threat of terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, as a representative from New York, I can say 
that there is no nonsense about this. This is a critically important 
piece of legislation, something that is necessary not only for New York 
but for the entire country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, who has been a champion of this legislation, Mr. Ackerman.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, 
H.R. 4299, which would extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or 
TRIA, for 7 years.
  TRIA is a vital program that has made effective terrorism insurance 
coverage available across this Nation by creating a Federal backstop to 
share with the insurance industry the burdens of losses caused by 
catastrophic acts of terrorism upon our country.
  The certainty and stability that TRIA has provided over the past 6 
years has allowed large-scale developers to plan, to secure financing 
and insurance and, ultimately, to build the types of multimillion- or 
multibillion-dollar real estate development projects in our 
capitalistic system, projects that shape our cities and invigorate the 
American economy.
  With TRIA set to expire at the end of the month, I am particularly 
grateful that our leadership and Chairman Frank and our friends on the 
minority side are insisting that Congress renew this vital program 
before we run out of time and insurers are forced, in an act of self-
preservation, to abandon our Nation's largest projects.
  This rule will allow the House to consider legislation to reauthorize 
TRIA for the second time in 3 months. My colleagues may recall passing 
H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act. 
H.R. 2761 was a triumph for bipartisanship, regular order, good-faith 
bargaining and effective government. It sought to extend TRIA for 
another 15 years, added group life insurance to the program, lowered 
the program trigger, provided for nuclear, biological, chemical and 
radiological, the so-called NBCR coverage.
  And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2761 included the so-called 
``reset mechanism,'' which, in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist 
attack, lowered the nationwide program trigger and decreased the 
deductibles for any insurer that paid out losses after an attack on our 
country. This provision was and is absolutely critical to meeting the 
demand for terrorism insurance across our Nation, and especially in our 
high-risk areas.
  On September 19, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 with a 
bipartisan vote of 312-110. And with the clock ticking toward the 
program's expiration date, we waited for the Senate to act. And we kept 
waiting and we kept waiting, and we waited some more. Then, once the 
House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, and only once the House had 
adjourned for Thanksgiving, the Senate quickly passed, by unanimous 
consent, a shell of a bill that simply extended the program to 7 years, 
stripping out the key provisions that were vital and put in there on a 
bipartisan House-passed bill.
  We believed that we would have had the opportunity to negotiate on 
many of the issues in a conference with the Senate, but the Senate 
unacceptably and irresponsibly has refused again and again to 
conference with the House on the Senate bill, leaving us with few, but 
not zero, options.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a compromised 
bill that accepts the Senate's position on the extension period, as 
well as the Senate's opposition to protecting us with NBCR coverage. 
This compromised bill, however, does stand firm on the House's key 
priorities, the reset mechanism, group life insurance, and lower 
program triggers.
  Passage of this rule will allow the House to reaffirm its equality in 
the legislative process and reject the Senate's take-it-or-leave-it 
attitude. I urge all of our colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we urge the legislation to be passed, 
also. And that's why we're encouraging for the House to agree to the 
Senate version so we can get this done before the expiration at the end 
of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I am here to say thank you to the 
good work of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, but also for 
making an adjustment in the bill that is going to make a real 
difference to small Vermont insurers.
  This bill calls for a study instead of an imposition of an obligation 
for the NBCR. That's the right thing to do. Second, it lowers the 
trigger when the TRIA program will kick in from $100 million to $50 
million. That is enormously helpful to cash-strapped companies that are 
on the small size.
  So, I thank the chairman, I thank the members of the committee, 
Republican and Democrat, on behalf of small businesses and small 
insurance companies.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

[[Page H15336]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are times when we will 
have arguments across the aisle. I don't think there is any need for us 
to engage in that now because our differences are across the building, 
not across the aisle.
  Let me begin by saying to the gentleman from Texas, we agree, we will 
not let this program die. And as the gentleman from Texas knows, he has 
had to sit through this on the Rules Committee three times this year, 
twice this past week, because we did originally think about taking the 
bill the Senate had passed, amending it, and sending it back. I am 
disappointed to say that we heard from all points that if that 
happened, the Senate might be so unable to function as to kill the 
program.
  The United States Senate has perfected something I call ``the 
strength of weakness.'' They labor to do anything whatsoever, and 
having done it, tell people that if we ask them to change one bit of it 
they will collapse in a heap. It's like the song from ``MacArthur 
Park,'' someone left the bill out in the rain, and they won't be able 
to remake it because they will never have the recipe again. That's what 
we keep hearing.
  But, on the other hand, and here's where I do disagree with my friend 
from Texas, I know we've had some disagreements here about the role of 
preemptive strikes in foreign policy. Here our disagreement is on the 
role of preemptive surrender in interbranch negotiations.
  I agree that if all else fails and the Senate does not act on this 
bill, we will have to acquiesce. I regret that. I think it would be 
much less good public policy than we could do if we had the normal 
legislative process. But I have spoken to the Senators from New York. 
They report to me that the Governor of New York and the mayor of New 
York, and New York is not the only entity covered by this, and indeed, 
some of these things, they're all universal. But people are concerned, 
and so we have reluctantly agreed not to endanger the chances of this 
if the Senate is unable to act.
  On the other hand, and here's where I differ, I am unwilling at this 
point to let it end without the Senate once again being given a chance 
to function on several issues. The gentleman from Vermont just talked 
about the smaller companies. The reduction of the trigger from $100 to 
$50 million was done unanimously, I believe, or overwhelmingly, by our 
committee at the request of small insurance companies who wanted to be 
able to insure. The argument is, if they do not have the smaller 
trigger, many of them would not feel able to bid on insurance for these 
building projects. So, I think that's important.
  We had the inclusion of group life insurance. I am afraid that in the 
Senate version, this is kind of the analog of the old neutron bomb. 
Remember the neutron bomb; it killed people and left the buildings 
standing. The Senate would have us have a provision that ensures 
buildings but ignores people. Well, people die in these terrorist 
attacks. We all remember that this Congress, in 2001 or 2002, passed a 
program that cost us billions of dollars to compensate those who lost 
their lives. Why should we not allow that to be done to the insurance 
system? That's another thing we would like to have in there.
  And as part of the life insurance, as has been noted by a colleague, 
there is a provision that was not contested in our committee that would 
prevent discrimination against people who are traveling to places that 
some companies might think inappropriate to travel, particularly 
Israel. There is a provision in here that says you're not going to be 
penalized for, and this was brought to our attention by some of our 
colleagues from Florida. Now, all of those are in the bill we want to 
send back.
  Also, a reset mechanism that, obviously it applies to New York where 
they've already had a terrorist attack, would apply nationally so that 
you don't get only one bite at the apple if the terrorists choose to 
strike again. And I think the major reason for doing TRIA is to 
neutralize the effect that murderous thugs who wish this country and 
its people ill can have on our policies. That's why we want terrorism 
insurance. This is part of national defense. This is to make it a 
government program as part of our defense against this activity.
  But there are other parts of this where we have accepted this. 
Frankly, this looks like what a conference would look like if we were 
in a rational world where we could have a conference. We said 15 years, 
they said 7. We've accepted 7. By the way, I will say that in the prior 
Congress, we only had 2.
  The reason for a longer term is that this is important if people are 
to be able to build in our large cities and other areas which are 
threatened by terrorism. Because you cannot get the building without a 
loan, you cannot get the loan without insurance, and a 2-year timeline 
is obviously too short for major building projects. We accepted that. 
We wanted protection against nuclear, biological, chemical, 
radiological attacks. No one thinks that's out of the picture. The 
Senate said no to it. We accepted that. So, we compromised with them.
  And finally, a PAYGO issue arose at the last minute. We didn't do it 
well here, and the Senate did it well, and I congratulate them for 
that. It was good legislating. So we accept their term of 7 years. We 
accept their version of PAYGO. We accept their jettisoning of nuclear, 
biological, chemical and radiological. But we would like to include 
group life, and we would like to accommodate the smaller companies, and 
we would like to have the reset mechanism.
  In the end, as I said, we understand we can't compel them, but we 
believe it is worth another try. Passing this bill will in no way 
jeopardize our ability in the end, if nothing else fails, to accept the 
7 years that the Senate sent us.
  But I appeal to the Members here out of an institutional concern. 
Let's understand that in the end, if the Senate refuses to do certain 
things, they may have an advantage. But let's not make it easy. Let's 
not continue a process by which Senators can avoid tough issues. Maybe 
some Senator will raise some of these issues. Maybe, I know it's 
``maybe'' in a land of fantasy, the Senate would vote on some of them 
and Senators would have to decide if they wanted to say no, it's okay 
if you can't travel to Israel with your life insurance, it's okay if 
the smaller companies are kept out, it's okay to insure buildings but 
not people. Maybe it won't work, but no harm will be done.
  I would also add this: In terms of the rule, nothing in the bill that 
we are proposing today is new except for the Senate PAYGO, and the 
Senate PAYGO, we all agree, I believe, is superior, given the need to 
do a PAYGO.
  This is a bill that was voted on in subcommittee and in committee and 
came to the floor. It was amended in various ways. It was a bipartisan 
product. In the end, the vote was something like 300-plus to 100-plus 
when the bill passed here in the House; not unanimous, obviously, but 
with a lot of bipartisanship.
  Everything in the bill today, with the exception of the Senate PAYGO, 
has already been through subcommittee and committee and the floor. But 
we are saying to the Senate there are important issues here, on group 
life, on the reset, on travel, on smaller companies. And we are simply, 
I hope, not ready to say to them we roll over and play dead without 
giving them another chance to address these issues.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and admiration for 
the chairman of the committee, and I think that virtually everything 
the chairman said I agree with. I think the question is of timing. The 
fact of the matter is that the majority has chosen to not have a 
conference. They have chosen to negotiate among themselves, and they 
have chosen to wait until the last minute. With great respect to the 
gentleman, these are lots of arguments I could have been making or our 
chairman could have made just several years ago for a number of years.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would only ask to amend one thing. It 
is not the majority. Here we wanted a conference, and in the Senate, it 
was both parties that refused. It was not the majority. Indeed, there 
was objection more from the minority side. So I would only differ with 
the notion that

[[Page H15337]]

it was somehow a majority decision. We asked for a conference, and we 
were told on a bipartisan basis over there they wouldn't give us one.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, we are not negotiating with the 
Senate, we are negotiating with ourselves, and I believe that what we 
need to do is get it done.
  Now, there are reasons why the gentleman has chosen to do what he has 
done. I really can't disagree with him. I really don't. From an 
institutional perspective, for making the bill better, I think every 
one of these are great arguments. I think my point would be similar to 
what we are trying to make on our side: Let's get our work done so the 
rest of the world and the rest of the marketplace can get their work 
done. It's pretty late. We are now moving on to the middle of December 
and this expires at the end of December. There are lots of paperwork 
issues, there are lots of legal issues, there are lots of contract 
issues. There are lots of things that need to be done, and it takes 
some period of time. We are doing the same thing with the AMT. We are 
trying to say, why don't we not rock the boat because what you are 
going to do is put in jeopardy the ability this next year for the IRS 
to even get their work done. So the wake-up call, the head snap is, 
today it's darn near the middle of December. I could have completely 
bought off on everything the chairman said, every single word, every 
single philosophy, everything he said if this were November 15. It is 
not. It is 1 month later. It is time that we get our work done so that 
the marketplace can get their work done so that investors can know that 
they are taken care of, so that we can have certainty in the 
marketplace and so that we know what we are going to pass. And that is 
the only disagreement.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  If it were up to me, obviously, we would have done this earlier. The 
only thing I can say is, and I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, I 
only regret that he cannot love me in December as he did in May.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Retrieving my time, I would say to the gentleman that 
we believe we should not continue doing what the gentleman is doing. We 
should do what the agreement should be and get it done, because we 
believe that there are overriding considerations, Mr. Speaker, in the 
marketplace, with people who need an answer today to be able to get 
their work done. And waiting until the end, whatever that means, does 
not help the marketplace.
  We are not the start-all and end-all of the world by being the United 
States Congress. There is a marketplace out there. There are people who 
need things done. New York City is a fine example of where the business 
community and those that own property need TRIA. Let's get the thing 
done. I would have agreed completely with what the gentleman said 1 
month ago. It is now time. We are asking, please, let's get this thing 
done. Let's come to an agreement.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is probably, timing-wise, no 
greater, no more important piece of legislation for the protection of 
this country than this TRIA risk insurance program. It is very 
important that I just start my remarks by responding to some of the 
concerns that the gentleman raised.
  First of all, in our Financial Services Committee, this is indeed a 
bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats worked on this together. 
This is also a bicameral institution. It is important for the House to 
have its input. It is important for the Senate to have its input.
  As a timing matter, it is critically important for us to make sure 
that we have incorporated into this legislation important issues that 
the Senate has left out. So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is 
simply a joint product. We asked for the conference. The conference was 
not permitted. So we have no other choice except to take what the 
Senate has offered, and we are accepting that. But there are some other 
important points of this legislation that need to be incorporated into 
this bill. And so this revised bill is not a repudiation of what the 
Senate has done. It is an acceptance of what the Senate has done. And 
it is also recognizing and acquiescing to some of the issues that they 
raised that we agreed with. The nuclear, biological, chemical and 
radiological we agreed with that we would not include.
  So what do we have here? And I think it is important for the American 
people to know exactly this product that we have that we are putting 
forward at this point. This revised bill would extend TRIA for 7 years 
just as the Senate favors. Now, we in the House asked for a 15-year 
renewal for this. You talk about stability. You talk about making sure 
that we are responding. This is a heavy, heavy issue with the terrorist 
attack.
  We also feel genuinely that if we are going to offer this insurance 
protection for property, for buildings, my Lord, the most valuable 
commodity that we lose in a terrorist attack is human life. Group life 
insurance should be included in this. We are just simply taking what 
the Senate has offered and again extending back and saying group life 
insurance must be offered in this bill. The reset mechanism and 
lowering of the trigger, the Senate wants $100 million. We say $50 
million to increase the capacity by encouraging smaller insurers to 
provide coverage. This is very important as well. And as Chairman Frank 
just mentioned, life insurance for foreign travel. Why shouldn't people 
who decide they want to go to a somewhat dangerous destination as 
Israel have that life insurance covered? So we are certainly adding the 
reset mechanism for significant terrorist attacks, over $1 billion, to 
lower the deductibles and triggers to rebuild market capacity and then 
gradually increase private sector obligations over time.
  We took a lot of time, my colleague. I am on the Financial Services 
Committee. We have worked very hard. We had hearings on it. We heard 
from every factor of the community in the financial services, and this 
product that we offer reflected that. All we are simply saying is, 
timing is important. But why not allow the House, which has just as 
much right as the Senate, to perfect this important legislation? We are 
taking what they want, we have accepted some of the things that they 
felt were excesses, and we are simply adding these four major 
components back to the bill, reset mechanism, group life insurance, 
lowering the trigger and life insurance coverage for foreign travel.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The question that I would have for the gentleman is, 
whom are you negotiating with in the Senate? You talked about these 
negotiations. Whom is the negotiation with?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. We are negotiating with whoever would present 
themselves to negotiate on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, that 
has not been successful.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say on this, and I didn't 
want to make it in any way partisan, but what we have been told is that 
the senior Republican on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama, has 
said this is all he will accept. I have talked to the chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from Connecticut, I've talked to the Senator 
from New York, and they were ready to discuss it. But they said that 
given Senate rules, they could not get the Senator from Alabama to do 
anything else, and they didn't feel they could change that.
  There were also concerns that even if we were to send back exactly 
the bill that he had wanted, another Senator might object, because that 
is a volatile place. But we did talk to the Senator from Connecticut, 
we talked to the Senator from New York. The Senator from Alabama, the 
ranking minority member, was the major opponent.
  I would yield to my friend.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. So we are going to keep playing 
ping pong?
  Mr. FRANK. No, this is not ping pong. This is ping. We're keeping 
pong

[[Page H15338]]

over here. That is, we are going to send them and give them one more 
chance. But we are keeping their version over here if all else fails.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. In conclusion, I would just simply say that I 
urge that we support this rule. It is very important and timely.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the gentlemen from the 
Financial Services Committee offering their explanation about this 
process. I would once again remind my friends in this great body that 
there is a lot of work that needs to be done after this bill leaves 
both of these bodies, including a signature of the President of the 
United States. What we do does matter and is important. But it is time 
we get our work done to allow the people who really do matter, and that 
is the people who are in the marketplace to be able to buy the 
insurance, to make it available and to get it ready days from now. It 
is time to put aside our differences. It is time to enter the real 
negotiation, and that is either to have a real conference where we know 
where people are to get it done, or to find a way to cut a deal. And, 
instead, to come back to this body and to once again change the 
rechange of the change I think is a bad deal.
  So we're going to vote ``no.'' We would like to get the deal done, 
but not to continue to deal.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, in the world where I come from, it is results 
that matter, not just reworking the work to rework the work, just like 
what this body has gotten used to this year with 10 out of 11 spending 
bills not being done. I would remind the majority, you got a lot of 
work to do there, too, so that we can have the confidence of the 
American people that we can not only run the railroad on time, but we 
can make wise decisions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from the gentleman from 
Texas if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman, and responding to the gentleman, 
I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. All of our speakers have spoken, so I would reserve the 
balance of my time and ask my colleague if he wishes to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the conversation that has taken place today is one that 
was important. The Republican Party does support and thinks what the 
gentleman is doing is of a worthy nature. The gentleman, Mr. Frank, 
has, for a number of years, not only spoken about this issue but has 
worked hard for its resolution. We know that if we continue to work 
together on issues like this, we can get things done. But getting 
things done is also important, and we think that a bill should have 
been done, an agreement should have been reached before now and 
negotiations should have ended because it is now time to give to the 
President, it is now time to give to the marketplace.
  But I also recognize that this is the 44th closed rule of this 
session, that somebody is not really interested in what we think. 
That's why we have 44 closed rules this year. So we come to the floor, 
once again, the Republican Party, saying, you can have it your way, we 
know you have the votes, 44th closed rule this year. But let's get our 
work done. Let's not have the American people waiting on the House of 
Representatives.
  I know the Speaker of the House wants to do things in the way that 
she sees fit. But let's get our work done. The American people are 
waiting. They are waiting not just on AMT. They are not just waiting on 
this bill that we have today. They are waiting on, like the rest of the 
government, the other 10 out of the 11 spending bills. And I do think 
that the American people don't confuse a lot of work that is being done 
with progress. Progress is the end result where you get something done 
and then say, We're proud of our effort. All I have heard all today, 
notwithstanding the prior arguments, and these arguments, that 
everybody is trying to take credit for everything. We are far short of 
the runway. We are far short of the runway because what we do here must 
be done right, but must be finished and done so that the American 
people and the economy can move forward.
  I know this is a closed rule. If it had been an open rule, and that 
is okay, we understand. If it had been an open rule, we would have 
said, let's get this thing done. Let's close it. I offered an amendment 
in the Rules Committee the other day that said, let's take the Senate 
language, let's decide we will just accept what they have done so that 
we can get it done in proper timing. On a party-line vote that was 
defeated. So there is a reason why the Speaker wants to continue this 
dialogue. There's a reason why the Speaker wants to wait and to hold 
this out. I don't understand it. But the Republican Party once again 
today is saying, we think we ought to get our work done. We think we 
should do what we said we were going to do, and we should then let the 
American public see what we have done and not hide things in secret.

                              {time}  1245

  Let's get this done, let's get TRIA done, let's get our AMT done, 
let's get the 10 out of 11 spending bills done, and let's show the 
American people we can do the work which we were sent here to do. That 
is the position of the Republican Party.
  Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Frankly, all we have heard lately, especially in the Rules Committee 
debate, is that this bill is not going to pass the Senate, this bill is 
going to get vetoed by the President, and therefore the House should 
follow what the Senate is going to do and the House should follow what 
the President suggests. That is not the reason 435 Members of this 
House were elected. We were elected to do what we think is best for 
this country, and not what the Senate thinks is best, and not what the 
President thinks is best, but what the House of Representatives thinks 
is best. That is what this bill is attempting to do, give what the 
House of Representatives thinks is best in this important piece of 
legislation.
  Protecting the safety and security of America is, without question, a 
top priority of this institution. The horrific terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, had a devastating effect on many people in this 
country. The attacks also had a devastating economic effect on the 
commercial insurance market. TRIA has been a success. Primary insurers 
are able to write policies and business owners are able to obtain 
coverage. Stability was restored to this vital market.
  If we do not act now to extend TRIA, this program will expire at the 
end of the month and we will be back where we started after the 
September 11 attacks. We have debated this bill before and the House 
passed a similar version in September, with the support of 312 Members. 
I hope that the TRIA legislation we will consider here today will enjoy 
the same overwhelming bipartisan support. We must not allow the threat 
of future terrorist attacks to endanger or close valuable businesses 
because they cannot afford insurance. This is not an exercise in 
futility, as my colleague said in his opening, but rather an exercise 
in necessity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 862 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 860; 
adoption of House Resolution 860, if ordered; ordering the previous 
question on House Resolution 861; and adoption of House Resolution 861, 
if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 189, not voting 19, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1145]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer

[[Page H15339]]


     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Carson
     Cubin
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kind
     Linder
     Matheson
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Salazar
     Scott (VA)
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1311

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Messrs. BILIRAKIS and 
BURGESS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. DeGETTE and Mr. RODRIGUEZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________