[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.
____________________