[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13748-13756]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 13749]]

  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 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

[[Page 13750]]

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 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

[[Page 13751]]

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 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

[[Page 13752]]

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 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

[[Page 13753]]

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 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

[[Page 13754]]

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 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)

[[Page 13755]]


     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
     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

[[Page 13756]]


     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.

                          ____________________