[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.''
____________________