[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5951-H5959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1264, MULTIPLE PERIL INSURANCE ACT
OF 2009
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1549 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1549
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1264) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to
provide for the national flood insurance program to make
available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from
windstorms or floods, 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 in 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 chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas).
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am
pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule
is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Resolution 1549.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1549 provides for consideration of H.R. 1264,
the Multiple Peril Insurance Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general
debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, there is not a person in the Chamber today who can
forget the terrible destruction left in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina 5 short years ago. Lives were lost, homes were destroyed,
businesses closed. Schools and hospitals were underwater. Our Nation
has never been the same.
The damage that Katrina inflicted on New Orleans and across the Gulf
States left thousands of people homeless. There were refugees spread
across more than a dozen States. I think I speak for all of us when I
say the storm left an indelible mark on our collective psyche.
Although the storm and accompanying flood exposed many troubling
failings, one of the most alarming was the fact that so many people who
believed that they had adequate insurance, in fact, were not covered
for Katrina's destruction.
[[Page H5952]]
Why? Because insurance companies engaged in a maddening shell game
with homeowners about their coverage. Damage that seemed obviously
caused by water would be attributed to wind, while wind damage was
chalked up to flooding. The stalemate left far too many people with no
claim.
The apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult for many
families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. The same
problem has cropped up after other hurricanes or large storms have
struck over the years.
In the aftermath of Katrina, Congress worked collaboratively on
legislation to address the coverage gap; and 3 years ago, legislation
to do just that was approved by the House. However, the plan was unable
to win passage in the Senate, so we are here again to try.
Despite the challenges, it is our contention that taxpayers will
actually end up saving significant amounts of money if this type of
coverage is made available to Americans.
In the aftermath of Katrina, the Federal Government spent more than
$34 billion on rental assistance, on vouchers, trailers, grants to
homeowners and Small Business Administration disaster loans to
homeowners.
Had there been a public option available to allow property owners to
purchase insurance that provided seamless coverage of hurricane losses,
some of that cost might have been avoided. With this bill we accomplish
that goal.
The bill creates a new program within the National Flood Insurance
Program to purchase both flood and wind storm insurance under one
multi-peril policy, or to purchase wind storm coverage to supplement
their already existing flood insurance.
It is a bipartisan bill and has been endorsed by the National
Association of Home Builders, and the National Association of Realtors.
The bill is also PAYGO compliant, since the program is required to pay
for itself.
The most important thing to remember about this legislation is it
simply gives Americans the option of buying coverage of getting some
peace of mind.
The issue is far too important for us to wait around for the next
round of storms like Katrina or Ike or Gustav to roar ashore and leave
far too many families with nothing. This bill is a simple and effective
way to permit people to purchase insurance so the next storm does not
leave them high and dry.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for
yielding me this time, my friend, Ms. Slaughter.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this will be the 34th time I have handled a rule on
the House floor, and this will be the 34th time I have yet to handle
one open rule this session of Congress. In fact, over the 130-plus
rules this Congress, we have not yet debated an open rule. I guess I
could add the word yet, but I would presume that moving forward during
this session of Congress I don't think we expect to. What a shame,
Madam Speaker.
I don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or
shutting down Members of Congress who are elected by their colleagues
and peers back home to come and represent them, whether they are
Republicans or Democrats, makes a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I
think it's wrong. Yet today here we are again with my handling of the
34th time this session a closed rule.
I would once again question this agenda. I would question the agenda
of the majority party, the Democratic Party, that we already know is
about taxing, spending, and more rules and regulations, and more debt
to this great Nation. But I think that it's important to look at how
bad process delivers a bad outcome. And today that's exactly what we're
looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this
floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it
is.
But I am going to use my time also to talk about some Republican
ideas. One thing I have the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, is to
call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's
YouCut winner. We've over the weeks heard about YouCut.
YouCut is a Republican idea that's an online idea. It's a voting
tool, a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick
what they consider to be wasteful government spending, something which
this Congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow
for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how
we would cut and make this government more efficient. Over a million
Americans have voted this week alone.
This week's YouCut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first-
class seats on Amtrak's long-distance routes. This initiative would
yield $1.2 billion in savings over 10 years. And these people who have
voted are hardworking Americans who are paying attention to what we're
doing here in Washington. They don't want to have their tax dollars
subsidize first-class travel on Amtrak.
I have long advocated for reforming Amtrak, especially the long-
distance routes. These routes lose money year after year after year.
They continue to receive money from the Federal Government, and Amtrak
has no incentive to improve their operations as long as Uncle, that's
Uncle Sam, is willing to pay.
This Congress I have introduced H.R. 5377, a bill that would require
Amtrak to eliminate service on long-distance routes whose total direct
costs are more than twice the revenue. That is, where the costs are
more than twice the revenue that comes in, the Federal Government
should not be paying for that. The taxpayers should no longer be
footing the bill for Amtrak's inefficiencies. And today you're going to
have a chance to hear from the Republicans about how we think we ought
to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer.
Additionally, we're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would
expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include
wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the
agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new
government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with
taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I
have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile
U.S. job market that would add billions to the Federal deficit. That's
why we're talking about YouCut today.
We're talking about YouCut today because the bill we're getting ready
to pass here in just a few minutes is not even paid for. And our
friends in the majority keep talking about, oh, we pay for things. We
make the tough decisions. Well, another day in Washington where another
tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this House, and
the agenda of taxing and spending and more debt and long-term
destruction of the free enterprise system is exactly what's on the
floor of the House today with this bill.
Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP
would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S.
Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more,
we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced
to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in
excess of the premiums collected.
Since 2006, the Government Accountability Office has included the
NFIP on its list of high-risk government programs in need of
comprehensive reform. And here today we're empowering a program that's
on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business,
taking business from the free enterprise system.
Additionally, the Property and Casualty Insurance Association of
America, known as PCI, estimates that the legislation will eliminate
41,775 private-sector jobs so that Uncle Sam and the government can add
jobs.
Madam Speaker, that is the hallmark of this Democrat majority. It is
to empower the government against the free enterprise system. We saw
this in May numbers, when the May numbers came out, 431,000 net new
jobs. And our friends in the Democrats come down every day and say,
Look at us, look at all these jobs we're creating. Yeah, 431,000 jobs
in May, but of that figure 400,000 were government jobs. They were
census jobs, they were temporary
[[Page H5953]]
jobs, and you're trying to fool this country. In Texas, if we were in
the Texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising. It should
be deceptive advertising in Washington and be against the law.
With an unemployment rate at 9.5 percent and a loss of over 3 million
jobs since January of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more.
That's 41,775 jobs is the estimate. By increasing the taxpayers'
exposure also, this program is $22.1 billion in premiums that could be
taken out of our economy. But it doesn't stop there. More than $20
billion of investment in mutual, municipal, State, and local bonds will
completely dry up. A line of business that the free enterprise system
handled that the government did not need to. And government at all
levels, State, Federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue
from the free enterprise system.
During the last Congress, the Senate rejected this proposal by a vote
of 74 to 19. Even the administration, shockingly, even the
administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the NFIP, citing
concerns that it would threaten the long-term viability of the program.
Exactly right. It's called bankruptcy. Never forget the taxpayer is
there, so it probably won't go bankrupt.
With the current Federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the
government crisis, and record unemployment, why would the majority
party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse? Or would
this simply be to help the U.S. Treasury? I don't know. But either way
it's government jobs. And I guess we should be careful and not complain
too much, because I guess Uncle Sam needs the help.
Madam Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear.
Americans want pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation
and investment and that would keep Americans competitive with the
world. Instead, today we find 41,000 more jobs that will dry up in the
free enterprise system, jobs back home.
{time} 1440
This legislation further diminishes not only these jobs but adds
billions of dollars to our national debt. That is the hallmark of this
administration and this Congress: more taxing, more spending, more
taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to the government, and
perhaps worst of all, a debt we may never, ever pay for.
When my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote
positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free
enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. I can't do
it today. Today's another vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
We don't have hurricanes in Rochester, New York--for which we are
extremely grateful. But all of us were affected by Katrina. All of us
saw what happened to the city that we all loved. New Orleans belongs to
every American. All of us have friends here in the House and some in
the Senate who lost everything they had. These were people who had
insurance on their homes. They thought they were covered. But because
the fact the insurance companies said no, they would come to your
house, which may have been completely overwhelmed with water, and say
that was wind damage; we don't cover that. With the whipsawing back and
forth, so many people lost everything they had.
As I said in my opening statement, the government paid $34 billion to
try to house and maintain people until we could find a permanent
solution. If by passing this bill we can avoid that kind of expenditure
again, I would call that money well spent. This program is self-
sufficient, it is paid for by the premiums.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on the rule.
I will support the rule, but I rise in reluctant opposition to the
legislation.
I sympathize with my good friend from Mississippi and admire his
passion and commitment to this issue and his tireless effort to try and
help his constituents who have been put in a horrible situation in the
aftermath of Katrina. But I do think this bill is a classic example of
how our empathy interacts with a system that doesn't work to cloud our
judgment and leads us to consider action that would actually make
things worse over the long haul.
As Mr. Taylor has forcefully argued, Katrina exposed many problems
with the National Flood Insurance Program. The confusion about wind and
flood damage and the difficulty that his constituents had in getting
insurance companies to cover their losses after Katrina is
unacceptable. That was why I was pleased to support his amendment to
the Flood Insurance Reform Act on the floor last week that would
prohibit the write-your-own insurance companies from excluding wind
damage under their own policy solely because flooding also caused
damage to the property. I think that will go far in preventing
insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers or the Federal
taxpayers.
But extending the flood insurance program to cover wind hazards is
like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone and then putting the patient
on a skateboard while the bones are still mending.
I strongly support the goals of the flood insurance program and know
that it has played an important role in insuring many American
communities while encouraging mitigation and reducing risks. But with
each additional disaster, it becomes clearer and clearer that the
program is broken.
Right now, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, it's $19 billion
in debt. Adding for wind coverage, even if it's supposed to be
actuarially sound, will only make this worse.
Now, it is very likely to result in significant short-term losses for
the flood insurance program. Even though CBO has given the bill a
neutral score, that's based on a highly questionable assumption that
FEMA will charge actuarial rates that fully cover wind losses despite a
40-year history of failing to do so for flood losses. FEMA doesn't have
the ability to calculate what actuarial rates for wind coverage should
be, much less enforce them.
As Robert Hunter, who ran the program in the 1970s, has said, Poor
management at FEMA--You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie--and lax
enforcement of building requirements by local government has meant that
the program hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Some have even
argued that it actually even encourages development in hazardous areas.
Let me speak for a moment about the building code requirements under
this legislation. The NFIB already subsidizes unwise construction in
floodplains, and this would make it worse. While the bill requires the
adoption of building codes to mitigate against wind losses, this is not
strong enough. It doesn't address development in hazardous areas
itself, and by increasing the availability of Federally backed
insurance in hazardous areas, this bill will give people a false sense
of security and provide incentives for development in those various
areas. And there is a serious gap in the actual enforcement of those
building codes.
The current problems with the flood insurance programs must be
addressed before we can even think of expanding it to cover yet more
hazards.
The experts on flood insurance agree. The administration sent up a
statement of administration policy against the bill yesterday. The bill
is opposed by FEMA, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
insurance and reinsurance industry, the environmental community,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the
Consumer Federation of America. They argue that it would expand a
broken program, further encourage development in hazardous areas by
giving people a false sense of security, have the Federal Government
unfairly compete in the private insurance market, and put the American
taxpayer further at risk.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia, the minority whip,
the favorite son from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I rise in opposition
to the previous question.
With over 1.3 million votes cast and counting, the YouCut movement
continues to give people across America a
[[Page H5954]]
voice to help put a stop to Washington's never-ending shopping spree.
House Republicans have already offered $120 billion in commonsense
spending reductions. Yet week in and week out, the majority has
astoundingly voted against the will of the people.
Proposed by Congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas, this week's YouCut
winner highlights the latest example of egregious government waste.
Despite the fact that only 16 percent of Amtrak passengers choose
sleeper class fare, which includes a turndown service and private
entertainment, taxpayers are on the hook for more than twice as much
for these passengers compared to those who ride in coach.
During these increasingly tough economic times, is it really fair to
ask taxpayers to subsidize turndown service and pre-paid movies? The
American people have emphatically said ``no.''
Just days ago, Madam Speaker, four House Democrats bucked their
party's leadership to form a working group they say is devoted to
cutting wasteful spending. As my House Republican colleagues and I have
said since YouCut's launch, tackling our staggering national debt is
not a partisan calling. It's an American calling because our country is
at a crossroads.
It is only logical then, Madam Speaker, that the new Democratic group
would support the elimination of first class Amtrak subsidies and save
taxpayers up to $1.2 billion over the next decade. I urge them, as well
as all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join us in
voting to bring this week's YouCut to the floor for a vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, one of the things that most Americans don't realize is
to what extent the Speaker, through the Rules Committee, controls this
House and even what we can vote on. She determines what bills will be
brought here, even what amendments may be offered. And there are very
few ways to get another issue even considered here.
But that's what this next vote is about. It's about trying to get a
vote on a proposal that most people who went on the YouCut Web site
this week have chosen as something that should at least get a vote.
Now the gentleman from Mississippi has a serious proposal on the
floor. But there are other serious proposals which ought to be
considered as well.
{time} 1450
One of them is to cut the subsidy that goes to Amtrak's sleeper class
service.
Madam Speaker, the facts are this. Sixteen percent of the people who
ride Amtrak's long distance routes, 16 percent, choose the sleeper
class service. Everybody else rides in coach, but the people who choose
the sleeper class service, as the whip mentioned, get a private
compartment, usually a private bathroom. They have turndown service
where somebody comes and pulls back their sheets at night. They have
unlimited meals in the dining car, all a very nice thing, but the
problem is the taxpayers subsidize an average $396 per ticket for every
one of those people who choose that sleeper class service. You add it
all up and it ends up being actually more than $1 billion over 10 years
that the taxpayers subsidize the people who choose the sleeper class
service.
Now, our proposal doesn't eliminate that service. It doesn't change
any Amtrak routes. It just says, if you're going to have that service,
you ought to pay the cost of it. You ought to pay the cost of what you
buy. I don't think that's terribly revolutionary, but it saves more
than $1 billion to the taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, in January I got to speak to a bunch of high school
seniors in Randall High School in my district. At that time, their
share of the national debt was about $39,000. Today, their share of the
national debt is $42,739.
I think the next vote hinges on this question: Is it worth $1 billion
of subsidies for sleeper class service to add to the debt that those
high school seniors have to pay? That's the question the Members will
answer with the next vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry) makes a great point, and we can today on the floor of this
House of Representatives add to this bill with its own merits by saying
let's also, as we're adding billions of dollars, at least simplify
government and cut a billion off of what it does. It makes sense to me,
and I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his great
YouCut suggestion.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois, Pete Roskam.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman.
You know, if you were going to sit around and come up with a movie
script of absurdity, you couldn't come up with a script that was this
real. In other words, taxpayers out subsidizing first class passenger
travel on railcars throughout the United States? If you trotted that
out to Hollywood and said, ``Oh, we've got one for you,'' the Hollywood
types would throw it away and laugh at you and say there's no way,
that's completely unrealistic, except in this Congress.
Congressman Thornberry from Texas has figured out by carefully
reading an Inspector General report of the Department of Transportation
that there is a way to save $1 billion over 10 years. Now, think about
that. You know something very interesting. You don't hear anybody
coming to the floor, Madam Speaker, to defend this practice of
subsidizing first class rail treatment. The reason is nobody can do it
with a straight face. Nobody can say, Oh, no, no, no. We need to
subsidize movies on Amtrak. We need to subsidize prepaid meals. We need
to subsidize honest-to-goodness the bed turndown service in the sleeper
car.
How absurd is that?
So oftentimes in political life we're asked what would you cut. What
would you cut? How would you balance this budget? Well, I tell you
what. You've got a whole host of Republicans that say let's vote ``no''
on this previous question and let's take up this effort, this time,
this afternoon to cut $1 billion.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if
she has any further speakers.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. At this moment, I do not.
May I inquire of the gentleman if he's ready to close?
Mr. SESSIONS. I wanted to ask the gentlewoman if she had additional
speakers. I received a good answer. Thank you very much. I appreciate
the gentlewoman.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if the gentleman is ready to close?
Mr. SESSIONS. I have about 45 or 50 more speakers, and I will consume
my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thirty-five or 50?
Mr. SESSIONS. I have a number of speakers. We did not receive enough
time in this rule to be able to provide enough time for our speakers.
It's a very important topic for us, and I understand that you don't
have any speakers, but we've got a bunch. So, yes, ma'am, I do intend
to use my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I know we're going to have a big debate
on flood insurance and wind insurance and I'm going to be participating
in that, but I wanted to talk about, obviously, the YouCut program.
There is nothing that is upsetting to more people across the State of
West Virginia that I see every day than the overspending, the debt and
deficit that is just overwhelming them and this country. But the YouCut
program, since its inception, 1.3 million Americans have weighed in on
where they think we can cut government spending. Folks from all across
America are tightening their budgets. This summer, they're deciding?
Can we go on vacation. Can we go for 2 days. Can we go for a week. Can
we fly. Can we drive. Should we go out to dinner? Should we stay in?
All these are economic questions that we ask in our families every
single
[[Page H5955]]
day, and those are the kinds of questions that we should be asking here
in Washington. Where can we tighten our belts and save our money so
that our next generations and the generations beyond us are going to
have the kind of America that we have and our parents enabled us to
have?
People are rightly disgusted by the gross abuse, I think, of taxpayer
money on pet projects and overbloated Federal programs, but I think
we're listening. Republicans are listening and we're taking action.
House Republicans have already offered $120 billion in spending cuts,
but the Democrats insist on continuing down this dangerous path of
overspending.
Now, some of the cuts we've offered haven't really been what would be
considered, around Washington, huge amounts, maybe just hundreds of
millions or billions, but come on. This is real money. This is
taxpayers dollars, and so if you have to start on a smaller amount and
grow it larger, we all know it eventually will make a dent.
So this week I'm casting my vote in support of my colleague's
proposal to quit subsidizing first class subsidies to Amtrak. Only 16
percent of the passengers opt for first class, yet we are subsidizing
the first class seats in Amtrak to the point of $1.3 billion of subsidy
that goes to those who choose to purchase first class seats with
Amtrak.
Amtrak's a great thing, comes in my district, goes right through the
center of the State on out to the West. But people who have first class
and want to buy first class seats should be able to pay for it. It
should be priced accordingly. So I think this is a good way to save,
over 10 years, $1.2 billion of taxpayers' money.
Let's give the American people what they're wanting, that is, fiscal
restraint and responsibility. That's what American families across this
country are exercising across their kitchen table. That's what we
should be doing here across the budget table in the United States
Congress.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, it sounds like the gentlewoman
from West Virginia gave us a good way to think of things, and that is,
too much of a good thing may not be good.
What this rail service is about, Amtrak, I believe, is a pretty good
idea, but too much of a good thing, where you can't properly manage it
or pay for it, where it gets larger than what the mission statement is,
is a bad problem. And, you know, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are on
the floor of the House today and we're called to Washington every week
and we can handle that, but day after day after day after day after day
after day after day we handle small ideas and little issues.
Today, we're handling an issue that the gentleman from Mississippi
deeply believes in and, in fact, he will have an opportunity not only
to have his ideas on the floor but he will get a vote on those ideas.
Republicans have now, in our fourth year, been saying to this Speaker
and this majority leader and this Democratic majority that we believe
that this body is entitled to have an agenda that the majority wants.
{time} 1500
But we believe it should be balanced. We believe it should include
some tough decision-making, not just more spending, not just pet
projects, but, rather, things which will empower people back home to
have confidence in what we are doing here in Washington. And
Republicans have, once again today, through YouCut, through the
leadership of our minority whip, Eric Cantor, presented ideas on this
floor and every single Member will have an opportunity to vote on that.
Republicans believe that we should have to make tough decisions.
Republicans believe that you ought to come and read the bill.
Republicans believe that that Rules Committee that's up there, if you
say your agenda is going to be open and honest, that you ought to mean
it. Republicans believe that there ought to be an opportunity for
Members to come and have their ideas heard.
We are taking seriously what we think is a duty and an obligation to
come and talk about how we can make our jobs that we do more serious by
streamlining, providing feedback to Federal money that's being spent.
It's an incredible amount of money that not only is being spent out of
this town but way too little, if any, is about reforming and making the
government more efficient. We think that that's what we should be
about.
We think that we should be about providing ideas, giving money to
this government, but with the expectation of performance that would
allow streamlining and efficiencies and not giving away services at
less than what their real cost is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and
apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything
but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi
after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules
Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of
Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak
subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't.
So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And,
again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor.
If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to
a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the
street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and
Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south
Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them
that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this.
Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of
insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of
insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the
National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs
changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector,
State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they
get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim.
The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are
letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the
wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide
or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers
have to pay.
You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18
billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that
allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the
taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden,
who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid
nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company.
Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are
helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk
about that, do you?
The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same
street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis,
built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes
it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house.
This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told
them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's
see what they came home to. This is what they came home to.
You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is
your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of
yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to
them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they
filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their
wind insurance.
Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab
and others went back and looked at the events that were called
Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm
surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it,
was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water
ever got there. Yet the insurance
[[Page H5956]]
companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water.
Why? Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill.
The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is
about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the
water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when
they left, looked at last.
This is what they came home to.
It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses
that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big
part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance
company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and
offered them $10,000.
Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government
shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in
his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his
State is already doing this.
In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance
industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of
wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up
that obligation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR. In the gentleman's State of Texas, the Texas wind pool in
2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. That has expanded to $58.6
billion. That's not private sector that's going to pay that bill;
that's the Texas wind pool. They are on the hook for that.
In my home State of Mississippi, it has gone from $1.6 billion to
$6.3 billion. I can't speak for every State, but I can tell you that
pretty well equals the Mississippi State budget. If there was a
catastrophic storm in Mississippi that hit all three coastal counties
on one day--and, by the way, that's happened three times in my
lifetime--it would break the State of Mississippi.
Now, at some point they are going to come up and say, well, they have
got reinsurance, okay. Almost all the reinsurance is out of the Bahamas
and the Caymans. So let me ask you a simple question: If the
Benvenuttis couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim,
if the Haddens couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their
claim, if the other family couldn't get a company out of Illinois to
pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the Bahamas is
going to willingly write these checks? Who is kidding whom?
On a State-by-State basis, Florida has gone from $2.2 billion to $436
billion; South Carolina, $6 billion to $17 billion; Georgia, the
gentleman from Georgia's State, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265
percent increase, not private sector, State liability.
So why do we want to do this? Because, quite honestly, the purpose of
insurance, to people who pay their premium, to live the way they are
supposed to, but they want the certainty that if something bad happens
to them, they are going to get paid.
{time} 1510
Secondly, why should the Nation do it? Because, quite frankly, it
would break any one of these States. The chances of every coastal
county in Mississippi getting hit all in the same day has happened
three times in my lifetime. In 2004, Florida had four catastrophic
storms, hit almost every square inch of the State. But the chances of
the same storm hitting every State on the same day is minuscule. And if
it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, it's just going to be
called Armageddon.
So what we are proposing is a program that, instead of letting the
private sector collect the premiums and the Nation pay the bill, would
allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood
insurance, pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to
nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it
doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did
it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to,
they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and
they are going to get paid.
The last point of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell
you, so I will. In the same year the National Flood Insurance Program
lost $18 billion they made $48 billion in profits. Why? Pretty simple.
They collected the premiums; you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. You paid
the bill for the FEMA trailers because, again, a typical insurance
policy says if your house is destroyed, if your house is damaged to
where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. But when they
denied these claims in full, as they did thousands of times, then
someone had to do something. President Bush, to his credit, stepped
forward and said we're going to make FEMA trailers available. That cost
the taxpayers $4.3 billion; $7.2 billion for temporary housing; CDBG
grants totaling $15.4 billion. And what was one of the prerequisites to
get a CDBG grant? You had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. So
who paid that bill? Uncle Sam, you, the taxpayers paid that bill.
Lastly, SBA disaster loan, $7.6 billion. So for a total bill of $34.5
billion. It wasn't $18 billion the Nation lost that year, it was over
$50 billion. We are trying to change that. We are trying to come up
with a program where the premiums pay for the program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 3 additional
minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR. So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to
the floor.
I would remind my Republican colleagues that in the 12 years that
they ran the House, I don't ever recall a vote on cutting the subsidy
for Amtrak. I would have voted with you, but I just don't remember your
bringing it up.
So let's talk about this problem this day. I would remind my
Republican colleagues that on a regular basis they come to the floor
and say, you know what? We shouldn't be doing all these things that
don't make sense, all these things that don't contribute to each other.
Amtrak is not an insurance problem. This is an insurance program. It is
a single-shot bill to do one thing, and that's to let those people who
want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so
that they will know that if they paid their premiums, they built their
house the way they were supposed to, if something horrible happens they
will get paid.
Mr. SESSIONS. By the way, the gentleman from Mississippi is a very
dear friend of mine with whom I engage on a regular basis. I just want
the gentleman to know that while I know that under Speaker Pelosi we
don't have any process with appropriations to strike or amend any
appropriations bills, for 12 years I brought an Amtrak cut bill to this
floor. So I will be providing that information, and I look forward to
the gentleman joining me as soon as we get a Republican majority that
will allow that to take place on the floor of this House, an open
process.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Savannah,
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
While I oppose the rule and the bill, I want to say with great
emphasis what a fiscal conservative my friend from Mississippi is, and
how I know that he is struggling to find a solution to something that I
would agree is a problem.
Now, I live in Savannah. I have a house on the waterfront, and I also
have a beach house, so I have to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program and in the State windstorm pool. And Mr. Taylor is
right, if you've ever dealt with them, it is a pain in the neck. The
bureaucracy is horrible, getting the claims paid is a really big
problem. The debate as to what is flood and what is wind and what is
wind-driven water is very complicated. And the insurance companies will
get no sympathy from me on this situation.
The problem is that here we are again under the Pelosi Congress with
a closed rule in which none of us can offer an amendment. I mean, think
about that. We're all elected, 435 Members representing 600,000 people,
and yet we're not allowed to offer an amendment because the Rules
Committee has to play favorites. And unless you're on the A list, you
can't offer an amendment, even though you
[[Page H5957]]
still represent 600,000 people like everyone else here. So we can't
improve this.
A couple of suggestions I would have said is, why not give the State
insurance commissioners--since, as my friend knows, insurance is a
State matter, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Public Law 15, says that
States will regulate insurance. And why not make sure the insurance
commissioners have the authority to say to an insurance company, if you
want to sell insurance in my State, then you're going to have to take a
percentage of the flood or the windstorm exposure? Give him the power
to twist their arms. Because I can tell you, having been in the
insurance system--I'm a CPCU, that's a Chartered Property Casualty
Underwriter--that insurance companies will cede anything, anything
that's difficult they will be glad to let the State government or the
Federal Government take all the flood claims, take the crime claims,
take the DUI drivers. They want the unprofitable stuff off their books
because they make money two different ways, one is an underwriting
profit, the other one is an investment profit.
Now, ironically, right now we're in a soft market. Insurance premiums
on the commercial side are actually going down because insurance
companies, for some unknown reason, are making their money elsewhere.
So I think what Mr. Taylor is saying is right, there are some things
that are going on, and an insurance commissioner should be able to get
to the bottom of it. But again, since we can't amend this to try to put
language like that in there, we need to bring this rule down to send
the bill back to committee.
Now, I want to say we almost got through today without a new Federal
program--I thought it might happen. This is a new Federal program. We
did pass $34 billion onto the next generation in increased debt--which
I know some people were clapping about, I don't exactly follow that. We
have a $1.4 trillion deficit, the largest debt in the history of the
Nation, 90 percent of our GDP, and yet we have Members on the Democrat
side clapping about $34 billion in new debt.
Now, put this in context. May of 2008, a Bush stimulus bill--which I
voted against--$168 billion; it did not create jobs. Bear Stearns
bailout by the Federal Reserve in March of 2008, $29 billion. Fannie
Mae bailout, $200 billion in July of 2008. September of 2008, AIG
bailout--again by the Federal Reserve--$85 billion, now up to $140
billion. And then we had the infamous TARP, $700 billion. I voted
``no'' on that. Then here comes the stimulus bill to keep unemployment
from going to 8 percent. Unemployment at the time was 7.6 percent, and
$800 billion later we're at 10 percent unemployment. We are right now
borrowing 37 cents on every dollar we spend. I hope you will vote the
rule down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman
from Texas closes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York for not only this time but
getting through this thing.
Madam Speaker, as you can see, Republicans, and at least one
Democrat, have a lot to talk about. I wish we had more time today.
Republicans would have liked a lot more time to make sure that we could
talk about not only this bill, but the implications that are on the
floor.
Republicans continue to offer, Madam Speaker, commonsense solutions
to rein in the current spending spree, a spending spree that's now in
its fourth year by this Democrat majority. We, like the American
people, would like transparency and accountability and common sense,
creation of jobs, not the extension of unemployment benefits that are
not paid for.
{time} 1520
We believe in people having jobs, and if this majority were serious
and if this administration were serious, they would do the things that
work rather than the things that don't work. They are doing things that
don't work, Madam Speaker, and that is what this Democrat majority will
be held accountable for. It's really a sad thing to hear person after
person who has lost his job, and people whom I know, and to see the
malaise this country is in.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. The legislation before us today brings more uncertainty
to the long-term solvency of the NFIP. This legislation risks more
American jobs and adds more to our State, local, and Federal deficits.
It is true, as the gentleman spoke of, that States take this on. It is
a State's responsibility, not the Federal Government's, but that is
part of what this agenda is all about. For this reason, I encourage a
``no'' vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to remind those persons
listening, particularly Members of Congress who are going to come to
the floor to vote, that we are not voting on Amtrak cars. We are
talking about legislation to try to protect those Americans who are
victims of hurricanes and other related natural disasters from losing
everything the way the gulf coast victims of Katrina have. The bill
will help ensure that the insurance loopholes will be closed and that
hardworking Americans won't be denied legitimate claims when they
desperately need them.
I call for a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1549 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5801) to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the
subsidization of Amtrak sleeper car service, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not
apply to the consideration of H.R. 5801.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the
[[Page H5958]]
opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was
entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-
Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused,
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked
the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled
to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 179, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--234
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--179
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Buyer
Capuano
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Fallin
Gutierrez
Hodes
Hoekstra
King (NY)
Lofgren, Zoe
McNerney
Mollohan
Ortiz
Pence
Tiahrt
Tierney
Wamp
{time} 1550
Messrs. SHIMKUS, MITCHELL, RYAN of Wisconsin, and MICA changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr.
SCHRADER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 183, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 466]
AYES--228
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
[[Page H5959]]
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--183
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Himes
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Perriello
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Berman
Buyer
Capuano
Costello
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Duncan
Fallin
Hodes
Hoekstra
King (NY)
Lofgren, Zoe
Ortiz
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Simpson
Tiahrt
Tierney
Wamp
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in the vote.
{time} 1611
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.
____________________