Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2761, Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2761, TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE REVISION AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 19, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule that shuts down debate in the House to every Member of this body, except the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has already had ample time and opportunity to modify this legislation, and to one token Republican amendment.
Two nights ago, in the Democrat Rules Committee, which over the last year has truly solidified its reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives, we had a wide-ranging discussion from Members on both sides of the aisle about their proposals to improve this legislation. We adjourned this meeting without reporting out a rule so that alternatives to subverting the Rules Committee jurisdiction, while sticking to the Democrat pay-for rule, could be studied. Unfortunately, when the opportunity came for the majority to make good on its campaign promises to run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history by providing an open and transparent legislative process, Members of this House were, once again, silenced by the heavy-handed Democrat leadership.
While I am no longer surprised by the Democrat leadership's decision to allow politics to prevail over good government, I'm still disappointed, because as the sponsor of legislation to extend the TRIA program in the 108th Congress, I fundamentally believe that it has helped the private sector to stabilize our Nation's economy by providing a functioning marketplace for policyholders to acquire terrorism insurance and for insurers to provide it to them.
In fact, many of the positive aspects of this bill mimic policy proposals included in my legislation, and in legislation introduced last Congress by my good friend from Louisiana, RICHARD BAKER. Like these Republican bills, today's legislation would extend the current program, providing both policyholders and insurers with the certainty needed for long-term projects and our domestic economic health to move forward.
And, like prior Republican legislation, today's bill would eliminate the false distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. As we have learned from the London bombings and from the recent foiled terrorist plots in Germany and in New Jersey, no country is insulated from home-grown terrorism, which can be just as destructive and as costly as terrorists from abroad.
Other aspects of this legislation, such as the inclusion of nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological coverage, mimic past Republican proposals without including market-based modifications that our proposals also contained in order to make this coverage both taxpayer friendly and cost efficient.
Unfortunately, there's one proposal in today's legislation that is unprecedented and that I simply cannot support. Written in the Rules Committee, without any consideration or debate in the Financial Services Committee, and then self-executed by the rule so that it receives no up-or-down vote, this rule contains language that skirts recent Democrat promises to abide by their own self-imposed PAYGO rules by shifting the responsibility of funding TRIA onto future Congresses.
By including this mandate on future Congresses, which the Supreme Court has roundly rejected as unconstitutional, the market stabilization benefits of TRIA completely evaporate.
Rather than helping to provide insurers and policyholders with the certainty that they need to manage their exposure to the financial costs of terrorism, this bill simply kicks the responsibility down the road and by and large says ``we will let somebody else worry about that.''
Rather than clearly signaling to the private sector what the Federal Government will spend in the event of another attack on the United States and what their own costs and responsibilities would be, this hastily drafted language, shoved in in the middle of the night, reintroduces political risk into this financial transaction by leaving these hard decisions up to the whims of a future Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress should do better and they can do better than this. Instead of closed rules and artful dodges of the PAYGO rule, I think that Members and their constituents deserve the openness promised by Democrat leadership. Instead of procedural trickery and inserting language of a mysterious origin into this rule without any minority input or open debate, I think that Members and their constituents deserve transparency, which was promised by the Democrat leadership. And, most of all, instead of leaving the hard decisions and potential costs of this program to future Congresses, I believe that Members and their constituents deserve a bill that deals honestly with one of the most serious problems facing the American economy.
Unfortunately, this bill provides none of these things and is a far less responsible approach to dealing with the real-world economic problems posed by terrorism to our country, more than past Republican proposals. In fact, about the best thing that can be said about this bill and the process under which it is being considered today is the fact that perhaps it will spur the Senate to provide the American people with a more serious proposal in dealing with TRIA so that all of the flaws of this legislation can be worked out in conference.
I oppose this rule and encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield to the gentleman from California, who will help us to understand a little bit more clearly about the uncooked and, I believe, sloppy work that was presented to the Rules Committee such that many, many, many Members on a bipartisan basis questioned the decision that was made, and it will help us to reflect upon an opportunity about how it could be done better.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman for his fine remarks. As a matter of fact, I agree with him, that I do not believe that it is proper or correct to have a mandatory bill which requires mandatory spending, but discretionary funding that's available. And that is exactly what this new Democrat majority is doing. They are saying we would be absolutely required, mandatory, to spend the money, but discretionary as to whether we're really serious about providing that or not. And I believe that that is a serious question that comes under question today about the serious nature of the policy of this.
I don't attack the underlying legislation at all. The legislation does not bother me. I've supported this for years. That's what will be the underpinning of making our country stronger and better and preparing us for what may be in our future. But you can't require something and then not provide the money, especially under PAYGO rules that you had initiated yourself.
So this is simply a debate that the new Democrat majority is having within itself about whether they're really serious about their opportunity to bring to the table serious policy issues that face this great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, once again, another speaker from our friends on the Democrat side, talking with us about how they are going to fix it. We appreciate that.
That is what we are asking for today. The best I can tell you is that the Republican Party is in favor of fixing it. We believe the best way to do it is on the floor of the House right now, because right now we could fix it where all the Members will understand what the ramifications are. The ramifications are either that we are going to say that terrorist attacks don't apply under PAYGO rules or that terrorist attacks would be in fine print, that now perhaps the Democrat majority wants to put in that all this spending applies but perhaps not under certain circumstances. I think we could craft a deal here.
But now what the gentleman is asking us to do is ``just trust me.'' Well, the first thing I would like to do is get a copy of the letter. It would be appropriate for me to ask for that. I know the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman, does not oppose my getting a copy of that letter. But what we are now being told is, ``now trust us that it will be brought back in a forum where there is debate, but it is either an up or down vote.'' We can't change that decision, nor can any other Member of this body change that. We have heard enough people talk today about how what is happening is wrong, should not happen, is bad policy. We ought to fix it today here on the floor if we are going to move forward and not say, ``trust me, trust me, wait for fine print or disagreement later.''
I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman. I thought it was not only very nice what he did but well spoken, and I appreciate the gentleman very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I do appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, coming in and arguing, but his side has already given in on this point. They have already conceded that they don't like the way the bill is, the self-executing rule. There is already agreement on his side, ``Whoa, this is wrong. We don't agree with this. We will agree to fix it.''
So, I love the gentleman from Massachusetts, he and I are very good friends, but they have already conceded that point. They have already said, ``We think there could be a better way to do it. We agree to fix it.'' So what did we say on this side? ``Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman. We appreciate this. That is what we have been asking for. We are pleased that we got it.''
I wish we had the agreement here today. I wish we knew what that deal was going to be before you brought the bill to the floor. That's why we held off in the Rules Committee for an extra day waiting for a better answer. Didn't get it, get to the floor.
I would say to my good friends on this side, if you want us to be a better minority, you are going to have to be a better majority. We took seriously what Speaker Pelosi said, ``honest, open, ethical Congress.'' We are still waiting for that through the Rules Committee. When she said, ``PAYGO is going to apply to everything,'' it implied that Republicans didn't do that. Then we took that at the surface of the words, not looking for fine print, not looking for how they are going to try and get out of it. So we are trying to make sure that we simply know what we are supposed to count on.
They have come to the floor today, and they have said, ``We are going to work on it.'' I am pleased we are going to do that. I am simply saying that it should have been done before it got here. That is sloppy.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers on the rule. I yield to the gentleman from New York to run down his time, then I will make my closing statement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for the consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I have not heard talked about today but the concepts are in that that I will call the ``Earmark Accountability Rule.''
At the beginning of this Congress, a number of promises were made to the American people about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved earmark rules.
As the Congress has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the Democrats' rule changes definitely sound good, they have not really lived up to their promise and have not really accomplished much, since the majority has repeatedly turned their head the other way when it comes to their actual enforcement.
I acknowledge that the majority has given into the minority demands for enforcement of their own rules a handful of times when it comes to appropriations conference reports. Unfortunately, we continue to see non-disclosed earmarks in all sorts of bills, also.
This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to enforcement of its rules, like we have seen once again today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 660 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
SEC. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.
--
(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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source