[Pages H16760-H16767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism
Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism
Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of act of terrorism.
Sec. 3. Reauthorization of the Program.
Sec. 4. Annual liability cap.
Sec. 5. Enhanced reports to Congress.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ACT OF TERRORISM.

Section 102(1)(A)(iv) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by striking ``acting
on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM.

(a) Termination Date.--Section 108(a) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by
striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2014''.
(b) Additional Program Years.--Section 102(11) of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(G) Additional program years.--Except when used as
provided in subparagraphs (B) through (F), the term `Program
Year' means, as the context requires, any of Program Year 1,
Program Year 2, Program Year 3, Program Year 4, Program Year
5, or any of calendar years 2008 through 2014.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--The Terrorism Risk Insurance
Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) in section 102(7)(F)--
(A) by inserting ``and each Program Year thereafter''
before ``, the value''; and
(B) by striking ``preceding Program Year 5'' and inserting
``preceding that Program Year'';
(2) in section 103(e)(1)(A), by inserting ``and each
Program Year thereafter'' after ``Year 5'';
(3) in section 103(e)(1)(B)(ii), by inserting before the
period at the end ``and any Program Year thereafter'';
(4) in section 103(e)(2)(A), by striking ``of Program Years
2 through 5'' and inserting ``Program Year thereafter'';
(5) in section 103(e)(3), by striking ``of Program Years 2
through 5,'' and inserting ``other Program Year''; and
(6) in section 103(e)(6)(E), by inserting ``and any Program
Year thereafter'' after ``Year 5''.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL LIABILITY CAP.

(a) In General.--Section 103(e)(2) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``(until such time as the Congress may act
otherwise with respect to such losses)''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``that amount'' and
inserting ``the amount of such losses''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at
the end ``, except that, notwithstanding paragraph (1) or any
other provision of Federal or State law, no insurer may be
required to make any payment for insured losses in excess of
its deductible under section 102(7) combined with its share
of insured losses under paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection''.
(b) Notice to Congress.--Section 103(e)(3) of the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary
shall provide an initial notice to Congress not later than 15
days after the date of an act of terrorism, stating whether
the Secretary estimates that aggregate insured losses will
exceed $100,000,000,000.''; and
(2) by striking ``and the Congress shall'' and all that
follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting a
period.
(c) Regulations for Pro Rata Payments; Report to
Congress.--Section 103(e)(2)(B) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--For purposes''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Regulations.--Not later than 240 days after the date
of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Secretary shall issue final
regulations for determining the pro rata share of insured
losses under the Program when insured losses exceed
$100,000,000,000, in accordance with clause (i).
``(iii) Report to congress.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Secretary shall provide a
report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives describing the process to be
used by the Secretary for determining the allocation of pro
rata payments for insured losses under the Program when such
losses exceed $100,000,000,000.''.
(d) Disclosure.--Section 103(b) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) in the case of any policy that is issued after the
date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, the insurer provides clear and
conspicuous disclosure to the policyholder of the existence
of the $100,000,000,000 cap under subsection (e)(2), at the
time of offer, purchase, and renewal of the policy;''.
(e) Surcharges.--Section 103(e) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``133 percent of''
before ``any mandatory recoupment''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Timing of mandatory recoupment.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary is required to collect
terrorism loss risk-spreading premiums under subparagraph
(C)--

``(I) for any act of terrorism that occurs on or before
December 31, 2010, the Secretary shall collect all required
premiums by September 30, 2012;
``(II) for any act of terrorism that occurs between January
1 and December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall collect 35
percent of any required premiums by September 30, 2012, and
the remainder by September 30, 2017; and
``(III) for any act of terrorism that occurs on or after
January 1, 2012, the Secretary shall collect all required
premiums by September 30, 2017.

``(ii) Regulations required.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary
shall issue regulations describing the procedures to be used
for collecting the required premiums in the time periods
referred to in clause (i).
``(F) Notice of estimated losses.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of an act of terrorism, the Secretary shall
publish an estimate

[[Page H16761]]

of aggregate insured losses, which shall be used as the basis
for determining whether mandatory recoupment will be required
under this paragraph. Such estimate shall be updated as
appropriate, and at least annually.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``(including any additional amount included
in such premium'' and inserting ``collected''; and
(ii) by striking ``(D))'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by inserting before the period
at the end ``, in accordance with the timing requirements of
paragraph (7)(E)''.

SEC. 5. ENHANCED REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Study and Report on Insurance for Nuclear, Biological,
Chemical, and Radiological Terrorist Events.--Section 108 of
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701
note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Insurance for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and
Radiological Terrorist Events.--
``(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall examine--
``(A) the availability and affordability of insurance
coverage for losses caused by terrorist attacks involving
nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological materials;
``(B) the outlook for such coverage in the future; and
``(C) the capacity of private insurers and State workers
compensation funds to manage risk associated with nuclear,
biological, chemical, and radiological terrorist events.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives a report containing a
detailed statement of the findings under paragraph (1), and
recommendations for any legislative, regulatory,
administrative, or other actions at the Federal, State, or
local levels that the Comptroller General considers
appropriate to expand the availability and affordability of
insurance for nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological
terrorist events.''.
(b) Study and Report on Availability and Affordability of
Terrorism Insurance in Specific Markets.--Section 108 of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Availability and Affordability of Terrorism Insurance
in Specific Markets.--
``(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to determine whether there are specific
markets in the United States where there are unique capacity
constraints on the amount of terrorism risk insurance
available.
``(2) Elements of study.--The study required by paragraph
(1) shall contain--
``(A) an analysis of both insurance and reinsurance
capacity in specific markets, including pricing and coverage
limits in existing policies;
``(B) an assessment of the factors contributing to any
capacity constraints that are identified; and
``(C) recommendations for addressing those capacity
constraints.
``(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report on the study required by paragraph (1) to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives.''.
(c) Ongoing Reports.--Section 108(e) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``ongoing'' before ``analysis''; and
(B) by striking ``, including'' and all that follows
through the end of the paragraph, and inserting a period; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and thereafter in 2010 and 2013,'' after
``2006,''; and
(B) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this
legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the effort
and hard work of Mr. Bachus and Mr. Baker, as well as Mr. Kanjorski,
Mrs. Maloney, the extraordinary efforts of my friend from New York,
Pete King, and of course to Chairman Frank for his extraordinary
leadership, as well as the entire New York legislative delegation,
including our friends from New Jersey and Connecticut, who all know
firsthand the anguish and the pain of regions suffering from a
terrorist attack.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not
the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had
wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee
hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full
committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a
strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for
15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and
domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human
beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and
radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761
included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of
increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major
terrorism attacks against our country.
I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York
provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked
out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future
catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven
forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the
nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any
insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at
lower levels.
God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God
willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/
11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit''
of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset
mechanism.
Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and
received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at
risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its
Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the
Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this
legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a
catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so
scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had
been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama. I only pick
Alabama, I think, because I went in alphabetical order. Sometimes bad
things happen in alphabetical order. I don't read the obituaries
because people die in alphabetical order.
In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met
the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with
some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were
another terrorist attack on our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we
presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our
homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and
specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re-
insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is
attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the
cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our
capacity to recover from an attack.
Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our
Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of
the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by
only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out
every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept
the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic
acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would
be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done
so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate
counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to
go to conference.
Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and
disrupting the

[[Page H16762]]

U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet again, Democrats and
Republicans, working together, to try to find a compromise with the
Senate, and last week we passed a limited but still much-improved TRIA
reauthorization over what they had done in the Senate.
The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week
by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as
well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological
coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA,
which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House
held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary
to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our
country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance
coverage, and lower program triggers.
Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA
reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the
case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very
difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill
and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against
terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less
than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in
some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the
terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people
and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible
thing.
The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and
represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come
from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another
attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world,
developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without
funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite
policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an
even larger scale.
In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from
9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable
losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of
mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is
because the U.S. Senate said so.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America
terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the
Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be
comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't
make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national
security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk
insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers
and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year.
I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation
out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration
date, with the understanding that this fight is not over.
We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are
critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely,
the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and
NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation
entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the
reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here
today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We
will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the
Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not
only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as
well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2761,
the Terrorist Insurance Revision Extension Act of 2007. I think the
legislation is critical to our Nation's economic security and the
proper functioning of the insurance marketplace.
Let me thank Chairman Frank and his staff and Representatives
Capuano, Price, Kanjorski and Baker for all their leadership and hard
work on TRIA this year. We would not have enacted TRIA this year had
the House not acted several months ago before the Senate and set the
stage for this current compromise.
I would also like to acknowledge the strong contributions of Mr.
Ackerman and the New York City delegation, Mr. King and Mr. Fossella. I
would also like to acknowledge their concern with regard to this bill.
We all remember the attack on New York City more than 6 years ago. We
are grateful that we have not suffered another attack on the homeland.
I think there is recognition among many Members of this body that New
York City is a symbol of our financial strength.

{time} 1445

It is not only that it is a symbol; it is a gateway to our country
for many immigrants and it quite naturally was on September 11, and
could be, again, chief among the targets. So I would say to Mr.
Ackerman, I appreciate your passion and your participation, and we are
dealing with a compromise here.
In the absence of further attacks, it would be easy to forget the
chaos and the economic disruption that followed in the wake of 9/11
and, more importantly, the loss of life that we all witnessed in a very
personal way, but New York City's residents in an even more personal
and deadly experience for them.
In 2002, it was fresh in our minds, and we created TRIA, which did
help to settle the markets and made possible the strong economic
recovery that followed, and TRIA was and remains a central element of
our commitment to the American people to do all that we can to ensure
the stability of our economy in the event the unthinkable happens
again.
In a moment I am going to call on Mr. King, the gentleman from New
York, who worked very hard on this bill. Terrorist acts are aimed at
our Nation as a whole. The resulting damage and suffering inevitably
fall on a relative few of our communities and citizens. We know that
New York City is a primary target of these terrorists. And although I
am an ardent supporter of free markets, I believe it is entirely
appropriate for our government to minimize economic fallout and
disruption sure to arise from any new attack. Terrorism is a relatively
new phenomenon in America, and we are dealing with terrorist
organizations which have both the intent and the potential to deliver
deadly strikes against our homeland.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the chairman of the full committee 5
minutes, Mr. Frank, whose extraordinary leadership has kept this issue
alive.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the indulgence of my
colleagues.
I am glad that we will finally be acting on this. I share the
frustration of my friend from New York and, indeed, all of my friends
from New York and elsewhere, Connecticut, who wanted a more
comprehensive bill. There is a consolation. I think 1 year or so ago
there were people who thought even a 7-year extension was much too much
and were talking about phasing this out. I am glad that we are moving
forward. I want to address those who say, well, this was supposed to be
a temporary program until the market could take over. I never believed
that. I always wanted this to be a government program.
I am a believer in the market; I believe almost all of us are. I
understand how the market principle works in insurance. If you have a
greater risk, you pay more; your premiums go up. We do that because we
want to discourage people from taking certain risks, or at least make
them pay the full cost. We also want to give them an incentive to
diminish the risk. Those principles don't apply to terrorism.
I don't want a situation to exist whereby, if you build a large
building, because that is essentially what we are talking about here;
people can't build large buildings without bank loans, and they can't
get bank loans without insurance. I don't want the cost to go up in any
particular part of this country because murderous, vicious thugs want
to do this country ill.
I don't believe that those who have been the victims of these kinds
of terrorism ought to bear that cost. That is

[[Page H16763]]

national defense. No more should any one State have to pay to protect
itself against an invasion. We should have a national defense system
that includes saying, we will hold you harmless against these murderous
attacks. And it is, of course, because there is very little you can do
to protect yourself against this. What do they do, put anti-aircraft
guns on the roof? This is not a case where the market is failing. It is
a case where national purpose is what is relevant, not the market.
Now, the other point to make is that I do regret the breakdown in the
United States Senate of the legislative process. And, in particular,
and I believe that the chairman of the banking committee, the Senator
from Connecticut, wanted to move on this, but we were told, partly I
think they made a mistake by waiting too long, but then they were told
it had to be done unanimously. And we were told that the senior
Republican on the committee, the Senator from Alabama, simply refused
to deal with this.
Had this been up in the Senate and had the Senate voted ``no'' to
nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological coverage, had the
Senate voted ``no'' to group life and the very important provision of
our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), to
protect people against discrimination if they wanted to travel to
Israel or elsewhere; if the Senate had voted against the reset
mechanism, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said, well,
that is the way it works. But to have the opposition of the senior
Republican mean that no debate or discussion, much less a vote, could
take place is a breakdown of the system.
We are in a position where something at this point is better than
nothing. But I want to say, as chairman of the Committee on Financial
Services, we will begin early next year to try to get this back on the
Senate agenda, and I will be urging my Senate colleagues not to put
themselves in a position where this kind of one-person veto can
prevent, not an outcome, none of us have the right to an outcome, but
the American people ought to have a right to debate and discussion.
Now, there is a problem, Mr. Speaker, that I acknowledge, and it is a
problem that those of us who have been frustrated by this, really, I
mentioned the Senator from Alabama. I disagree with his obstruction.
But let's put the blame where it belongs also, on James Madison. We had
an election last year, and we elected a new House and we elected one-
third of the Senate, and that is part of the problem. We have a House
that responded to the election of 2006. We have at this point a House
and a Senate each responding to somewhat different electoral impulses.
We are here as a result of the election of 2006, every single one of
us. Or subsequent special elections, sadly, in some cases.
In the Senate, two-thirds of that Senate was elected in 2002 and
2004. That is the disjunction. And it is not personal in general, it is
electoral, and it is a frustration that cannot be overcome easily. But
it does make me determined, as I go into the second year of this
session, to pay more attention to that need. And we will be doing
everything we can again. Again, we cannot guarantee outcome in the
Senate or anywhere else, but the American people ought to be able to
get the benefit of votes and debate.
So this is a recognition that terrorism insurance, in my judgment,
should be here as long as terrorism is here. It is not a case of
waiting for the market. It is a case of stepping up, as we should, for
national defense purposes. And we will work, and I will be following
the lead of my colleague from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and others as we
try to make this bill an even better bill, reflecting what it was in
the House.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia, a member of our leadership team, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and I too thank the gentleman and
salute both sides of the aisle in bringing this bill to the floor. And
I do rise in support of this bill.
I think, if one thing was clear on 9/11, we saw the unthinkable come
to reality. And going forward, given the context of this bill, I don't
think there is any way that we can quantify the risk posed by the
terrorists in terms of coming up with, God forbid, their next scheme of
attack on this country. That is why this bill is so important. Because,
in addition to providing a security backstop, this legislation will
encourage urban development and will bolster economic growth.
So, Mr. Speaker, again, given the challenges and complexities in a
post-9/11 world, we are compelled to consider and pass this
legislation, and I would again urge its passage.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and I would like to
acknowledge to him, publicly, and to the New York delegation that most
of us in America probably do not realize the contribution and the
special nature of the City of New York and its contributions, both
financially and I think socially, to the United States. To many around
the world, it does represent our leading city and is truly a target.
When they target New York City, they target all of us.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama
for yielding. And let me at the outset thank him for the courtesy that
he has shown me throughout this process. There were several differences
that he and I had regarding what the exact nature of the legislation
should be, but that never in any way interfered with either our
professional or personal relationship. And I want to thank him for
that, for his patience, and for the effort he has put in to bring about
this final product.
I also want to thank Chairman Frank for, again, being totally
bipartisan in trying to move this legislation forward and for always
having an open door, and certainly, in my own case, allowing me to be
part of the process from the start. Mr. Ackerman has been a stalwart
fighter in this issue. And let me identify with certainly the points
that Mr. Ackerman was making on this issue.
Also, let me thank Adam Paulson on my staff for putting in an extreme
amount of time on this, on an issue that can be very mind-bending at
times and at the same time is extremely, extremely vital for the
rebuilding not just of New York City but for the protection of our
entire Nation.
So let me say at the outset I support the legislation, and I will
vote for it. I am glad that it is moving forward. I am glad we have the
7-year extension. It is certainly far better than what was being spoken
of last year, which was either a phasing out all together or perhaps a
2-year extension.
Having said that, I agree with Mr. Ackerman that I wish this were for
a 15-year term rather than 7, and I wish that the reset provision had
not been taken out by the Senate. The 15-year provision in particular I
fought for in the committee. It was a hard-fought battle. The vote was
39-30, but everything was on the table. We had the vote. If we had lost
it, we would have lost it; but the fact is, we won it. And when the
bill itself came to the House floor, it passed by an overwhelming vote.
I am not trying to impose our rules on theirs, but I really wish on
an issue of this magnitude the Senate would have allowed that full
breadth of democracy to play itself out to allow the people to be heard
on this issue. Because, as Mr. Ackerman said, this is not a New York
issue. It is an American issue; it is a national issue. It is an issue
of national security and homeland security. And by making this 7 years
rather than 15 years, by eliminating the reset provision, we have put
New York in a weakened position, or certainly in not as strong a
position as it should be. And by doing that, we are basically telling
the terrorists that we will not give the same level of support that we
should be giving. We are in effect allowing them to pick the playing
field here. And we have to keep in mind that, yes, it was New York on
September 11. It could be any other city or State at any time in the
future. And as the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee,
as the ranking member of the Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, I do
receive regular briefings. I know how real these threats are. I also
know that, no matter what analysis is used, New York is clearly number
one on the target list of the Islamic terrorists.
So this legislation is vital, and it was so important that the other
provisions,

[[Page H16764]]

the reset and the 15-year time period, be included. They were not.
Having said that, this is still significant that we are going forward
today. And I would hope that we can revisit it in the future, but again
it is important that we pass this before it expires on December 31. It
is important, again, for the people of New York, but also for the
people of America. And if the rebuilding is to go forward, it is going
to be difficult because certain provisions have been eliminated, but,
again, we will find a way to go forward.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Ackerman, all the
members of the New York delegation and most of the members of the New
Jersey and Connecticut delegations who stood together. Again, somewhat
of a victory today, but let's work together in the future to have a
total victory that we need, not as New Yorkers but as Americans.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Alabama has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I opposed both the earlier
versions of this bill, of the TRIA bill, but I support this one. This
bill is shorter in duration, and it requires more participation by the
private sector. Effectively, in the bill the Federal Government is a
backstop, a reinsurer facilitating and allowing a private market in
terrorism risk insurance.
Now, some that we have heard today say that in this bill the Federal
Government doesn't do enough. I disagree. I think it is the goal of
this bill, and the goal of this act should be, to facilitate a private
market, not to stand in for or subsidize either insurance companies or
property owners.

{time} 1500

Then there are others who say the Federal Government shouldn't be
involved at all in this issue. Again, I disagree. The Federal
Government is involved. Does anybody really believe that if there were
another terrorist attack on the United States that the Federal
Government would not step in to help? Of course they would. The Federal
Government always steps in when disasters are too big for State or
local governments to handle. And there are similarly casualty events
that are too big for the private sector to insure without Federal
involvement. Terrorism is one of them.
The best alternative is not to have the government sail in later to
facilitate a private market so that property owners and people can
insure up front and know where they will be at a minimum if there is a
terrorist act. That is what I believe this bill does, and I support it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the chairman of the subcommittee in whose
jurisdiction this legislation originated.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2761, now known
as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.
Terrorism insurance plays a critical role in protecting jobs and
promoting our Nation's economic security. This bill will extend the
terrorism insurance program for 7 years. This length is more than
double the duration of the program to date. This length is also in line
with my original position of a 6- to 8-year extension. Seven years is
both long enough to provide greater certainty to the marketplace and
short enough to encourage the private sector to develop our own
solutions to the problems posed by conventional terrorism.
Importantly, the legislation eliminates the distinction between
foreign and domestic terrorism. Terrorism, regardless of its cause or
perpetrator, aims to destabilize the government. This change,
therefore, has much merit, and the terrorism insurance program will now
protect against these losses.
This Chamber has worked diligently and thoughtfully throughout this
year on legislation to extend the terrorism insurance program. I am
disappointed at the end of the day we are unable to incorporate some of
the provisions that we initially agreed upon before. This final
product, for example, fails to provide stronger coverage for nuclear,
biological, chemical and radiological terrorism events. TRIA currently
provides a backstop to insurers for these losses, but only if insurers
cover the losses.
Our Nation needs to better plan for a potentially devastating act by
NBCR means by putting in place an explicit program rather than an
implicit promise now or a chaotic response later. Instead of taking
action, as I would have preferred, the legislation before us requires a
study and a report on the availability and affordability of insurance
coverage for these losses. We will have a study. I look forward to it.
I hope when we receive that study we will then get to work on this
proposition.
Members of the Senate, however, have supported this provision, but it
was not included in the final package, and that provision is the
coverage for group life insurance. Nonetheless, I include this letter
by four Members of the Senate, sent to the chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Banking Committee, for the Record.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, December 12, 2007.
Chairman Christopher Dodd,
Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Richard Shelby,
Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Dodd and Shelby: The risk of terrorism is a
persistent and evolving reality that we will be required to
confront for many years to come. It light of this reality, we
greatly appreciate your efforts to pass an extension of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act before it expires.
Congress created the TRIA program in the aftermath of
September 11th to ensure the viability of our nation's
property and casualty insurance market in the event of
another catastrophic terrorist attack. Without reinsurance
through TRIA, these carriers could be forced to restrict the
availability of the coverage they provide, or face losses
that could undermine their ability to honor their policy
commitments. Unfortunately, our economy remains vulnerable
due to the current exclusion of group life insurance from the
TRIA program.
Nearly 170 million Americans receive nearly $8.3 trillion
in group life insurance protection through their employers.
For many, group life coverage is the only form of life
insurance they have. But because of the concentration of
employees at insured worksites, the companies which provide
group life coverage are especially vulnerable to the
catastrophic losses which could result from a terrorist
strike. In this respect, group life insurance resembles
workers' compensation insurance, which is a TRIA-covered
line.
Before September 11th, group life insurers were able to
purchase catastrophe reinsurance to protect against such
losses. Since those attacks, the decreased availability and
increased costs have made private reinsurance more difficult
to obtain.
We believe that the inclusion of group life coverage in
TRIA is prudent to ensure that life insurance benefits for
American workers are not jeopardized by a terrorist attack.
We understand and appreciate your efforts to secure a timely
extension of the TRIA program, and respectfully request your
support for inclusion of group life as the Senate resolves
its differences with the House on this crucial legislation.
We thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins.
Olympia J. Snowe.
Tim Johnson.
Ben Nelson.
U.S. Senators.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who worked very hard on this bill.
And as many of us know, when Louisiana was hit by Hurricane Katrina, he
worked very diligently on that. I think he also has played a yeoman's
part in this process.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for the gracious yielding of time
and do appreciate his good leadership in this area, as well as that of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and the entire New York delegation, which
is understandably focused on the issue of how we best respond as a
Federal Government to a tragic event of another terrorist assault on
this great Nation.
I rise today not to be critical of the product but to say that we
have moved far in our considerations. In the first response after 9/11,
the first terrorism risk reinsurance proposal was only 3 years in
duration, which was then extended for an additional 2-year term,
without the inclusion of group life,

[[Page H16765]]

NBCR, and some of the other modifications now suggested as being
appropriate.
I would point out that during that 5- to 6-year period after 9/11,
contracts were entered into, loans were made by financial institutions
and construction proceeded, only to make the point that having an
absolute lifelong guarantee by the Federal taxpayer with any risk
associated with a terrorist attack is not necessarily inherently a
standard of operation which this Congress should consider.
Rather, as we go forward, as the chairman has indicated in the
hearings of next year, we should strongly consider enabling companies
to build up internal reserves specifically to addressing and responding
to these types of horrific acts, without accounting consequence or tax
liabilities, and enable them to build up appropriate reserves in their
eye to meet the insured losses which they potentially could share.
There are alternatives to the plan currently in place, and we should
reengage and have discussions on all of those alternatives. Some might
find my position on this matter unusual, but I would say in facing the
losses that we struggle with and continue to struggle with in the Gulf
States, Louisiana and Mississippi alike, post Katrina and Rita, I still
don't believe we can ask the taxpayers of this great country to pay off
all of our losses in the event of a higher loss.
We should build higher standards and adjust rates in accordance with
the risks identified, and we should be smart in the enterprise,
enabling market forces to function. The same should be said with
terrorism risk.
We should do all we can before we open taxpayers' checkbooks and
write those big checks out when market function should be the first and
appropriate response to any loss in the insurance world. So I stand in
defense of the product, and I believe the 7-year term is more than
adequate and echo the comments of my chairman on capital markets. We
need to be careful before we move, and we certainly need to understand
before we act.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked long, hard, and well on this
issue.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank my colleague for his work on this
bill.
The bill we are moving forward today is necessary, significant, and
timely. There are few issues that are more important to our Nation's
economy than a stable, long-term Federal support system for our
terrorism risk insurance.
I am disappointed that this final TRIA bill omits key elements of our
stronger House legislation, but this is a solid compromise law that
will help stabilize the market and ensure the ongoing availability of
affordable terrorism risk insurance.
TRIA keeps Americans working, even in the face of terrorist threats.
It is a powerful statement of our determination to keep our markets
open, our cities vibrant, and our productivity strong.
What markets hate most is uncertainty. This longer term bill will
allow our economy to grow while protecting our economic security, which
is an important part of our homeland security and our national defense.
I am delighted to see this bill on the floor. I thank Chairman Frank,
the New York delegation, Ranking Member Bachus and many, many others
for their support of this important legislation.
By renewing TIRA with a long-term extension we stand strong in our
resolve not to allow terrorists to destroy our economy and our way of
life.
That requires a Federal commitment to provide a backstop and cut off
the tail of an otherwise almost infinite risk curve so that the private
sector can plan and put in place a framework of insurance that protects
all of us.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of many of my House
colleagues, the New York delegation, concerning certain aspects of this
bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is the bill the Senate sent back
over. I believe, despite the circumstances in which we find ourselves,
it is a reasonable measure. I believe it will ensure the continued
vitality of our commercial insurance markets as they operate under the
threat of global terrorism. I believe it is fiscally responsible.
Many on my side would have preferred a 3-year bill, as the gentleman
from Louisiana talked about. Originally, it was a 3-year bill. I
believe the New York delegation can take satisfaction from the fact
that it was a 7-year extension and that it does cover domestic acts of
terrorism. I applaud them for that.
But I think, on the other hand, it does offer limits and improves
taxpayer protections and prevents further intrusions by the government
into a market-based system. For that, I thank many of my colleagues on
my side, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Campbell and others, who voiced their
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the hard work and the willingness of the
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to work
with Members on both sides of the aisle and to bring the bill here
today before the House. He faced a hard decision. He has worked hard on
this. He made, I think, a very passionate and, I think, in many
respects, reasoned defense of his position.
We do know going forward that we need to pay particular attention, if
the terrorists continue to threaten our largest city and target it,
that we are fully supportive of the people of New York City.
I thank all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who
worked on TRIA for a long time. Whatever else has happened, we have
come together today. It may have been an emotional journey, but we are
going to pass legislation that I believe will be effective, and I urge
adoption of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I will surrender any time I have left to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to
redistribute the wealth and attribute no social meaning to that, but
those of us who are in need of the time are deeply appreciative, and we
thank you for your cooperation.
May I inquire of the Speaker how much time indeed is left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New York has
2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Alabama just yielded 5
minutes to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the majority
caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this legislation, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks
of Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus, Mr. King, and all those who
have spoken so eloquently on this floor.
Mr. Frank made two points; one essentially about the need for this
legislation and the process we must go through. We all understand, for
the economy to grow, banks need to make loans. In order for banks to
make loans, they have to have insurance.
What this provides, as Mr. King says, is a security backstop for the
Nation, not only in New York City but all across this great country of
ours.
Mr. Frank made a second point as well about the process here, quoting
Madison as being the problem here with our colleagues on the other
side. I want to commend Senator Dodd for his willingness to go forward,
and also Mr. Ackerman for pointing out the need for the reset
provision, 15 years being better than 7, and the importance of
including group insurance as well. These were all vitally important to
the success and ongoing future of this Nation and the great City of New
York.
So I commend my colleagues, each and every one of them on the
Committee on Financial Services, and thank them for this compromise
piece of legislation that we know will go much further in the next
session.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the vice chairman.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished county leader of Queen's
County who has fought so long and passionately on this issue.

[[Page H16766]]

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Queens, New York, as well. I
thank all of those who have worked so hard on this particular issue and
this bill before us today.
I wish, quite frankly, that the discussion and focus wasn't on the
New York delegation. I wish I could stand here today and I didn't have
the burden of the New York State and New York City delegation to craft
and help make this legislation better legislation.
And at the same time, I don't wish to transpose that burden upon the
delegation from Chicago, Illinois, or Los Angeles, California, or
Birmingham, Alabama. I wish not to transpose it to anybody else. We
accept that responsibility. We accept it because we are the financial
capital of the world, and the focus of so much of the attention and
hate of the world, that New York has become that focus, we recognize
our place here in the Congress.
Having said that, I will note that this bill is better than what the
White House proposed, which was no advancement, no extension of TRIA.
The President's working group as well as the GAO report said no
extension. We got a 7-year extension. I count our blessings. The best
should not be the enemy of the good.
But having said that, I think the rejection of a reset provision is a
mistake.

{time} 1515

And we will be back here, we will be back because we need to do this.
We ought not leave a hole in the ground in Manhattan as a monument to
Osama bin Laden. Six years out, and this is not the only reason why
there hasn't been a redevelopment in Lower Manhattan. But 6 years out
we still have not seen the development of the Freedom Towers.
There is a message here, and the message ought not to be to our
enemies that if you strike us we will cower, we will not redevelop.
That's the message that's going out right now. And we will have an
opportunity to change that, and I hope that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle understand this is not a New York City issue. This is
not a New York issue, but an American issue; and to move forward we
have to work together to see that come to fruition.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Mr. Bachus for the extraordinary
cooperation between the majority and the minority on this particular
issue. He led his caucus, along with Mr. Baker, in crafting what was a
very open process led by the distinguished chairman, Mr. Frank, of the
full committee, where everybody's voice was heard; everybody's opinion
was allowed to be aired. We fought it out. Not everybody won every
fight, but it was an extraordinary effort in goodwill. And the efforts
of the Financial Services Committee should be something that set an
example for the rest of the committees in the Congress, especially on
this particular issue, everybody exercising goodwill and good judgment.
Let me thank my staff especially Steve Boms, who, unfortunately,
became one of our Nation's leading experts on terrorism risk insurance.
Much has been said about the New York delegation, because, I think,
of our high profile on this issue. But allow me to thank our colleagues
and offer this: do not feel sorry for us. We do not make this case for
your pity, because we think that our city, we think that our
communities, we think that our State and our neighbors acted in an
exemplary fashion at a moment of extraordinary terror and pressure, not
just to us but to the entire Nation and to the world. What we faced was
absolutely extraordinary, and we are so proud to be New Yorkers, and we
make this fight not because of what we suffered as a city and a State,
but because we already know the pain and the problems that each and
every one of our colleagues and other communities across this country
might face in the event of a terrorist attack.
Much has been said of the courage of New York. We do not end this
fight here because this fight is not for us.
First, to those who have expressed concern about the cost of money as
taxpayer money, let me say that the way this has been added up by CBO,
the taxpayers would actually gain $200 million if there were a
terrorist attack because of the scoring. Do this because it's the right
thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman be given another minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
Do this because it's the right thing to do, not because of New York.
Because your community could be next, and it could be next yet again.
That's what the reset is for.
We pass this today to provide our country with ongoing insurance so
that major development can continue to take place, not to allow the
terrorists to dictate when and where and how construction might take
place in America.
Pass this, vote for this stripped-down version, provide this
protection at least as a minimum for the next 7 years; and I guarantee
we will all be back here next year to fight more and again and harder
to include those provisions that will protect us all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that the House suspend the rules
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2761.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2761 will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending
the rules and passing S. 2271 and suspending the rules and adopting
House Resolution 542.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 360,
nays 53, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 1178]

YEAS--360

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo

[[Page H16767]]

Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Whitfield (KY)
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--53

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilbray
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Chabot
Costello
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Granger
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Lamborn
Linder
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Tancredo
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--19

Butterfield
Cubin
Gilchrest
Hastings (FL)
Hooley
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Miller, Gary
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Thompson (CA)
Udall (NM)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey

{time} 1543

Messrs. KINGSTON, WESTMORELAND, YOUNG of Alaska, BURTON of Indiana,
MILLER of Florida, WAMP, BURGESS, INGLIS of South Carolina, DAVID DAVIS
of Tennessee, and JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. McDERMOTT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the Senate amendment was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________