|
Frank takes issue with Slaughter on lockout |
|
By Jackie Kucinich
|
|
Posted: 09/28/07 07:29 PM [ET] |
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the Financial Services panel, challenged his colleague, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), saying in a floor speech that he regretted her decision to lock out Republican amendments to a flood insurance bill.
To underline his opposition to her decision, Frank voted “present” rather than supporting the rule. He apologized to Republicans who were denied the opportunity to amend the bill and said he would try to help them offer amendments during floor debate.
“I want to be very clear,” he said, “that I regret the decision not to allow a number of amendments offered by members of the minority to this bill, and I will give them my word that as this legislative process goes forward, I intend to seek out opportunities to give them fair consideration. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I’m never happy when I see my colleagues on the Republican side being a little obstreperous, but when they are with good reason, I find that hard to tolerate.”
Slaughter’s decision came a day after a GOP website described her management of the Rules panel as “out of order.”
Frank told The Hill that Slaughter called him Wednesday night to inform him of her decision, adding, “I told her I was unhappy and that I thought it was a bad idea. She said she thought it was a good idea.”
A Democratic committee staffer said, “Communicating with other committee chairs regarding bills in their committee’s jurisdiction going through the Rules Committee is a regular part of [Slaughter’s] daily activity.”
Jo Maney, a spokeswoman for Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), ranking member of the panel, said, “It’s both outrageous and ironic that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee would react to being exposed for shutting out debate by shutting out yet more debate. Flood insurance reform is a serious issue. It’s too bad for the American people that Mrs. Slaughter doesn’t see it that way.”
The back-story to the dispute involves the fact that Republican members of the Rules Committee unveiled a minority website on Wednesday and distributed a report entitled “Out of Order” that was highly critical of Slaughter’s management style.
When asked whether he believed Slaughter’s decision was intended as retaliation, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a Rules Committee member, said, “I think they were upset, but this is still consistent performance. The Rules Committee is a committee that is specific in its intent and exact in its purpose” but was now falling short of that standard.
Republicans have frequently criticized Slaughter for closing rules and exerting a heavy hand. Sessions said her actions were far from unusual, but were made much more curious by the fact that Frank had said amendments should be permitted as long as they were substantive and did not duplicate others.
“Everyone was in the same vein,” Sessions said, adding it was “highly different” for a chairman’s request to be denied by another chairman of a committee.
The flood legislation would raise the cap on coverage for homes, abolish subsidized coverage for vacation homes, raise premiums, and set aside funds for the federal program to update its flood maps.
The bill would also allow homeowners and businesses to purchase coverage for wind damage under the federal program, a provision strongly opposed by the insurance industry.
With the blessing of the Democratic leadership, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) had added the language to the legislation during markup.
Republican Reps. Tom Price (Ga.) and Jeb Hensarling (Texas), who had each offered amendments to strike out the Taylor language, took to the floor to inquire as to why those amendments were not accepted.
Jessica Holzer contributed to this report. |
