[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 150 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8962-H8967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2244, TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE 
  PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
         PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 12, 2014, THROUGH JANUARY 3, 2015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 775 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 775

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2244) to 
     extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance 
     Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 
     2002, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one 
     motion to commit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of December 11, 2014, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress after December 11, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
my dear friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is 
considering a rule for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, or a program known as TRIA. Without 
this bill, TRIA is set to expire on December 31, meaning that the House 
and the Senate must now act or the program will end at the end of this 
year.
  Since TRIA was signed into law in 2002, it has served as an effective 
means of dealing with the problem of availability of terrorism 
insurance. TRIA has enabled the private insurance market to provide an 
essential type of coverage that otherwise may not exist.
  However, like many other government programs, TRIA needs to be looked 
at and reformed in order to serve its original purpose, and that is why 
we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Vice Chairman 
Randy Neugebauer of the Financial Services Committee, S. 2244 provides 
for many of those necessary reforms that will protect taxpayers, 
promote market stability, and provide for economic security for the 
American people, all in one, brand-new package.
  What we are doing here today is important and essential for many 
people, but it is here to maintain the stability of a marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take us back to 2001, shortly after the 
terrorist attacks on 9/11. None of us will ever forget where we were 
when we first heard and saw of the terrorist attacks that attacked our 
homeland in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a field in 
Pennsylvania. The accompanying stories of heroism and the deeds by 
Americans and others were simply heroism at its finest at a time of 
attack on this country.
  What some might not remember, though, is the remarkable amount of 
economic uncertainty and damage that was caused to America and in the 
following weeks and months after 9/11. While we mourned the loss of 
many loved ones, our economy was shaken to its core.
  Those attacks created and caused $32.5 billion in losses, 
approximately $20 billion of which were incurred by insurance 
companies. A second similar attack would have left the U.S. insurance 
economy insolvent, which in turn, being insolvent, would have 
undermined our entire economic structure of the free enterprise system. 
That is why TRIA was pressed into law, to provide a Federal backstop to 
avoid an immediate terrorism risk insurance crisis.
  Sadly, terrorism has continued to be an ongoing threat to our Nation 
and, for the foreseeable future, I think that we need to remain 
vigilant and prepared for those consequences. So the cost of terrorism 
still looms large, and acts of terrorism are uninsurable risks that 
could sink our insurance markets without this new, updated program.
  In this way, TRIA is a vital economic piece of our Nation's 
comprehensive security strategy because it allows for the American 
economy to recover more quickly in the event of an attack. I believe it 
does more than that. I believe it puts in place building blocks for us 
to understand responsibility, economic security, and how we would build 
back based upon rule of law and understanding about what would happen 
at a time of chaos.
  TRIA provides certainty, certainty to our marketplace, by giving 
policyholders and insurers the tools that they need to understand and 
to develop a market-based solution to the economic threat that could be 
posed by terrorism. It gives policyholders and insurance providers the 
opportunity to model risk and to diversify their exposure with an 
understanding of what the law would provide.
  I am encouraged by the reforms championed by, yesterday, up in the 
Rules Committee, Chairman Jeb Hensarling from the Fifth Congressional 
District of Texas, who has placed many of these new items directly into 
the bill as a result of hard negotiation.
  These are called reforms, Mr. Speaker, and three reforms stand out to 
me as being particularly important.
  First, section 102. It would decrease the Federal share of losses 
under the program by 1 percentage point annually until it equals 80 
percent. That means that the Federal taxpayers will be responsible for 
less of the initial costs incurred after a terrorist attack than under 
the current law.
  Second, section 103. 103 would increase the program trigger to $200 
million in $20 million increments over 5 years. This means that TRIA 
would not kick in, the government program would not kick in until there 
was $200 million in insurable losses following an attack, ensuring that 
the government would not only get involved if an attack had a massive 
impact, but we would know the rules ahead of time.

[[Page H8963]]

  Third, section 104. Section 104 would increase the amount of Federal 
assistance that the Treasury Secretary must recoup from the insurance 
industry following a certified act of terrorism. This means that 
Federal taxpayers are getting, once again, a better and well-understood 
deal with insurers than they would have gotten before this important 
reform.
  Finally, S. 2244 would provide a much-needed change to Dodd-Frank. It 
is a piece of legislation that was passed a few years ago that is 
causing chaos in the marketplace: higher cost, uncertainty, and 
overwhelming regulation by the Federal Government. Federal regulators 
have interpreted parts of Dodd-Frank to apply to nonfinancial companies 
who are called ``end users.''
  These end users are people who were never expected to become subject 
to the requirements of Dodd-Frank, such as ranchers, farmers, and small 
business owners. This Dodd-Frank fix would clarify that true 
derivatives end users are exempt from the margin requirements applied 
by Dodd-Frank to derivatives contracts. With this reform, end users 
will be able to use derivatives to hedge risks, which allows them to 
maintain low and stable prices for consumers. That, in turn, frees up 
capital that can be used to create brand-new jobs, current jobs, and to 
grow our free enterprise system in America.
  This fix is not particularly controversial. In fact, the current 
policy of requiring nonfinancial companies to adhere to the same margin 
requirements as financial companies was not intended when the original 
bill passed.
  To fix this problem, earlier in this Congress, the U.S. House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 634. Yes, I voted for it, along with 410 
other Members of this body, in a bill presented by and authored by 
Congressman Michael Grimm of New York, 411-12, overwhelming, broad 
bipartisan consensus as we looked at the impact of that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the young chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee, Jeb Hensarling, for his hard work. I also applaud the vice 
chairman of the committee, Randy Neugebauer from Lubbock, Texas, who 
has worked very hard on this reauthorization of TRIA. It is essentially 
his bill. It came out of his subcommittee, and he has done yeoman's 
work to make sure that we understand what the deal is through law, how 
to protect taxpayers, what the government role is, and it means that we 
can move forward from here with the certainty that American taxpayers 
and the industry have a well-understood deal.
  I am also glad, though, that this is good for small business; it is 
good for farmers; it is good for ranchers; it is good for Members of 
Congress, 411 of us that had voted for pieces of this bill before 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the 
chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 2244 reauthorizes, through December 31, 2020, the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, also known as TRIA.
  This much-needed reauthorization ensures that the program will 
continue to protect our Nation's taxpayers in the event of severe loss 
from an act of terror, while providing the security and stability 
necessary for our Nation's businesses to grow and invest.
  TRIA was a direct response by the Federal Government to the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting disruptions from that 
act of terrorism to coverage under commercial policies in the 
marketplace.
  Since 2002, it has provided companies with affordable access to 
terrorism insurance coverage, while serving as a backstop for insurers 
against the most severe terrorism-related losses.
  Currently, in order to receive payment for claims, insurance 
companies must pay a deductible equivalent to 20 percent of the 
previous year's direct earned premium for covered commercial lines.

                              {time}  1330

  Furthermore, the insured loss must be at least $100 million before 
the Federal Government will cover 85 percent of each company's losses 
up to $100 billion, with the other 15 percent of losses the obligation 
of insurers.
  In addition to extending TRIA by 6 years, S. 2244 also makes a number 
of important changes to the program. Gradually, as Mr. Sessions 
explained, it will increase the program's threshold from $100 million 
to $200 million as well as slightly increase the amount the government 
recoups from private insurers up to 140 percent. Moreover, this 
legislation decreases the government's share of losses from 85 to 80 
percent.
  I am pleased to share that the final measure before us today does not 
include a contentious provision that would have bifurcated TRIA based 
on the type of terrorist attack, essentially treating nuclear, 
biological, chemical, and radiological attacks differently than 
conventional attacks. The reauthorization of TRIA is broadly supported 
by members of the business community and by many of my colleagues in 
Congress on both sides of the aisle.
  However, while we can agree that TRIA is both necessary and must be 
reauthorized, S. 2244 also includes an unrelated provision that changes 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In 
particular, it exempts manufacturers, energy companies, and 
agricultural firms, known as end users, from having to put up 
collateral when they are trading derivatives.
  With less than 2 legislative days left before funding for the Federal 
Government expires, I am troubled by the addition of this extraneous, 
nongermane derivative end user margin provision, which is a 
disappointing setback to the progress made during the last few weeks of 
bipartisan negotiations, and it risks the entire bill's defeat over in 
the other body.
  These last-minute changes to Dodd-Frank were not previously agreed 
to, as they were included without informing Democrats after an 
agreement was reached on Monday night. After months of negotiations, my 
friends, the House Republicans, then announced an emergency Rules 
Committee meeting with only 2\1/2\-hours' notice.
  Almost 3,000 lives were lost and an estimated $40 billion in insured 
losses sustained in the absolutely horrible attacks of 9/11. TRIA 
helped our Nation rebuild and recover, and it continues to protect the 
American people today. Such an important program deserves better than 
the partisan sleight of hand represented by the last-minute addition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I note that today we have a speaker for 
our friends, the Democrats, as well as the vice chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services who are here, really, I believe, to 
give this body a real shot in the arm about how important this 
legislation is. I think about what a great job the process has gone 
through and achieved.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer). Then I want to bring him back as he wants to talk a little 
bit more, but we want to make sure that we get to our colleague from 
New York before it takes too much time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for 
allowing me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation to our 
country. We have heard a little bit of the history that, after 9/11, 
the insurance industry took a pretty substantial hit. Their reserves 
were drained to pay out on these claims. As they were looking at 
writing new business, they were very concerned about what the future 
held because America had never experienced that kind of disaster in the 
past, so they were trying to figure out how to underwrite those in the 
future. TRIA was put into place temporarily to be a backstop for the 
industry for them to get back on their feet. They have gotten back on 
their feet, and their reserves are at all-time highs, and they have had 
a number of years now to model this risk.
  The reason it was originally important to do that was, basically, in 
order to continue the construction projects or the number of projects 
around the country, the insurance industry needed some assurance that 
they wouldn't have to bear that kind of event again.

[[Page H8964]]

  When we began to look at this process when we knew this was going to 
expire at the end of this year, we knew that there were kind of three 
options out there. One was to let the program expire as it was meant to 
be a temporary program. There were some Members who wanted to do that, 
and some Members did not. Others wanted to just extend the program the 
way it was. Under the Bush administration, though, we began a process 
to begin to reform this and to begin to transition more and more of the 
risk away from the taxpayers and back to the insurance companies. 
Unfortunately, when it was last reauthorized, none of those reforms 
were built into it. Even the President of the United States says that 
TRIA needs to be reformed, and he has offered up, for example, to 
change the trigger levels.
  One of the things we have done with this bill is we didn't really 
change the overall structure of TRIA. We could have written a whole new 
terrorism insurance program. We didn't think that was good for the 
market. The market had already begun to adapt to the current framework, 
so we felt, if we worked within the existing framework--changing some 
of the triggers and some of the knobs on this particular program--that 
that would begin to allow the industry to take on more of the risk and 
for the taxpayers to take less of that risk. I think we have 
accomplished that with this bill.
  As has been pointed out, I think a lot of people, quite honestly, 
don't know a lot about TRIA. One of the things is that the insurance 
industry takes the first losses under this program. So, if there were a 
loss today, as the gentleman mentioned, 20 percent of the previous 
year's premiums, which, if industrywide, would be about $40 billion 
today, would go directly to the insurance companies. Should those 
losses exceed that--should we have another catastrophic event--then 
what would happen is that the taxpayers and the insurance industry 
would begin to share those expenses with a provision now. We have 
strengthened that in this bill. I think one of the more important parts 
of it is that the taxpayers would get their money back and would get 
some return on their money. I think we are headed in a good direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I would respond to the point that some extraneous 
things were put in this bill. When it came over from the Senate, it 
came over with an extraneous item in it as well, and that was to change 
the structure of future Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  They also sent over a program which, quite honestly, I agree with, 
which is something that is in this bill, of allowing your local 
insurance agent--if he is licensed in or she is licensed in the State 
one resides in, to do business in other States. None of the policy that 
is in this bill is new policy. This is policy that this body has voted 
on in the past. With that, I think we have got a good bill.
  I see my good friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney) over there, and I 
am anxious to hear her thoughts on that because this is an issue that 
she has been very interested in.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman, my good 
friend, for yielding and for all of his hard work on this issue and on 
many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I believe the 
approach we are taking jeopardizes the passage in the Senate of a good, 
bipartisan compromise to extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or 
TRIA.
  TRIA is incredibly important to New York--and to the entire country--
and it is critically important that we pass a long-term extension of 
this bill. After 9/11, all construction in New York City stopped. You 
could not even build a hot dog stand. Thousands of people lost their 
jobs, and business ground to a halt because we could not get terrorism 
insurance. The only insurance available was from Lloyd's of London, and 
it was difficult to get and incredibly expensive.
  If we do not reauthorize TRIA, no business will be able to get 
terrorism insurance in this country, and all construction will stop, 
costing thousands of jobs in our country. I must say, of all of the 
government programs that helped New York rebuild, I would say this 
program was the most important, and it did not cost taxpayers one dime.
  I want to emphasize that I strongly support the TRIA compromise in 
this bill that was reached between Chairman Hensarling and Vice Chair 
Neugebauer, along with Senator Schumer and Ranking Member Waters. 
However, the deal reached did not include the end user margin bill that 
is also included in the underlying TRIA bill, which Senator Schumer and 
many other Senators are strongly objecting to.
  The reason this was not part of the agreement is that adding 
unrelated bills that amend Dodd-Frank makes it much more difficult to 
pass this bill in the Senate. Where there are any changes to Dodd-
Frank, many Senators take exception. It is very difficult to pass them. 
This, unfortunately, jeopardizes the chances of passing this important 
reauthorization of TRIA in the Senate, and it is extremely important to 
the overall economy of this country to pass this bill.
  Separately, I want to note for the record that I support the end user 
margin bill, which would simply clarify that end users of derivatives, 
such as airlines and manufacturers, are not subject to Dodd-Frank's 
margin capital requirements.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I voted for this bill in 
committee, which, as noted, passed this body with 400 votes, and also 
on the floor. However, I strongly oppose this rule because it puts 
TRIA's passage in the Senate in jeopardy, and this is truly 
unfortunate.
  Before the Rules Committee, Ranking Member Waters and I suggested 
that we divide this out, have TRIA and the other bill--the Dodd-Frank, 
the regulatory bill--separate so that there would not be a problem in 
the Senate. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and I am extremely 
concerned that this puts in jeopardy the passage of a bill that is 
critically important to the economy of this country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Exactly what the gentlewoman speaks about was part of the long 
discussion that we had in the Rules Committee yesterday. The gentleman 
from Dallas, Texas, Chairman Hensarling, very clearly went through--
piece, by piece, by piece--the things which the Senate had added which 
were extraneous to TRIA and that were in their bill that they passed. 
Likewise, the chairman outlined what he was for. He described a bill 
that got 411 votes in this body.
  One thing was a very pleasant surprise, and I thought it was very 
wisely done by the Secretary of the Treasury. I would like to read what 
Secretary Jacob Lew said in a letter that was addressed on December 7, 
just this week, to the Honorable Charles E. Schumer. Chuck Schumer is 
the leader of this TRIA bill in the Senate.
  He said:

       Dear Senator Schumer, I want to thank you for your 
     leadership on extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and 
     its program. As you know well, TRIA is critical to our 
     economic and national security. Terrorism insurance is 
     necessary for a broad range of economic activities in areas 
     across the country and would be prohibitively expensive or 
     unavailable in the absence of the program.
       There is clear bipartisan support in both the Senate and 
     the House to enact a long-term extension while making reforms 
     to further reduce taxpayer exposure. Time is running short to 
     head off an unnecessary, unprecedented, and disruptive lapse 
     of the program, which is scheduled to expire in just a few 
     weeks.
       Given the economic necessity and national security 
     implications of this legislation, TRIA's reauthorization 
     should not be delayed due to disagreements over entirely 
     unrelated financial regulatory issues. I appreciate the hard 
     work you and your bipartisan colleagues are doing to 
     reauthorize a long-term extension of the TRIA.


[[Page H8965]]


  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this in the Record.


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2014.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Schumer: I write to thank you for your 
     leadership on extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 
     (TRIA) and its Program. As you know well, TRIA is critical to 
     our economic and national security. Terrorism insurance is 
     necessary for a broad range of economic activities in areas 
     across the country, and would be prohibitively expensive or 
     unavailable in the absence of the Program.
       There is clear bipartisan support in both the Senate and 
     the House to enact a long-term extension while making reforms 
     to further reduce taxpayer exposure. Time is running short to 
     head off an unnecessary, unprecedented, and disruptive lapse 
     of the Program, which is scheduled to expire in a few weeks.
       Given the economic necessity and national security 
     implications of this legislation, TRIA's reauthorization 
     should not be delayed due to disagreements over entirely 
     unrelated financial regulatory issues. I appreciate the hard 
     work you and your bipartisan colleagues are doing to 
     reauthorize a long-term extension of the TRIA.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this is from the Secretary of the 
Treasury, who is asking Mr. Schumer, please, let's work to get this 
done because it makes sense.
  I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer), the vice chairman of the committee, who can further delve 
into the issues about how important this measure is.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the point that we want to continue making here 
is that when we use the existing framework, the objective here was to 
give certainty to the industry--both the insurance industry and to the 
people that the insurance industry is insuring--so that over the next 6 
years, they will know what the policy is. But at the same time, we are 
beginning to transition some of these reforms that hopefully will be a 
trend for future reauthorizations, should they be necessary. And let me 
emphasize that: should they be necessary.
  One of the things that we do know is that the industry is doing a 
better job of being able to model what the potential risks are. There 
is some mitigation going on to make sure that new structures, new 
facilities take into account preventing the potential for certain types 
of attacks. So we want to encourage that kind of behavior. But it 
doesn't encourage that kind of behavior if there isn't some economic 
incentive. There is no economic incentive if the taxpayers keep having 
to pick up the bills on a number of these programs.
  I am very pleased with the reforms that are built into this. I think 
we bring the market certainty in that we didn't materially change the 
program and that we are doing a long-term reauthorization.
  I think the interesting thing is--and I think we can make the point--
there is really not anything controversial in this bill. Now, there are 
some people who don't like the fact that there have been some things 
included in it. But, quite honestly, we are taking up a Senate bill 
that was sent over to us with extraneous policy built into it. It is 
policy that, quite honestly, some of us agree with, particularly the 
NARAB. And why that NARAB provision, NARAB II, is important, as I said 
earlier, is because your local insurance agent now can do business in 
adjoining States without having to go take a license test in each 
individual State. It doesn't preempt the States' ability to regulate 
the insurance activity in that State but actually streamlines it and 
basically is a small business bill.
  The other issue that has been talked about is this Business Risk 
Mitigation and Stabilization Act. That is an important piece of 
legislation because a lot of our small businesses are out there. They 
are trying to raise capital. They are trying to create jobs. And there 
are certain risks that they just don't want to take or they feel like 
it is in the best interest of their business to be able to help someone 
risk-share that with. And many of the products that they buy to share 
that risk, the risk factor of doing business with that company is 
already priced into that transaction.
  But we have an overinterpretation here now, where not only are those 
businesses paying a risk premium but they are also having to put up 
additional collateral. So this begins to keep the working collateral 
for the company so that they can invest in new equipment and in things 
that can help create new jobs in this country.
  I want to talk about the fact that 411 people, including the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), voted for this 
piece of legislation. So this is not something that we are trying to 
sneak in on anybody. This is something that was voted on, in this 
House, by 411 votes.
  And Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, the primary authors of the Dodd-Frank 
bill, both said that this was never an intention of Dodd-Frank and have 
spoken in favor of some kind of reform to that in the future.
  So this is a good piece of legislation, and I am a little concerned 
that my colleagues think that it is in jeopardy. Well, the only reason 
it would be in jeopardy is if our colleagues over on the other side of 
the building decide, for some reason, that they don't want to 
reauthorize TRIA. That is certainly a decision that they would be 
making on their own. But, again, nothing in this bill is policy that 
has not been considered by this body in the past.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. We 
need to move this forward. Time is running short, and the marketplace 
needs that certainty. I am confident that we will pass this bill in the 
House today, and we are going to encourage our folks over in the Senate 
to ratify that. We hope the President of the United States will help 
bring market certainty to the American industry in the future.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time, although I certainly don't intend to use that much time.
  But I do wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, since there has been 
discussion regarding the changes that are extraneous to the base bill--
more specifically, the changes with reference to Dodd-Frank--and other 
changes that the Senate included in the measure that has now come to 
the House: my understanding is, and I stand to be corrected, that the 
changes that were made in the Senate were not measures having to do 
with Dodd-Frank. It appears that that is where the provisions are 
likely to come into play in that my friends on the other side included 
the Dodd-Frank language after the negotiations had been put forward.
  The fact of the matter is, it does appear that several Members of the 
other body have indicated that they are opposed to it. I don't believe 
that means that they are opposed to TRIA, but I do believe it means 
that they are opposed to changes in Dodd-Frank.
  TRIA has been a widely successful program that has created jobs, 
fostered certainty in the marketplace, and protected U.S. economic 
security, all at no cost to the taxpayer. Reauthorization, in my 
judgment, is essential to current and future commercial development in 
communities all across this country and to our Nation's long-term 
economic prosperity.
  I don't believe my Republican colleagues really want to play chicken 
with this vital national and economic security program in order to 
strong-arm the process on an unrelated financial services provision.
  You know, Mr. Speaker and friends, when the 113th Congress began, it 
began with the distinguished Speaker of the House enunciating, among 
other things, that we would have an open and transparent process.
  This is the 83rd closed rule that my friends on the other side have 
brought to this body. It rivals any in the history of this country, and 
I have been in the majority and in the minority as a member of the 
Rules Committee and have seen Members of my party advocate and pass 
closed rules.
  When I came to the body in 1992, I had very little understanding 
about the process, and I recall very vividly when I went home for the 
first time--the Democrats were in the majority--and all of the talk on 
the radio shows that I would appear on was, Your party is passing 
closed rules. I am not so sure that generally the public is mindful of 
this inside process, but the essence of it allows that Members who are 
not on

[[Page H8966]]

the relevant committees or Members who did not have their amendments 
made in order before the Rules Committee are precluded under closed 
rules from having an opportunity to put forward their ideas which might 
benefit the legislation or, if they feel like the legislation is 
deserving of burdening it, might very well do that as well.

  But I will close by saying that I never thought that we would have 83 
closed rules.
  I am privileged to be able to serve in the 114th Congress, and my 
great hope is that we get past this particular method of cutting off 
other Members in this body from having full participation in the 
world's greatest deliberative body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida not only for the 
effort that we have had today but also at the Rules Committee 
yesterday, where the committee heard really, really great points, 
perhaps on both sides, but great points about how important this 
legislation is not only to the country but to the stability of the 
marketplace and the ability to keep and grow jobs.
  I also heard the gentleman very clearly talk about his displeasure of 
having a number of closed rules. And I would just thank the gentleman 
for reminding me, as chairman of the committee, and would respond back 
that almost every single week we were in session, we put into play more 
amendments for Democrats than Harry Reid did in 6 years for any 
Republican in the United States Senate. And I have tried to make sure 
that what I do is based upon some bit of fairness.
  But the facts of the case are, the last time this TRIA bill was on 
the floor, then-Chairman Barney Frank asked for and received a closed 
rule, so he did the same thing in 2007. Republicans have also, under 
these processes, done the same thing, except that in 2005 and 2007, 
they were done on suspension, meaning that we had about 10 minutes to 
talk about the effort.
  Today what we have tried to do is to have a full debate in the Rules 
Committee. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), among others, was 
allowed as much time as anybody wanted to discuss the ideas and fully 
vet the views of not only the ranking member and the gentlewoman from 
New York but also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) to explain 
to the Rules Committee that most Members are not aware of all the 
arguments, the real need to make sure that TRIA was done well, and it 
was better to do it well. And certainly putting a closed rule means we 
can get through things in these remaining days. Good legislation--this 
bill is a 411-vote piece of legislation.
  You heard from Chairman Neugebauer from Lubbock, Texas--really, the 
architect of much of this legislation and the person who has the 
authority and the responsibility to the subcommittee--who worked with 
Chairman Hensarling to develop leading-edge ideas that they could feel 
free to bring to this body and support.
  So I think it is just critical that we are here today. We are going 
to get our work done. It is really noncontroversial, except if we just 
want to roll over and second-guess what the Senate wants to do. They 
had their shot at it, and they added some ``extraneous measures,'' none 
that had been passed with 90-plus percent of their body. We are going 
to work through this, and it is going to be doing the right thing for 
the right reason.
  As I have said, I think it is important that we know why we are here, 
what we are doing. We have talked about the Secretary of Treasury, 
Secretary Lew, writing a letter to Chuck Schumer, the lead in the 
Senate, saying, Hey, listen, let's get this thing done. It is so 
important.
  Chairman Neugebauer, Chairman Hensarling, the just-in-time arrival of 
a bill, the Rules Committee, a long debate, a long discussion--there is 
plenty of time to debate on the floor today. Any Member that wanted to 
could show up here. There is just not a lot to be upset about. It is 
just really a good mark of the fine work that the gentlemen from Texas, 
Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Hensarling, have done.
  So it was really a pretty interesting meeting yesterday. I got to 
learn a lot. And the members of the Rules Committee said, this is the 
right thing to do. Let's not get in the way. It is important to the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say that I think the 
Secretary is right. I think the chairman of the committee is right. I 
think the vice chairman of the committee is right. I think many of the 
people who came up to the Rules Committee yesterday were right.
  This is a great piece of legislation. This package will provide a 
long-term extension to TRIA. It is going to make reforms to protect 
taxpayers. It is going to make sure the industry understands what it 
is. It is a bipartisan fix. It is going to include a bill with 411 
votes out of this body. I think it is a darn good deal, and I am 
delighted to do that.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' on this rule 
and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the preliminary estimate of the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, which was available at the time Rules 
Committee Report 113-654 was prepared, estimated that the legislation 
would reduce the deficit by $457 million over 10 years. The final table 
provided by CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce the deficit 
by $456 million.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 adopting the resolution will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on suspending the rules and passing S. 1000 and agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 189, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 554]

                               YEAS--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg

[[Page H8967]]


     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--189

     Adams
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     DeLauro
     Duckworth
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Kelly (IL)
     LaMalfa
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Negrete McLeod
     Smith (WA)
     Woodall

                              {time}  1427

  Mr. KILDEE, Ms. CHU, and Mr. SCHNEIDER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. TIBERI and THOMPSON of California changed their 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.
  Stated against:
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 554 I was 
detained at a Press Conference. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 554, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________