[Pages H5621-H5626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5114, FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM
PRIORITIES ACT OF 2010

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1517

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 5114) to extend the authorization for the
national flood insurance program, to identify priorities
essential to reform and ongoing stable functioning of the
program, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be

[[Page H5622]]

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question. All points of order
against such amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Financial Services or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

{time} 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule
is for debate only.

General Leave

Ms. MATSUI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1517 provides for consideration of H.R.
5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010, under a
structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The
resolution provides that a substitute amendment recommended by the
Financial Services Committee shall be considered an original bill for
purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read.
The resolution makes in order those amendments printed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying the resolution. The resolution waives all
points of order against such amendments except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions, provides the Chair may entertain
a motion to rise only if offered by the chair of the House Financial
Services Committee or his designee. Lastly, the resolution provides the
Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the rule, the
Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act, and in strong support of the
underlying legislation. I would like to applaud the sponsor of H.R.
5114, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, for her leadership in bringing this
important bill to the floor. And I commend Chairman Frank and Ranking
Member Baucus for being open to a number of improvements to this bill
from myself and fellow members.
I am grateful for their long-standing advocacy of my legislation,
H.R. 1525, which is incorporated into the underlying bill before us
today. Both of them and their incredible staffs have been valuable in
this process.
Mr. Speaker, it is critical that our constituents have access to a
stable flood insurance program. Toward that end, H.R. 5114, which I am
pleased to cosponsor, would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance
Program for 5 years, and implement necessary changes that are essential
for its continuing viability.
Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and
costly natural hazards to my hometown of Sacramento and to other
communities throughout the country. The NFIP is a valuable tool in
addressing the losses incurred due to these disasters, and mitigating
against future disasters. The program ensures that families have access
to affordable flood insurance, while making certain that their safety
is protected. In fact, the NFIP is the primary source of reliable,
affordable flood insurance in this country, providing 95 percent of the
flood insurance policies nationwide. It covers 5.6 million households
and insures $1.2 trillion of property.
From the Sacramento region to the Louisiana bayous to the plains of
the Midwest, communities are improving their flood protection
infrastructure in order to keep residents safe and secure. However, as
we work to provide certainty to our recovering housing market, these
communities are seeking clarity to meet the changing dynamics of
Federal standards.
It is for these reasons that I am thrilled that this legislation
contains a provision I authored that would provide technical changes to
Federal flood zone designations. In my district, the deepest flood
depths would be in a region called the Natomas Basin. Fortunately, we
have a flood protection project underway to achieve a 200-year level of
protection for its residents.
By 2011, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the State of
California will have spent upwards of $350 million repairing levees in
the Natomas Basin. But over the last 5 years, the hundreds of millions
devoted to levee improvements in Natomas have not been acknowledged by
FEMA in the remapping process. Unfortunately, FEMA's current flood zone
certification process does not always take local and State funding into
account.
A year ago, I introduced H.R. 1525, which would fix this problem, and
it has been included in the bill we are considering today. In addition
to making flood insurance available to millions of Americans, this bill
also provides communities clarity in order for them to continue their
ongoing efforts to improve flood defenses. It would update current law
to take local, State, and Federal funding into account when determining
flood zone designations. Such investments must be recognized by the
Federal Government.
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must all be
thoughtful and committed partners because protecting our constituents
from the dangers potential floods pose requires a comprehensive
approach. While I have always urged homeowners in floodplains to
purchase flood insurance, I have serious concerns about families being
forced to incur higher insurance rates during an economic recession.
Increased rates on top of the annual flood protection assessments that
many residents are paying each year compounds this problem, which is
why I am grateful that H.R. 5114 includes another provision I strongly
support that would reduce the shock of higher insurance rates by
phasing them in over 5 years. It would apply retroactively to September
2008 to areas that have been already remapped.
Most importantly for the thousands of homeowners across the country
that have recently gone through the remapping process, H.R. 5114 would
lower their flood insurance rates. Without this bill, many of our
constituents would likely be forced to pay more than four times the
preferred risk policy rate.
Mr. Speaker, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act was
unanimously approved by the Financial Services Committee on April 27,
2010. It is budget neutral, and is supported by numerous organizations
in the property insurance field. Congress has not reauthorized NFIP
since 2004. It is time for us to do so and to make essential changes to
the program to ensure its

[[Page H5623]]

sustainability. As many of my colleagues can attest, providing for the
security and safety of flood-prone regions like the one I represent
needs to be at the top of our priority list.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of the solution and to help make
sure residents of Sacramento and other flood-prone communities across
the country can afford to purchase the flood insurance they need to
protect their families, their businesses, and the livelihoods of our
communities.
I therefore urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Almost 18 years ago, in 1993, I first arrived in Congress right in
the aftermath of the greatest natural disaster that had ever hit south
Florida. August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 storm with
wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour, hit our community and devastated
it. That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida.
Entire communities were destroyed. Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf
coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest natural disaster in
American history.
We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous
assistance from our fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew.
That assistance was vital for our recovery, and I won't forget the
support and compassion my colleagues in this Chamber demonstrated
during those difficult times.
The National Flood Insurance Program, established by Congress in
1968, was designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance and
to reduce the costs of repairing flood damage to buildings caused by
hurricanes or inland flooding of rivers, lakes, or streams.
Approximately 20,000 communities across the country participate in the
program by adopting and enforcing floodplain management regulations to
reduce future flood damage.

{time} 1040

In exchange, federally backed flood insurance becomes available to
homeowners, renters, and business owners in those communities.
The NFIP was self-supporting through policy premiums and fees until
2005 when the program incurred approximately $17 billion in flood
claims caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Currently, the
program is over $18 billion in debt.
Reauthorization of the NFIP is very important to the economy in south
Florida. Without the program, home buyers are unable to close on new
homes, suppressing home sales at a time when they're desperately needed
in south Florida.
For example, a constituent, Chris O'Neal, wrote to me last month
asking for Congress to reauthorize this program. Because the majority
had let the program lapse, he and his family were unable to close on
their new home and they faced being homeless because their current
landlord had forced them to vacate their home. Mr. O'Neal's case wasn't
an isolated incident. A number of my constituents have been unable to
close on their new homes, and it's my understanding that many
throughout the country face a similar situation.
This underlying legislation would rectify that problem and would
reauthorize the NFIP through 2015. The bill provides premium discounts
to assist residents in newly designated flood hazard areas who would be
subject to a new requirement to purchase flood insurance during a
phase-in period of 5 years.
Other provisions include extending the Severe Repetitive Loss grant
program to allow government buyouts of properties with frequent and
severe losses to reduce program losses in the long term. The bill also
allows for premiums to be paid in installments for lower-income
property owners, thereby helping them to afford flood insurance and
encouraging them to continue to purchase protection.
Although I support the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, it could have
been better, especially if the Taylor-Scalise amendment had been made
in order. Their amendment would allow coastal homeowners to buy an
option for both wind and flood insurance coverage from the NFIP. This
option would be extremely helpful to coastal communities like south
Florida and the gulf coast. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules
Committee decided to block even debate on that amendment. And not only
did they block the Taylor-Scalise amendment, they blocked out nearly 90
percent of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee
while allowing nearly two-thirds of the Democratic amendments.
So today we will consider three minority and eight majority
amendments, plus another 10 majority amendments included in the
manager's amendment. That's quite a contrast. It's especially
unfortunate when you consider we were told that the process was going
to change, that it wasn't going to be this way. The distinguished
Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most
open and bipartisan Congress in history. Yet week after week, the
majority continues to block an open process. We have yet to consider
even one open rule during the entire 111th Congress, not even on the
historically open appropriations bills. That's quite sad.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood
Insurance Reform Priorities Act.
In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new
maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risk they
face.
In Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the city's
waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models
turned out to be more appropriate for exposed or standing shorelines.
Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on
shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather,
Portland Harbor is a working, thriving waterfront that has endured for
hundreds of years.
After working with the city, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of
their model, taking into account the impact of the city's working
waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the city.
In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are a
result of hard work by the city and the Maine congressional delegation.
Together, we were able to save Portland's working waterfront, but
other communities in York and Cumberland counties in my State face
similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and
collect new data. Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural
hearts of our coastal communities. We need to make sure they are
treated fairly in assessing the risks they face.
In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show
FEMA they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In
Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably can
not be rebuilt if they burn down, and a new herring processing facility
had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring on
a truck and drive it across the parking lot to be processed.
You know, FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and
buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or
destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently, though, sheltered
harbors like Portland are relatively protected, and even during a bad
hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood and do not get battered by
heavy waves.
Our Nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities,
deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. That's
why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was
included in the manager's amendment to show how these models are
applied to working waterfronts and to study how it is done.
We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our
communities receive accurate information about flood risks they face,
and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true
partnership.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the manager's amendment,
and the underlying bill.
Today, the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform
Priorities Act. In

[[Page H5624]]

Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new maps
will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risks that they
face. Unfortunately, in some places the remapping process is not as
accurate as it could be.
For example, in Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of
the City's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm.
FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed and sandy
shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a
community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by
levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving, waterfront that
has endured for hundreds of years.
After working with the City, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of
their model, taking into account the impact of the City's working
waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the City.
In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are the
result of the hard work by the City and the Maine Congressional
Delegation.
Together, we were able to save Portland's waterfront but other
communities in York and Cumberland county face similar issues and do
not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data.
Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our
coastal communities. Because businesses in working waterfronts like
boatyards are located on the water's edge and often have piers that
stick out into a harbor, they are more susceptible to storms and
inaccurate models.
In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show
FEMA that they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong.
In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably
cannot be rebuilt if they burn down and a new herring processing
facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the
herring in a truck, and drive it across the parking lot to be
processed.
FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings
are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a
once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently though, sheltered harbors like
Portland are relatively protected and even during a bad hurricane or
nor'easter, they may flood but do not get battered by heavy waves.
Our nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities,
deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. Our
nation's waterfront businesses need accurate flood maps that don't
needlessly place our businesses in the restrictive flood areas such as
V or A zones and stifle the economic activity on the waterfront.
This is why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that
was included in the Managers Amendment. This language will help protect
our nation's working waterfronts and improve the accuracy of FEMA's
flood maps in our harbors by requiring FEMA to study how their models
and the assumptions that motivate those models are applied to working
waterfronts and harbors.
We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our
communities receive accurate information about the flood risks they
face and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true
partnership. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the Managers
Amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Arcuri), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee,
Ms. Matsui, for yielding me the time. And I'd like to compliment her on
her hard work over the years and her leadership with respect to
protecting individuals who have been devastated by the effects of
floods which brings us here today.
I speak in support of H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform
Priorities Act, which will provide the stability necessary for
businesses, realtors, homeowners, and plan effectively to reduce the
potential economic loss and costs of repairing damages from future
flooding without stifling or preventing otherwise safe development.
As FEMA works to update and modernize flood maps from communities
across the country, thousands of families across Upstate New York are
facing a new requirement to purchase flood insurance as they are
remapped into new flood zone boundaries. It is imperative that these
maps are accurate and protect our communities without unnecessarily
burdening them or stifling economic development, especially during
these very tough economic times.
H.R. 5114 seems to strike the proper balance by allowing property
owners a sufficient grace period to account for the need to buy flood
insurance or to appeal the determination that their property is within
a floodplain, and also phases in flood insurance premium rates over a
5-year period beginning as soon as the property owner initiates the
flood insurance policy.
In recent years, I've assisted communities in my district in
successfully appealing updated flood maps, saving countless homes and
business owners from unnecessarily having to purchase flood insurance.
Instances like this illustrate why the grace period in H.R. 5114 is
so important--so property owners have a 5-year delay of the flood
insurance purchase requirement within which to appeal FEMA's
preliminary determination. This grace period would apply retroactively
to any final updated flood map that was enacted since September 1,
2008.
I'm also pleased that H.R. 5114 will create the Office of Flood
Insurance Advocate within FEMA to assist policyholders in filing flood
insurance claims, settling disputes between policyholders and FEMA, and
streamlining the claims process. This is a provision I fought to
include in the flood insurance reform legislation in the last Congress,
and I applaud the committee for including these provisions in the
underlying bill today.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on the rule, as I have appreciated her work
in her community over the years dealing with the consequences of
flooding and water damage.
I rise in support of the rule and reluctantly am supporting the
underlying bill.

{time} 1050

I have great sympathy for the work that was done by the Financial
Services Committee. I understand what horrible timing it is to deal
with the huge losses in housing value, other real estate markets, as
well as unemployment and the economic slowdown. We are all reluctant to
put any additional pressure on people who are located in harm's way.
But I will tell you, having worked on flood insurance reform now for
over a decade, there is never a good time to fix this program. The
tragedy of Katrina 5 years ago dramatically illustrated both the need
for, and the flaws in, our flood insurance program and environmental
protections.
For generations, local and State governments and, sadly, in some
cases, the Federal Government itself has encouraged people to live in
harm's way. Over time, this has become a much more expensive
proposition while we have accelerated the potential for disastrous
floods as we've engineered our rivers, while we've encouraged filling
in wetlands that used to be nature's sponges, and we have more people
in the areas that are subjected to even worse flooding.
Now we have the situation where global warming is creating weather
instability, extreme weather events, brutal rains and winds that make
what was once a one in 100 years or one in 500 year event, sadly
routine. We have seen on the floor of this House people come to the
floor dealing with 500-year floods that have happened in relatively
short time frames, and it is going to continue accelerating in the
future.
We need to make sure that FEMA has the resources to do this important
mapping job properly, and we need to have the gumption to support FEMA
after it has gone through the process and done the mapping right, to
enforce that mapping. We need to make sure that people who are in
harm's way are encouraged to protect their properties, and after
repeated damage, that we don't just keep putting people back in harm's
way but help them be located more safely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is important that we no longer put the taxpayer on

[[Page H5625]]

the hook for massive losses and have the rest of the people who pay
flood insurance pay higher premiums while people who should start
making some modification waiting 10 years before they pay their own
way.
This bill is a compromise, but I am hopeful that Congress can do more
work to make a compromise that is more effective and long term because
this is the tip of the iceberg. If we don't get it right, we're going
to be back here time and time again on the hook for more and more money
and more loss of life and property.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to start by thanking the Members and the staff of the
Financial Services Committee for their diligence in working with me on
this important legislation. Tom Glassic of the Financial Services
majority staff has been especially helpful.
Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, flooding is the most common natural
disaster in this country. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP,
is the primary source of reliable, affordable flood insurance in the
United States today. The last reauthorization of NFIP occurred in 2004.
Since 2008, it has operated under a series of short extensions, with
the current law scheduled to expire at the end of September.
To ensure that individuals nationwide have access to a stable and
reasonable flood insurance program, we need to pass the Flood Insurance
Reform Priorities Act. This legislation would reauthorize the NFIP and
implement other critically important changes that would guarantee the
program's sustainability.
In particular, it would help the Sacramento region and other areas
advance their ongoing efforts to improve their flood protection.
Additionally, the bill would lower the burden of higher insurance rates
in remapped communities by phasing them in over 5 years.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 5114 would have no
impact on the budget over the next 10 years. In fact, the CBO has
stated that the measure would increase revenues by $5 million over
2010-2015 and by $10 million over 2011-2020.
It would address the NFIP's serious financial challenges by directing
it back toward fiscal health and self-sustainability.
This legislation, which was unanimously approved by the Financial
Services Committee earlier this year, would provide certainty to our
recovering housing market and ensure public safety.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5114 is an important bipartisan bill that would
help protect our communities from catastrophic flooding. With that in
mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee and
offered an amendment that would allow people in coastal America to buy
wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance, a measure that is
identical to what had passed this House less than 3 years ago as a part
of the base bill. It is my understanding that that was not made in
order.
My question to the Rules Committee is since the Speaker says she is
for it, since Majority Leader Hoyer says he is for it, since the
chairwoman of jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, says she's for it, I've got to
admit my amazement that it was not made in order, since it's already
passed this House by about 270 votes 3 years ago. So I was hoping if
the gentlewoman could enlighten those of us who are in support of that
amendment what happened.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will respond.
One of the amendments was not germane. One amendment was made in
order because it was germane.
Mr. TAYLOR. The amendment, again, that has already passed this House
as a part of the base bill of an identical bill 3 years ago, I'm having
a little trouble understanding how that's not germane.
I would urge people to oppose the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. May I say that, just to clarify, the amendment that Mr.
Taylor was talking about was germane to that bill. It is not germane to
this bill.
So if I may continue, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5114 is an important
bipartisan bill that would protect our communities from catastrophic
flooding. With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 182, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 443]

YEAS--239

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
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 (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
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
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--182

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo

[[Page H5626]]

Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
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
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Bright
Culberson
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Kagen
Kind
Olson
Schrader
Welch

{time} 1126

Messrs. GALLEGLY, SHIMKUS, and TURNER changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________