[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 150 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8975-H8991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2014
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 775, I call
up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 775, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 113-654
is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
S. 2244
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembed,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism
Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF TERRORISM INSURANCE PROGRAM
Sec. 101. Extension of Terrorism Insurance Program.
Sec. 102. Federal share.
Sec. 103. Program trigger.
Sec. 104. Recoupment of Federal share of compensation under the
program.
Sec. 105. Certification of acts of terrorism; consultation with
Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 106. Technical amendments.
Sec. 107. Improving the certification process.
Sec. 108. GAO study.
Sec. 109. Membership of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
Sec. 110. Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms.
Sec. 111. Reporting of terrorism insurance data.
Sec. 112. Annual study of small insurer market competitiveness.
TITLE II--NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS REFORM
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Reestablishment of the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers.
TITLE III--BUSINESS RISK MITIGATION AND PRICE STABILIZATION
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Margin requirements.
Sec. 303. Implementation.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF TERRORISM INSURANCE PROGRAM
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF TERRORISM INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Section 108(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
(15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by striking ``December 31,
2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2020''.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL SHARE.
Section 103(e)(1)(A) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of
2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by inserting ``and
beginning on January 1, 2016, shall decrease by 1 percentage
point per calendar year until equal to 80 percent'' after
``85 percent''.
SEC. 103. PROGRAM TRIGGER.
Subparagraph (B) of section 103(e)(1) (15 U.S.C. 6701 note)
is amended in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(1) by striking ``a certified act'' and inserting
``certified acts'';
(2) by striking ``such certified act'' and inserting ``such
certified acts''; and
(3) by striking ``exceed'' and all that follows through
clause (ii) and inserting the following: ``exceed--
``(i) $100,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2015;
``(ii) $120,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2016;
``(iii) $140,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2017;
``(iv) $160,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2018;
``(v) $180,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2019; and
``(vi) $200,000,000, with respect to such insured losses
occurring in calendar year 2020 and any calendar year
thereafter.''.
SEC. 104. RECOUPMENT OF FEDERAL SHARE OF COMPENSATION UNDER
THE PROGRAM.
Section 103(e) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
(15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
``(6) Insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (7), the
insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount shall be the
lesser of--
[[Page H8976]]
``(i) $27,500,000,000, as such amount is revised pursuant
to this paragraph; and
``(ii) the aggregate amount, for all insurers, of insured
losses during such calendar year.
``(B) Revision of insurance marketplace aggregate retention
amount.--
``(i) Phase-in.--Beginning in the calendar year that
follows the date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2014, the amount set forth
under subparagraph (A)(i) shall increase by $2,000,000,000
per calendar year until equal to $37,500,000,000.
``(ii) Further revision.--Beginning in the calendar year
that follows the calendar year in which the amount set forth
under subparagraph (A)(i) is equal to $37,500,000,000, the
amount under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be revised to be the
amount equal to the annual average of the sum of insurer
deductibles for all insurers participating in the Program for
the prior 3 calendar years, as such sum is determined by the
Secretary under subparagraph (C).
``(C) Rulemaking.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2014, the Secretary shall--
``(i) issue final rules for determining the amount of the
sum described under subparagraph (B)(ii); and
``(ii) provide a timeline for public notification of such
determination.''; and
(2) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``for
each of the periods referred to in subparagraphs (A) through
(E) of paragraph (6)''; and
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``for such period'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) [Reserved.]'';
(C) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``occurring during any of the periods
referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of
paragraph (6), terrorism loss risk-spreading premiums in an
amount equal to 133 percent'' and inserting ``, terrorism
loss risk-spreading premiums in an amount equal to 140
percent''; and
(ii) by inserting ``as calculated under subparagraph (A)''
after ``mandatory recoupment amount''; and
(D) in subparagraph (E)(i)--
(i) in subclause (I)--
(I) by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2017''; and
(II) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2019'';
(ii) in subclause (II)--
(I) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2018'';
(II) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2019''; and
(III) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2024''; and
(iii) in subclause (III)--
(I) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2019''; and
(II) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2024''.
SEC. 105. CERTIFICATION OF ACTS OF TERRORISM; CONSULTATION
WITH SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 102 (15 U.S.C.
6701 note) is amended in the matter preceding clause (i), by
striking ``concurrence with the Secretary of State'' and
inserting ``consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2015.
SEC. 106. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701
note) is amended--
(1) in section 102--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively;
(ii) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``An entity has'' and inserting
the following:
``(A) In general.--An entity has''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Rule of construction.--An entity, including any
affiliate thereof, does not have `control' over another
entity, if, as of the date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014, the entity is
acting as an attorney-in-fact, as defined by the Secretary,
for the other entity and such other entity is a reciprocal
insurer, provided that the entity is not, for reasons other
than the attorney-in-fact relationship, defined as having
`control' under subparagraph (A).'';
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (F) and inserting
the following:
``(A) the value of an insurer's direct earned premiums
during the immediately preceding calendar year, multiplied by
20 percent; and'';
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (B);
and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated by clause
(ii)--
(I) by striking ``notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) through
(F), for the Transition Period or any Program Year'' and
inserting ``notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for any
calendar year''; and
(II) by striking ``Period or Program Year'' and inserting
``calendar year'';
(C) by striking paragraph (11); and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as
paragraphs (11) through (15), respectively; and
(2) in section 103--
(A) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, purchase,''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, purchase,'';
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``Program Year'' and
inserting ``calendar year'';
(C) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), as previously amended by section
102--
(I) by striking ``the Transition Period and each Program
Year through Program Year 4 shall be equal to 90 percent, and
during Program Year 5 and each Program Year thereafter'' and
inserting ``each calendar year'';
(II) by striking the comma after ``80 percent''; and
(III) by striking ``such Transition Period or such Program
Year'' and inserting ``such calendar year''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``the period
beginning on the first day of the Transition Period and
ending on the last day of Program Year 1, or during any
Program Year thereafter'' and inserting ``a calendar year'';
and
(iii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the period beginning
on the first day of the Transition Period and ending on the
last day of Program Year 1, or during any other Program
Year'' and inserting ``any calendar year''; and
(D) in subsection (g)(2)--
(i) by striking ``the Transition Period or a Program Year''
each place that term appears and inserting ``the calendar
year'';
(ii) by striking ``such period'' and inserting ``the
calendar year''; and
(iii) by striking ``that period'' and inserting ``the
calendar year''.
SEC. 107. IMPROVING THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the term ``act of terrorism'' has the same meaning as
in section 102(1) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
(15 U.S.C. 6701 note);
(2) the term ``certification process'' means the process by
which the Secretary determines whether to certify an act as
an act of terrorism under section 102(1) of the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note); and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Treasury.
(b) Study.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct and
complete a study on the certification process.
(c) Required Content.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall include an examination and analysis of--
(1) the establishment of a reasonable timeline by which the
Secretary must make an accurate determination on whether to
certify an act as an act of terrorism;
(2) the impact that the length of any timeline proposed to
be established under paragraph (1) may have on the insurance
industry, policyholders, consumers, and taxpayers as a whole;
(3) the factors the Secretary would evaluate and monitor
during the certification process, including the ability of
the Secretary to obtain the required information regarding
the amount of projected and incurred losses resulting from an
act which the Secretary would need in determining whether to
certify the act as an act of terrorism;
(4) the appropriateness, efficiency, and effectiveness of
the consultation process required under section 102(1)(A) of
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701
note) and any recommendations on changes to the consultation
process; and
(5) the ability of the Secretary to provide guidance and
updates to the public regarding any act that may reasonably
be certified as an act of terrorism.
(d) Report.--Upon completion of the study required under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a report on the
results of such study to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
(e) Rulemaking.--Section 102(1) of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) Timing of certification.--Not later than 9 months
after the report required under section 107 of the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014 is
submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress, the
Secretary shall issue final rules governing the certification
process, including establishing a timeline for which an act
is eligible for certification by the Secretary on whether an
act is an act of terrorism under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 108. GAO STUDY.
(a) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall complete a study on the viability and effects of
the Federal Government--
(1) assessing and collecting upfront premiums on insurers
that participate in the Terrorism Insurance Program
established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
(15 U.S.C. 6701 note) (hereafter in this section referred to
as the ``Program''), which shall include a comparison of
practices in international markets to assess and collect
premiums either before or after terrorism losses are
incurred; and
[[Page H8977]]
(2) creating a capital reserve fund under the Program and
requiring insurers participating in the Program to dedicate
capital specifically for terrorism losses before such losses
are incurred, which shall include a comparison of practices
in international markets to establish reserve funds.
(b) Required Content.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall examine, but shall not be limited to, the following
issues:
(1) Upfront premiums.--With respect to upfront premiums
described in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) how the Federal Government could determine the price of
such upfront premiums on insurers that participate in the
Program;
(B) how the Federal Government could collect and manage
such upfront premiums;
(C) how the Federal Government could ensure that such
upfront premiums are not spent for purposes other than claims
through the Program;
(D) how the assessment and collection of such upfront
premiums could affect take-up rates for terrorism risk
coverage in different regions and industries and how it could
impact small businesses and consumers in both metropolitan
and non-metropolitan areas;
(E) the effect of collecting such upfront premiums on
insurers both large and small;
(F) the effect of collecting such upfront premiums on the
private market for terrorism risk reinsurance; and
(G) the size of any Federal Government subsidy insurers may
receive through their participation in the Program, taking
into account the Program's current post-event recoupment
structure.
(2) Capital reserve fund.--With respect to the capital
reserve fund described in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) how the creation of a capital reserve fund would affect
the Federal Government's fiscal exposure under the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Program and the ability of the Program to meet
its statutory purposes;
(B) how a capital reserve fund would impact insurers and
reinsurers, including liquidity, insurance pricing, and
capacity to provide terrorism risk coverage;
(C) the feasibility of segregating funds attributable to
terrorism risk from funds attributable to other insurance
lines;
(D) how a capital reserve fund would be viewed and treated
under current Financial Accounting Standards Board accounting
rules and the tax laws; and
(E) how a capital reserve fund would affect the States'
ability to regulate insurers participating in the Program.
(3) International practices.--With respect to international
markets referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a), how other countries, if any--
(A) have established terrorism insurance structures;
(B) charge premiums or otherwise collect funds to pay for
the costs of terrorism insurance structures, including risk
and administrative costs; and
(C) have established capital reserve funds to pay for the
costs of terrorism insurance structures.
(c) Report.--Upon completion of the study required under
subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit a report
on the results of such study to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
(d) Public Availability.--The study and report required
under this section shall be made available to the public in
electronic form and shall be published on the website of the
Government Accountability Office.
SEC. 109. MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The first undesignated paragraph of
section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 241) is
amended by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``In selecting members of the Board, the President shall
appoint at least 1 member with demonstrated primary
experience working in or supervising community banks having
less than $10,000,000,000 in total assets.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and
apply to appointments made on and after that effective date,
excluding any nomination pending in the Senate on that date.
SEC. 110. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RISK-SHARING MECHANISMS.
(a) Finding; Rule of Construction.--
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that it is desirable to
encourage the growth of nongovernmental, private market
reinsurance capacity for protection against losses arising
from acts of terrorism.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act, any
amendment made by this Act, or the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) shall prohibit insurers
from developing risk-sharing mechanisms to voluntarily
reinsure terrorism losses between and among themselves.
(b) Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish and appoint an advisory committee to be known as
the ``Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms''
(referred to in this subsection as the ``Advisory
Committee'').
(2) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall provide advice,
recommendations, and encouragement with respect to the
creation and development of the nongovernmental risk-sharing
mechanisms described under subsection (a).
(3) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed
of 9 members who are directors, officers, or other employees
of insurers, reinsurers, or capital market participants that
are participating or that desire to participate in the
nongovernmental risk-sharing mechanisms described under
subsection (a), and who are representative of the affected
sectors of the insurance industry, including commercial
property insurance, commercial casualty insurance,
reinsurance, and alternative risk transfer industries.
(c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on January 1, 2015.
SEC. 111. REPORTING OF TERRORISM INSURANCE DATA.
Section 104 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Reporting of Terrorism Insurance Data.--
``(1) Authority.--During the calendar year beginning on
January 1, 2016, and in each calendar year thereafter, the
Secretary shall require insurers participating in the Program
to submit to the Secretary such information regarding
insurance coverage for terrorism losses of such insurers as
the Secretary considers appropriate to analyze the
effectiveness of the Program, which shall include information
regarding--
``(A) lines of insurance with exposure to such losses;
``(B) premiums earned on such coverage;
``(C) geographical location of exposures;
``(D) pricing of such coverage;
``(E) the take-up rate for such coverage;
``(F) the amount of private reinsurance for acts of
terrorism purchased; and
``(G) such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``(2) Reports.--Not later than June 30, 2016, and every
other June 30 thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report
to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate that includes--
``(A) an analysis of the overall effectiveness of the
Program;
``(B) an evaluation of any changes or trends in the data
collected under paragraph (1);
``(C) an evaluation of whether any aspects of the Program
have the effect of discouraging or impeding insurers from
providing commercial property casualty insurance coverage or
coverage for acts of terrorism;
``(D) an evaluation of the impact of the Program on
workers' compensation insurers; and
``(E) in the case of the data reported in paragraph (1)(B),
an updated estimate of the total amount earned since January
1, 2003.
``(3) Protection of data.--To the extent possible, the
Secretary shall contract with an insurance statistical
aggregator to collect the information described in paragraph
(1), which shall keep any nonpublic information confidential
and provide it to the Secretary in an aggregate form or in
such other form or manner that does not permit identification
of the insurer submitting such information.
``(4) Advance coordination.--Before collecting any data or
information under paragraph (1) from an insurer, or affiliate
of an insurer, the Secretary shall coordinate with the
appropriate State insurance regulatory authorities and any
relevant government agency or publicly available sources to
determine if the information to be collected is available
from, and may be obtained in a timely manner by, individually
or collectively, such entities. If the Secretary determines
that such data or information is available, and may be
obtained in a timely matter, from such entities, the
Secretary shall obtain the data or information from such
entities. If the Secretary determines that such data or
information is not so available, the Secretary may collect
such data or information from an insurer and affiliates.
``(5) Confidentiality.--
``(A) Retention of privilege.--The submission of any non-
publicly available data and information to the Secretary and
the sharing of any non-publicly available data with or by the
Secretary among other Federal agencies, the State insurance
regulatory authorities, or any other entities under this
subsection shall not constitute a waiver of, or otherwise
affect, any privilege arising under Federal or State law
(including the rules of any Federal or State court) to which
the data or information is otherwise subject.
``(B) Continued application of prior confidentiality
agreements.--Any requirement under Federal or State law to
the extent otherwise applicable, or any requirement pursuant
to a written agreement in effect between the original source
of any non-publicly available data or information and the
source of such data or information to the Secretary,
regarding the privacy or confidentiality of any data or
information in the possession of the source to the Secretary,
shall continue to apply to such data or information after the
data or information has been provided pursuant to this
subsection.
``(C) Information-sharing agreement.--Any data or
information obtained by the Secretary under this subsection
may be made available to State insurance regulatory
authorities, individually or collectively through an
information-sharing agreement that--
[[Page H8978]]
``(i) shall comply with applicable Federal law; and
``(ii) shall not constitute a waiver of, or otherwise
affect, any privilege under Federal or State law (including
any privilege referred to in subparagraph (A) and the rules
of any Federal or State court) to which the data or
information is otherwise subject.
``(D) Agency disclosure requirements.--Section 552 of title
5, United States Code, including any exceptions thereunder,
shall apply to any data or information submitted under this
subsection to the Secretary by an insurer or affiliate of an
insurer.''.
SEC. 112. ANNUAL STUDY OF SMALL INSURER MARKET
COMPETITIVENESS.
Section 108 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Study of Small Insurer Market Competitiveness.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2017, and every
other June 30 thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a study
of small insurers (as such term is defined by regulation by
the Secretary) participating in the Program, and identify any
competitive challenges small insurers face in the terrorism
risk insurance marketplace, including--
``(A) changes to the market share, premium volume, and
policyholder surplus of small insurers relative to large
insurers;
``(B) how the property and casualty insurance market for
terrorism risk differs between small and large insurers, and
whether such a difference exists within other perils;
``(C) the impact of the Program's mandatory availability
requirement under section 103(c) on small insurers;
``(D) the effect of increasing the trigger amount for the
Program under section 103(e)(1)(B) on small insurers;
``(E) the availability and cost of private reinsurance for
small insurers; and
``(F) the impact that State workers compensation laws have
on small insurers and workers compensation carriers in the
terrorism risk insurance marketplace.
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress setting forth the findings and conclusions of each
study required under paragraph (1).''.
TITLE II--NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS REFORM
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2014''.
SEC. 202. REESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title III of the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) is amended to read
as follows:
``Subtitle C--National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
``SEC. 321. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND
BROKERS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (referred to in
this subtitle as the `Association').
``(b) Status.--The Association shall--
``(1) be a nonprofit corporation;
``(2) not be an agent or instrumentality of the Federal
Government;
``(3) be an independent organization that may not be merged
with or into any other private or public entity; and
``(4) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, be
subject to, and have all the powers conferred upon, a
nonprofit corporation by the District of Columbia Nonprofit
Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-301.01 et seq.) or any
successor thereto.
``SEC. 322. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of the Association shall be to provide a
mechanism through which licensing, continuing education, and
other nonresident insurance producer qualification
requirements and conditions may be adopted and applied on a
multi-state basis without affecting the laws, rules, and
regulations, and preserving the rights of a State, pertaining
to--
``(1) licensing, continuing education, and other
qualification requirements of insurance producers that are
not members of the Association;
``(2) resident or nonresident insurance producer
appointment requirements;
``(3) supervising and disciplining resident and nonresident
insurance producers;
``(4) establishing licensing fees for resident and
nonresident insurance producers so that there is no loss of
insurance producer licensing revenue to the State; and
``(5) prescribing and enforcing laws and regulations
regulating the conduct of resident and nonresident insurance
producers.
``SEC. 323. MEMBERSHIP.
``(a) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Any insurance producer licensed in its
home State shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (4), be
eligible to become a member of the Association.
``(2) Ineligibility for suspension or revocation of
license.--Subject to paragraph (3), an insurance producer is
not eligible to become a member of the Association if a State
insurance regulator has suspended or revoked the insurance
license of the insurance producer in that State.
``(3) Resumption of eligibility.--Paragraph (2) shall cease
to apply to any insurance producer if--
``(A) the State insurance regulator reissues or renews the
license of the insurance producer in the State in which the
license was suspended or revoked, or otherwise terminates or
vacates the suspension or revocation; or
``(B) the suspension or revocation expires or is
subsequently overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction.
``(4) Criminal history record check required.--
``(A) In general.--An insurance producer who is an
individual shall not be eligible to become a member of the
Association unless the insurance producer has undergone a
criminal history record check that complies with regulations
prescribed by the Attorney General of the United States under
subparagraph (K).
``(B) Criminal history record check requested by home
state.--An insurance producer who is licensed in a State and
who has undergone a criminal history record check during the
2-year period preceding the date of submission of an
application to become a member of the Association, in
compliance with a requirement to undergo such criminal
history record check as a condition for such licensure in the
State, shall be deemed to have undergone a criminal history
record check for purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Criminal history record check requested by
association.--
``(i) In general.--The Association shall, upon request by
an insurance producer licensed in a State, submit
fingerprints or other identification information obtained
from the insurance producer, and a request for a criminal
history record check of the insurance producer, to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(ii) Procedures.--The board of directors of the
Association (referred to in this subtitle as the `Board')
shall prescribe procedures for obtaining and utilizing
fingerprints or other identification information and criminal
history record information, including the establishment of
reasonable fees to defray the expenses of the Association in
connection with the performance of a criminal history record
check and appropriate safeguards for maintaining
confidentiality and security of the information. Any fees
charged pursuant to this clause shall be separate and
distinct from those charged by the Attorney General pursuant
to subparagraph (I).
``(D) Form of request.--A submission under subparagraph
(C)(i) shall include such fingerprints or other
identification information as is required by the Attorney
General concerning the person about whom the criminal history
record check is requested, and a statement signed by the
person authorizing the Attorney General to provide the
information to the Association and for the Association to
receive the information.
``(E) Provision of information by attorney general.--Upon
receiving a submission under subparagraph (C)(i) from the
Association, the Attorney General shall search all criminal
history records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
including records of the Criminal Justice Information
Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
that the Attorney General determines appropriate for criminal
history records corresponding to the fingerprints or other
identification information provided under subparagraph (D)
and provide all criminal history record information included
in the request to the Association.
``(F) Limitation on permissible uses of information.--Any
information provided to the Association under subparagraph
(E) may only--
``(i) be used for purposes of determining compliance with
membership criteria established by the Association;
``(ii) be disclosed to State insurance regulators, or
Federal or State law enforcement agencies, in conformance
with applicable law; or
``(iii) be disclosed, upon request, to the insurance
producer to whom the criminal history record information
relates.
``(G) Penalty for improper use or disclosure.--Whoever
knowingly uses any information provided under subparagraph
(E) for a purpose not authorized in subparagraph (F), or
discloses any such information to anyone not authorized to
receive it, shall be fined not more than $50,000 per
violation as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
``(H) Reliance on information.--Neither the Association nor
any of its Board members, officers, or employees shall be
liable in any action for using information provided under
subparagraph (E) as permitted under subparagraph (F) in good
faith and in reasonable reliance on its accuracy.
``(I) Fees.--The Attorney General may charge a reasonable
fee for conducting the search and providing the information
under subparagraph (E), and any such fee shall be collected
and remitted by the Association to the Attorney General.
``(J) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as--
``(i) requiring a State insurance regulator to perform
criminal history record checks under this section; or
``(ii) limiting any other authority that allows access to
criminal history records.
``(K) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this paragraph, which shall
include--
``(i) appropriate protections for ensuring the
confidentiality of information provided under subparagraph
(E); and
``(ii) procedures providing a reasonable opportunity for an
insurance producer to contest the accuracy of information
regarding
[[Page H8979]]
the insurance producer provided under subparagraph (E).
``(L) Ineligibility for membership.--
``(i) In general.--The Association may, under reasonably
consistently applied standards, deny membership to an
insurance producer on the basis of criminal history record
information provided under subparagraph (E), or where the
insurance producer has been subject to disciplinary action,
as described in paragraph (2).
``(ii) Rights of applicants denied membership.--The
Association shall notify any insurance producer who is denied
membership on the basis of criminal history record
information provided under subparagraph (E) of the right of
the insurance producer to--
``(I) obtain a copy of all criminal history record
information provided to the Association under subparagraph
(E) with respect to the insurance producer; and
``(II) challenge the denial of membership based on the
accuracy and completeness of the information.
``(M) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`criminal history record check' means a national background
check of criminal history records of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
``(b) Authority to Establish Membership Criteria.--The
Association may establish membership criteria that bear a
reasonable relationship to the purposes for which the
Association was established.
``(c) Establishment of Classes and Categories of
Membership.--
``(1) Classes of membership.--The Association may establish
separate classes of membership, with separate criteria, if
the Association reasonably determines that performance of
different duties requires different levels of education,
training, experience, or other qualifications.
``(2) Business entities.--The Association shall establish a
class of membership and membership criteria for business
entities. A business entity that applies for membership shall
be required to designate an individual Association member
responsible for the compliance of the business entity with
Association standards and the insurance laws, standards, and
regulations of any State in which the business entity seeks
to do business on the basis of Association membership.
``(3) Categories.--
``(A) Separate categories for insurance producers
permitted.--The Association may establish separate categories
of membership for insurance producers and for other persons
or entities within each class, based on the types of
licensing categories that exist under State laws.
``(B) Separate treatment for depository institutions
prohibited.--No special categories of membership, and no
distinct membership criteria, shall be established for
members that are depository institutions or for employees,
agents, or affiliates of depository institutions.
``(d) Membership Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The Association may establish criteria
for membership which shall include standards for personal
qualifications, education, training, and experience. The
Association shall not establish criteria that unfairly limit
the ability of a small insurance producer to become a member
of the Association, including imposing discriminatory
membership fees.
``(2) Qualifications.--In establishing criteria under
paragraph (1), the Association shall not adopt any
qualification less protective to the public than that
contained in the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (referred to in this subtitle as the `NAIC')
Producer Licensing Model Act in effect as of the date of
enactment of the National Association of Registered Agents
and Brokers Reform Act of 2014, and shall consider the
highest levels of insurance producer qualifications
established under the licensing laws of the States.
``(3) Assistance from states.--
``(A) In general.--The Association may request a State to
provide assistance in investigating and evaluating the
eligibility of a prospective member for membership in the
Association.
``(B) Authorization of information sharing.--A submission
under subsection (a)(4)(C)(i) made by an insurance producer
licensed in a State shall include a statement signed by the
person about whom the assistance is requested authorizing--
``(i) the State to share information with the Association;
and
``(ii) the Association to receive the information.
``(C) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed as requiring or authorizing any State to adopt new
or additional requirements concerning the licensing or
evaluation of insurance producers.
``(4) Denial of membership.--The Association may, based on
reasonably consistently applied standards, deny membership to
any State-licensed insurance producer for failure to meet the
membership criteria established by the Association.
``(e) Effect of Membership.--
``(1) Authority of association members.--Membership in the
Association shall--
``(A) authorize an insurance producer to sell, solicit, or
negotiate insurance in any State for which the member pays
the licensing fee set by the State for any line or lines of
insurance specified in the home State license of the
insurance producer, and exercise all such incidental powers
as shall be necessary to carry out such activities, including
claims adjustments and settlement to the extent permissible
under the laws of the State, risk management, employee
benefits advice, retirement planning, and any other
insurance-related consulting activities;
``(B) be the equivalent of a nonresident insurance producer
license for purposes of authorizing the insurance producer to
engage in the activities described in subparagraph (A) in any
State where the member pays the licensing fee; and
``(C) be the equivalent of a nonresident insurance producer
license for the purpose of subjecting an insurance producer
to all laws, regulations, provisions or other action of any
State concerning revocation, suspension, or other enforcement
action related to the ability of a member to engage in any
activity within the scope of authority granted under this
subsection and to all State laws, regulations, provisions,
and actions preserved under paragraph (5).
``(2) Violent crime control and law enforcement act of
1994.--Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to alter,
modify, or supercede any requirement established by section
1033 of title 18, United States Code.
``(3) Agent for remitting fees.--The Association shall act
as an agent for any member for purposes of remitting
licensing fees to any State pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(4) Notification of action.--
``(A) In general.--The Association shall notify the States
(including State insurance regulators) and the NAIC when an
insurance producer has satisfied the membership criteria of
this section. The States (including State insurance
regulators) shall have 10 business days after the date of the
notification in order to provide the Association with
evidence that the insurance producer does not satisfy the
criteria for membership in the Association.
``(B) Ongoing disclosures required.--On an ongoing basis,
the Association shall disclose to the States (including State
insurance regulators) and the NAIC a list of the States in
which each member is authorized to operate. The Association
shall immediately notify the States (including State
insurance regulators) and the NAIC when a member is newly
authorized to operate in one or more States, or is no longer
authorized to operate in one or more States on the basis of
Association membership.
``(5) Preservation of consumer protection and market
conduct regulation.--
``(A) In general.--No provision of this section shall be
construed as altering or affecting the applicability or
continuing effectiveness of any law, regulation, provision,
or other action of any State, including those described in
subparagraph (B), to the extent that the State law,
regulation, provision, or other action is not inconsistent
with the provisions of this subtitle related to market entry
for nonresident insurance producers, and then only to the
extent of the inconsistency.
``(B) Preserved regulations.--The laws, regulations,
provisions, or other actions of any State referred to in
subparagraph (A) include laws, regulations, provisions, or
other actions that--
``(i) regulate market conduct, insurance producer conduct,
or unfair trade practices;
``(ii) establish consumer protections; or
``(iii) require insurance producers to be appointed by a
licensed or authorized insurer.
``(f) Biennial Renewal.--Membership in the Association
shall be renewed on a biennial basis.
``(g) Continuing Education.--
``(1) In general.--The Association shall establish, as a
condition of membership, continuing education requirements
which shall be comparable to the continuing education
requirements under the licensing laws of a majority of the
States.
``(2) State continuing education requirements.--A member
may not be required to satisfy continuing education
requirements imposed under the laws, regulations, provisions,
or actions of any State other than the home State of the
member.
``(3) Reciprocity.--The Association shall not require a
member to satisfy continuing education requirements that are
equivalent to any continuing education requirements of the
home State of the member that have been satisfied by the
member during the applicable licensing period.
``(4) Limitation on the association.--The Association shall
not directly or indirectly offer any continuing education
courses for insurance producers.
``(h) Probation, Suspension and Revocation.--
``(1) Disciplinary action.--The Association may place an
insurance producer that is a member of the Association on
probation or suspend or revoke the membership of the
insurance producer in the Association, or assess monetary
fines or penalties, as the Association determines to be
appropriate, if--
``(A) the insurance producer fails to meet the applicable
membership criteria or other standards established by the
Association;
``(B) the insurance producer has been subject to
disciplinary action pursuant to a final adjudicatory
proceeding under the jurisdiction of a State insurance
regulator;
``(C) an insurance license held by the insurance producer
has been suspended or revoked by a State insurance regulator;
or
``(D) the insurance producer has been convicted of a crime
that would have resulted in the denial of membership pursuant
to subsection (a)(4)(L)(i) at the time of application, and
the Association has received a copy of the final disposition
from a court of competent jurisdiction.
``(2) Violations of association standards.--The Association
shall have the power
[[Page H8980]]
to investigate alleged violations of Association standards.
``(3) Reporting.--The Association shall immediately notify
the States (including State insurance regulators) and the
NAIC when the membership of an insurance producer has been
placed on probation or has been suspended, revoked, or
otherwise terminated, or when the Association has assessed
monetary fines or penalties.
``(i) Consumer Complaints.--
``(1) In general.--The Association shall--
``(A) refer any complaint against a member of the
Association from a consumer relating to alleged misconduct or
violations of State insurance laws to the State insurance
regulator where the consumer resides and, when appropriate,
to any additional State insurance regulator, as determined by
standards adopted by the Association; and
``(B) make any related records and information available to
each State insurance regulator to whom the complaint is
forwarded.
``(2) Telephone and other access.--The Association shall
maintain a toll-free number for purposes of this subsection
and, as practicable, other alternative means of communication
with consumers, such as an Internet webpage.
``(3) Final disposition of investigation.--State insurance
regulators shall provide the Association with information
regarding the final disposition of a complaint referred
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), but nothing shall be construed
to compel a State to release confidential investigation
reports or other information protected by State law to the
Association.
``(j) Information Sharing.--The Association may--
``(1) share documents, materials, or other information,
including confidential and privileged documents, with a
State, Federal, or international governmental entity or with
the NAIC or other appropriate entity referred to paragraphs
(3) and (4), provided that the recipient has the authority
and agrees to maintain the confidentiality or privileged
status of the document, material, or other information;
``(2) limit the sharing of information as required under
this subtitle with the NAIC or any other non-governmental
entity, in circumstances under which the Association
determines that the sharing of such information is
unnecessary to further the purposes of this subtitle;
``(3) establish a central clearinghouse, or utilize the
NAIC or another appropriate entity, as determined by the
Association, as a central clearinghouse, for use by the
Association and the States (including State insurance
regulators), through which members of the Association may
disclose their intent to operate in 1 or more States and pay
the licensing fees to the appropriate States; and
``(4) establish a database, or utilize the NAIC or another
appropriate entity, as determined by the Association, as a
database, for use by the Association and the States
(including State insurance regulators) for the collection of
regulatory information concerning the activities of insurance
producers.
``(k) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on the later of--
``(1) the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2014; and
``(2) the date of incorporation of the Association.
``SEC. 324. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established a board of
directors of the Association, which shall have authority to
govern and supervise all activities of the Association.
``(b) Powers.--The Board shall have such of the powers and
authority of the Association as may be specified in the
bylaws of the Association.
``(c) Composition.--
``(1) In general.--The Board shall consist of 13 members
who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the
procedures established under Senate Resolution 116 of the
112th ongress, of whom--
``(A) 8 shall be State insurance commissioners appointed in
the manner provided in paragraph (2), 1 of whom shall be
designated by the President to serve as the chairperson of
the Board until the Board elects one such State insurance
commissioner Board member to serve as the chairperson of the
Board;
``(B) 3 shall have demonstrated expertise and experience
with property and casualty insurance producer licensing; and
``(C) 2 shall have demonstrated expertise and experience
with life or health insurance producer licensing.
``(2) State insurance regulator representatives.--
``(A) Recommendations.--Before making any appointments
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the President shall request a
list of recommended candidates from the States through the
NAIC, which shall not be binding on the President. If the
NAIC fails to submit a list of recommendations not later than
15 business days after the date of the request, the President
may make the requisite appointments without considering the
views of the NAIC.
``(B) Political affiliation.--Not more than 4 Board members
appointed under paragraph (1)(A) shall belong to the same
political party.
``(C) Former state insurance commissioners.--
``(i) In general.--If, after offering each currently
serving State insurance commissioner an appointment to the
Board, fewer than 8 State insurance commissioners have
accepted appointment to the Board, the President may appoint
the remaining State insurance commissioner Board members, as
required under paragraph (1)(A), of the appropriate political
party as required under subparagraph (B), from among
individuals who are former State insurance commissioners.
``(ii) Limitation.--A former State insurance commissioner
appointed as described in clause (i) may not be employed by
or have any present direct or indirect financial interest in
any insurer, insurance producer, or other entity in the
insurance industry, other than direct or indirect ownership
of, or beneficial interest in, an insurance policy or annuity
contract written or sold by an insurer.
``(D) Service through term.--If a Board member appointed
under paragraph (1)(A) ceases to be a State insurance
commissioner during the term of the Board member, the Board
member shall cease to be a Board member.
``(3) Private sector representatives.--In making any
appointment pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph
(1), the President may seek recommendations for candidates
from groups representing the category of individuals
described, which shall not be binding on the President.
``(4) State insurance commissioner defined.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `State insurance commissioner'
means a person who serves in the position in State
government, or on the board, commission, or other body that
is the primary insurance regulatory authority for the State.
``(d) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
the term of service for each Board member shall be 2 years.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) 1-year terms.--The term of service shall be 1 year,
as designated by the President at the time of the nomination
of the subject Board members for--
``(i) 4 of the State insurance commissioner Board members
initially appointed under paragraph (1)(A), of whom not more
than 2 shall belong to the same political party;
``(ii) 1 of the Board members initially appointed under
paragraph (1)(B); and
``(iii) 1 of the Board members initially appointed under
paragraph (1)(C).
``(B) Expiration of term.--A Board member may continue to
serve after the expiration of the term to which the Board
member was appointed for the earlier of 2 years or until a
successor is appointed.
``(C) Mid-term appointments.--A Board member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term
for which the predecessor of the Board member was appointed
shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.
``(3) Successive terms.--Board members may be reappointed
to successive terms.
``(e) Initial Appointments.--The appointment of initial
Board members shall be made no later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2014.
``(f) Meetings.--
``(1) In general.--The Board shall meet--
``(A) at the call of the chairperson;
``(B) as requested in writing to the chairperson by not
fewer than 5 Board members; or
``(C) as otherwise provided by the bylaws of the
Association.
``(2) Quorum required.--A majority of all Board members
shall constitute a quorum.
``(3) Voting.--Decisions of the Board shall require the
approval of a majority of all Board members present at a
meeting, a quorum being present.
``(4) Initial meeting.--The Board shall hold its first
meeting not later than 45 days after the date on which all
initial Board members have been appointed.
``(g) Restriction on Confidential Information.--Board
members appointed pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
subsection (c)(1) shall not have access to confidential
information received by the Association in connection with
complaints, investigations, or disciplinary proceedings
involving insurance producers.
``(h) Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.--The Board shall
issue and enforce an ethical conduct code to address
permissible and prohibited activities of Board members and
Association officers, employees, agents, or consultants. The
code shall, at a minimum, include provisions that prohibit
any Board member or Association officer, employee, agent or
consultant from--
``(1) engaging in unethical conduct in the course of
performing Association duties;
``(2) participating in the making or influencing the making
of any Association decision, the outcome of which the Board
member, officer, employee, agent, or consultant knows or had
reason to know would have a reasonably foreseeable material
financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the
public generally, on the person or a member of the immediate
family of the person;
``(3) accepting any gift from any person or entity other
than the Association that is given because of the position
held by the person in the Association;
``(4) making political contributions to any person or
entity on behalf of the Association; and
``(5) lobbying or paying a person to lobby on behalf of the
Association.
``(i) Compensation.--
[[Page H8981]]
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
Board member may receive any compensation from the
Association or any other person or entity on account of Board
membership.
``(2) Travel expenses and per diem.--Board members may be
reimbursed only by the Association for travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
consistent with rates authorized for employees of Federal
agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, while away from home or regular places of
business in performance of services for the Association.
``SEC. 325. BYLAWS, STANDARDS, AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
``(a) Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws and Standards.--
``(1) Procedures.--The Association shall adopt procedures
for the adoption of bylaws and standards that are similar to
procedures under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative
Procedure Act').
``(2) Copy required to be filed.--The Board shall submit to
the President, through the Department of the Treasury, and
the States (including State insurance regulators), and shall
publish on the website of the Association, all proposed
bylaws and standards of the Association, or any proposed
amendment to the bylaws or standards of the Association,
accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and
purpose of such proposal.
``(3) Effective date.--Any proposed bylaw or standard of
the Association, and any proposed amendment to the bylaws or
standards of the Association, shall take effect, after notice
under paragraph (2) and opportunity for public comment, on
such date as the Association may designate, unless suspended
under section 329(c).
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to subject the Board or the Association to the
requirements of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure
Act').
``(b) Disciplinary Action by the Association.--
``(1) Specification of charges.--In any proceeding to
determine whether membership shall be denied, suspended,
revoked, or not renewed, or to determine whether a member of
the Association should be placed on probation (referred to in
this section as a `disciplinary action') or whether to assess
fines or monetary penalties, the Association shall bring
specific charges, notify the member of the charges, give the
member an opportunity to defend against the charges, and keep
a record.
``(2) Supporting statement.--A determination to take
disciplinary action shall be supported by a statement setting
forth--
``(A) any act or practice in which the member has been
found to have been engaged;
``(B) the specific provision of this subtitle or standard
of the Association that any such act or practice is deemed to
violate; and
``(C) the sanction imposed and the reason for the sanction.
``(3) Ineligibility of private sector representatives.--
Board members appointed pursuant to section 324(c)(3) may
not--
``(A) participate in any disciplinary action or be counted
toward establishing a quorum during a disciplinary action;
and
``(B) have access to confidential information concerning
any disciplinary action.
``SEC. 326. POWERS.
``In addition to all the powers conferred upon a nonprofit
corporation by the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation
Act, the Association shall have the power to--
``(1) establish and collect such membership fees as the
Association finds necessary to impose to cover the costs of
its operations;
``(2) adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, procedures, or
standards governing the conduct of Association business and
performance of its duties;
``(3) establish procedures for providing notice and
opportunity for comment pursuant to section 325(a);
``(4) enter into and perform such agreements as necessary
to carry out the duties of the Association;
``(5) hire employees, professionals, or specialists, and
elect or appoint officers, and to fix their compensation,
define their duties and give them appropriate authority to
carry out the purposes of this subtitle, and determine their
qualification;
``(6) establish personnel policies of the Association and
programs relating to, among other things, conflicts of
interest, rates of compensation, where applicable, and
qualifications of personnel;
``(7) borrow money; and
``(8) secure funding for such amounts as the Association
determines to be necessary and appropriate to organize and
begin operations of the Association, which shall be treated
as loans to be repaid by the Association with interest at
market rate.
``SEC. 327. REPORT BY THE ASSOCIATION.
``(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the close
of each fiscal year, the Association shall submit to the
President, through the Department of the Treasury, and the
States (including State insurance regulators), and shall
publish on the website of the Association, a written report
regarding the conduct of its business, and the exercise of
the other rights and powers granted by this subtitle, during
such fiscal year.
``(b) Financial Statements.--Each report submitted under
subsection (a) with respect to any fiscal year shall include
audited financial statements setting forth the financial
position of the Association at the end of such fiscal year
and the results of its operations (including the source and
application of its funds) for such fiscal year.
``SEC. 328. LIABILITY OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE BOARD
MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
ASSOCIATION.
``(a) In General.--The Association shall not be deemed to
be an insurer or insurance producer within the meaning of any
State law, rule, regulation, or order regulating or taxing
insurers, insurance producers, or other entities engaged in
the business of insurance, including provisions imposing
premium taxes, regulating insurer solvency or financial
condition, establishing guaranty funds and levying
assessments, or requiring claims settlement practices.
``(b) Liability of Board Members, Officers, and
Employees.--No Board member, officer, or employee of the
Association shall be personally liable to any person for any
action taken or omitted in good faith in any matter within
the scope of their responsibilities in connection with the
Association.
``SEC. 329. PRESIDENTIAL OVERSIGHT.
``(a) Removal of Board.--If the President determines that
the Association is acting in a manner contrary to the
interests of the public or the purposes of this subtitle or
has failed to perform its duties under this subtitle, the
President may remove the entire existing Board for the
remainder of the term to which the Board members were
appointed and appoint, in accordance with section 324 and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with
the procedures established under Senate Resolution 116 of the
112th ongress, new Board members to fill the
vacancies on the Board for the remainder of the terms.
``(b) Removal of Board Member.--The President may remove a
Board member only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in
office.
``(c) Suspension of Bylaws and Standards and Prohibition of
Actions.--Following notice to the Board, the President, or a
person designated by the President for such purpose, may
suspend the effectiveness of any bylaw or standard, or
prohibit any action, of the Association that the President or
the designee determines is contrary to the purposes of this
subtitle.
``SEC. 330. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.
``(a) Preemption of State Laws.--State laws, regulations,
provisions, or other actions purporting to regulate insurance
producers shall be preempted to the extent provided in
subsection (b).
``(b) Prohibited Actions.--
``(1) In general.--No State shall--
``(A) impede the activities of, take any action against, or
apply any provision of law or regulation arbitrarily or
discriminatorily to, any insurance producer because that
insurance producer or any affiliate plans to become, has
applied to become, or is a member of the Association;
``(B) impose any requirement upon a member of the
Association that it pay fees different from those required to
be paid to that State were it not a member of the
Association; or
``(C) impose any continuing education requirements on any
nonresident insurance producer that is a member of the
Association.
``(2) States other than a home state.--No State, other than
the home State of a member of the Association, shall--
``(A) impose any licensing, personal or corporate
qualifications, education, training, experience, residency,
continuing education, or bonding requirement upon a member of
the Association that is different from the criteria for
membership in the Association or renewal of such membership;
``(B) impose any requirement upon a member of the
Association that it be licensed, registered, or otherwise
qualified to do business or remain in good standing in the
State, including any requirement that the insurance producer
register as a foreign company with the secretary of state or
equivalent State official;
``(C) require that a member of the Association submit to a
criminal history record check as a condition of doing
business in the State; or
``(D) impose any licensing, registration, or appointment
requirements upon a member of the Association, or require a
member of the Association to be authorized to operate as an
insurance producer, in order to sell, solicit, or negotiate
insurance for commercial property and casualty risks to an
insured with risks located in more than one State, if the
member is licensed or otherwise authorized to operate in the
State where the insured maintains its principal place of
business and the contract of insurance insures risks located
in that State.
``(3) Preservation of state disciplinary authority.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit a State
from investigating and taking appropriate disciplinary
action, including suspension or revocation of authority of an
insurance producer to do business in a State, in accordance
with State law and that is not inconsistent with the
provisions of this section, against a member of the
Association as a result of a complaint or for any alleged
activity, regardless of whether the activity occurred before
or after the insurance producer commenced doing business in
the State pursuant to Association membership.
[[Page H8982]]
``SEC. 331. COORDINATION WITH FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
AUTHORITY.
``The Association shall coordinate with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority in order to ease any
administrative burdens that fall on members of the
Association that are subject to regulation by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, consistent with the
requirements of this subtitle and the Federal securities
laws.
``SEC. 332. RIGHT OF ACTION.
``(a) Right of Action.--Any person aggrieved by a decision
or action of the Association may, after reasonably exhausting
available avenues for resolution within the Association,
commence a civil action in an appropriate United States
district court, and obtain all appropriate relief.
``(b) Association Interpretations.--In any action under
subsection (a), the court shall give appropriate weight to
the interpretation of the Association of its bylaws and
standards and this subtitle.
``SEC. 333. FEDERAL FUNDING PROHIBITED.
``The Association may not receive, accept, or borrow any
amounts from the Federal Government to pay for, or reimburse,
the Association for, the costs of establishing or operating
the Association.
``SEC. 334. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions
shall apply:
``(1) Business entity.--The term `business entity' means a
corporation, association, partnership, limited liability
company, limited liability partnership, or other legal
entity.
``(2) Depository institution.--The term `depository
institution' has the meaning as in section 3 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).
``(3) Home state.--The term `home State' means the State in
which the insurance producer maintains its principal place of
residence or business and is licensed to act as an insurance
producer.
``(4) Insurance.--The term `insurance' means any product,
other than title insurance or bail bonds, defined or
regulated as insurance by the appropriate State insurance
regulatory authority.
``(5) Insurance producer.--The term `insurance producer'
means any insurance agent or broker, excess or surplus lines
broker or agent, insurance consultant, limited insurance
representative, and any other individual or entity that
sells, solicits, or negotiates policies of insurance or
offers advice, counsel, opinions or services related to
insurance.
``(6) Insurer.--The term `insurer' has the meaning as in
section 313(e)(2)(B) of title 31, United States Code.
``(7) Principal place of business.--The term `principal
place of business' means the State in which an insurance
producer maintains the headquarters of the insurance producer
and, in the case of a business entity, where high-level
officers of the entity direct, control, and coordinate the
business activities of the business entity.
``(8) Principal place of residence.--The term `principal
place of residence' means the State in which an insurance
producer resides for the greatest number of days during a
calendar year.
``(9) State.--The term `State' includes any State, the
District of Columbia, any territory of the United States, and
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(10) State law.--
``(A) In general.--The term `State law' includes all laws,
decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having
the effect of law, of any State.
``(B) Laws applicable in the district of columbia.--A law
of the United States applicable only to or within the
District of Columbia shall be treated as a State law rather
than a law of the United States.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is amended by striking the items
relating to subtitle C of title III and inserting the
following new items:
``Subtitle C--National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
``Sec. 321. National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers.
``Sec. 322. Purpose.
``Sec. 323. Membership.
``Sec. 324. Board of directors.
``Sec. 325. Bylaws, standards, and disciplinary actions.
``Sec. 326. Powers.
``Sec. 327. Report by the Association.
``Sec. 328. Liability of the Association and the Board members,
officers, and employees of the Association.
``Sec. 329. Presidential oversight.
``Sec. 330. Relationship to State law.
``Sec. 331. Coordination with financial industry regulatory authority.
``Sec. 332. Right of action.
``Sec. 333. Federal funding prohibited.
``Sec. 334. Definitions.''.
TITLE III--BUSINESS RISK MITIGATION AND PRICE STABILIZATION
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Business Risk Mitigation
and Price Stabilization Act of 2014''.
SEC. 302. MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Commodity Exchange Act Amendment.--Section 4s(e) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)), as added by section
731 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The
requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii),
including the initial and variation margin requirements
imposed by rules adopted pursuant to paragraphs (2)(A)(ii)
and (2)(B)(ii), shall not apply to a swap in which a
counterparty qualifies for an exception under section
2(h)(7)(A), or an exemption issued under section 4(c)(1) from
the requirements of section 2(h)(1)(A) for cooperative
entities as defined in such exemption, or satisfies the
criteria in section 2(h)(7)(D).''.
(b) Securities Exchange Act Amendment.--Section 15F(e) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)), as
added by section 764(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The
requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall
not apply to a security-based swap in which a counterparty
qualifies for an exception under section 3C(g)(1) or
satisfies the criteria in section 3C(g)(4).''.
SEC. 303. IMPLEMENTATION.
The amendments made by this title to the Commodity Exchange
Act shall be implemented--
(1) without regard to--
(A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code; and
(B) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) through the promulgation of an interim final rule,
pursuant to which public comment will be sought before a
final rule is issued; and
(3) such that paragraph (1) shall apply solely to changes
to rules and regulations, or proposed rules and regulations,
that are limited to and directly a consequence of such
amendments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material in the Record on S. 2244, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have an incredible opportunity before us in the House today, and
that is to move significant bipartisan legislation that can accomplish
a number of purposes and that will bring greater stability and
certainty to the construction markets, to our insurance companies in
dealing with the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. We can also bring
greater certainty and stability to our small factories, to our farmers,
and to our ranchers--those who are still suffering in this economy. We
can bring them certainty and stability by taking care of an unintended
consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act, something called the ``end user
exception'' in the derivative title, which may just be, as interpreted,
one of the most damaging regulations that many in this body, perhaps,
have not heard of.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that has been worked on in a
bipartisan manner, sometimes a little contentiously, but we have ended
up in a place where, I believe, both Republicans and Democrats in the
House and Senate should be able to come together.
I think it is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that, particularly
as we go into the holiday season--as we go into Christmas--how many
working men and women are still lying awake at night, wondering how
they are going to be able to fund Christmas for their children at this
time. Although we have seen some modest improvements in this economy,
there are still over 9 million of our fellow countrymen who are
unemployed. Of the number of underemployed--those who wish to have
full-time work but who cannot find it--it is almost twice the number,
at 18 million. We have 46 million of our fellow countrymen still on
food stamps and 45 million at the poverty rate.
One of the most important things we can do here, Mr. Speaker, is to
be able to make a positive contribution for financial stability on our
household
[[Page H8983]]
economies, to give greater economic opportunity, particularly at this
time, and that is one of the aspects of S. 2244.
We have had a debate about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in this
body. I was authorized on behalf of the House to negotiate this
particular part of this bill, along with Senator Schumer, the gentleman
from New York, on the Senate side. Over the course of several weeks and
several meetings, we have negotiated language on this. Certainly, it
doesn't give everything the House wants, and it doesn't give everything
the Senate wants. Such is the nature of negotiations in a free society
with divided government. For those who care passionately about the
reauthorization, this is a long-term reauthorization bill, which most
Members have asked for. It is a 6-year reauthorization.
For those who care about taxpayer protections, as I do, there were
improvements for taxpayer protection. The trigger level has been
doubled before TRIA kicks in, meaning there is greater coverage by the
insurance companies, a little less for the taxpayers. As for an
artificial ceiling on what the industry will contribute, that
artificial ceiling now ceases to be in S. 2244. For the first time,
taxpayers will actually get some modest rate of return should they be
called upon under TRIA to backstop. These are important improvements,
and I think conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat,
hopefully, will see something worthy here.
I will point out it is disconcerting--it is disturbing--that those
who have backed so many other provisions in this bill now want to say
``no'' to being able to have a long-term TRIA reauthorization passed.
This bill before us includes this end user exemption, which is so
important. This isn't for Wall Street. This is for Main Street. It is
for a cattle producer in Kansas, named Tracy Brunner, who said:
This mistaken language in Dodd-Frank may very well force me
out of the market, subjecting me to even greater risk. My
operation is family run. We are not responsible for the
failures that led to the passage of Dodd-Frank.
Yet his family-owned farm in Kansas--1,500 miles away from Wall
Street--suffers.
Even the ranking member has acknowledged that there have been some
unintended consequences to Dodd-Frank. Recently, she was one of 412
Members of this House to vote in favor of the end user exception, which
she, herself, called a ``clarification''--not an amendment, not a
change, but a clarification.
Mr. Speaker, even Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank of Dodd-Frank, over 4 years
ago in colloquy on the House floor and on the Senate floor, said that
these provisions were never meant to harm Main Street America; never
meant to apply to end users; never meant to apply to the farmers, the
ranchers, and the small factory workers.
We have an opportunity to do something very positive. Now, all of a
sudden, some across the aisle have said: We can't do this. We believe
this is unrelated to TRIA.
Why did the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, put in a provision
that makes a radical change in the requirements to serve on the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve? What did that have to do with
TRIA? The Senate put that in. NARAB, the National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers--the Senate put that in. Two-thirds of
this bill is about NARAB. The Senate put it in.
Mr. Speaker, I am not debating the underlying policy issues, but it
is, at best, a little bit disconcerting, if not disingenuous, to say,
my Lord, the House shouldn't put in an unrelated provision when the
Senate just did it twice.
Then we heard the Senate will not open up Dodd-Frank. What is the
Collins amendment? The Collins amendment was sent over by the Senate,
not as part of this legislation. They opened up Dodd-Frank. Then again,
to quote the ranking member, this is a ``clarification.''
We have an opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill not only to bring
some stability and certainty to our insurance markets and to our
builders, but to farmers and ranchers and small businesses and hurting
families at this holiday season. Without any further delay, we should
enact S. 2244, as amended.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to shine a light on what has happened in the development
of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I rise
today to talk about the fact that the chairman of our committee, of the
Financial Services Committee, did not want, at one point, to
reauthorize terrorism risk insurance at all, so he strung out the
possibility of negotiations for months.
He had decided that he was not going to reauthorize terrorism
insurance, and he will tell you that he offered to negotiate with me.
The only thing that I ever remember about a conversation that we had
was that my chairman said: I will only negotiate this once--starting
out in bad faith.
Time went on, and at some point in time, somebody convinced him that
to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program was an honorable
thing to do, that it was an American thing to do, that it was an
important thing to do. This program had been passed and signed on by
the President of the United States after 9/11.
The insurance companies, which insure risk, basically said they
cannot model terrorism acts. After 9/11, it was decided that we would
mandate that they insure but that we would provide a backstop, that we
would provide a backstop to ensure that we could rebuild our
communities, that we could rebuild these huge venues--these important
places in our lives--in the case of a terrorism attack.
When Mr. Hensarling finally decided that he would negotiate, he ended
up in negotiations with Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer and the Democrats
basically conceded and gave in on a lot of things. We supported,
originally, the Senate bill. We thought the Senate bill was a fine bill
that reauthorized terrorism risk for 7 years; and, of course, it had in
it the backstop after $100 million was spent by the industry, and it
basically did everything that we wanted it to have done just as it had
started out to do.
Mr. Hensarling came along, and he decided that he wanted to reduce
the time of the reauthorization. I don't know what he started out with,
but we ended up with 6 years instead of 7 years. We gave in.
I remember that he wanted bifurcation in the bill. He wanted to
distinguish between what kind of terrorist attack, how much it was
worth, and whether some of it was worse than others. He talked about
bifurcating in ways that you would distinguish between radiological,
biological, chemical, and others. We negotiated and negotiated, and,
finally, we got that out of Mr. Hensarling's mind about bifurcation.
{time} 1530
Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said that we needed to
reduce our backstop. And instead of backstopping after $100 million,
first he talked about $500 million, secondly he talked about $250
million, and finally we got him down to $200 million. And it is over a
5-year period of time. So we said, okay. We negotiated in good faith.
We will go along with the changes. We are willing to concede that you
have some different thoughts, and that is okay. Let's come together in
a bipartisan way and support the reauthorization of terrorism risk
insurance.
I was informed later on that my chairman came back to the table with
any number of things that had nothing to do with terrorism risk
insurance but had more to do with Dodd-Frank because, unfortunately, my
chairman and too many Members on the opposite side of the aisle are
intent on dismantling Dodd-Frank in any and every way that they
possibly can.
And finally, in those negotiations--the way it has been explained to
me--they agreed that they would allow him to add just one aspect of the
Dodd-Frank bill that had passed this House, to talk about how
agriculture and some other industries could lock in some prices so that
they could look forward to what a price would be on those commodities,
et cetera, that they would have to purchase.
This had nothing to do with terrorism insurance. So I am not saying
to the Members that you shouldn't vote for this bill. What I am
pointing out is that this is just another attempt
[[Page H8984]]
for the chairman to indicate in every way that he possibly can and take
advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to get a little
something in about Dodd-Frank.
What I worry about is not so much what he has put into TRIA; I worry
about what is going into the omnibus bill. I worry about the fact that,
in addition to this, there is an attempt--if it has not already been
done--to place into the omnibus bill a repeal of part of Dodd-Frank
that would prevent the biggest banks in America from taking advantage
of our consumers by using their hard-earned money to do risky
derivatives trading, which should be pushed out into their subsidiaries
and not have the FDIC in any way protect them in doing this.
So what I say is this. We should know and we should understand
exactly how the process works. We should know and understand what is
being done and why it is being done. If, in fact, there is so much care
and concern about TRIA reauthorization, we should have a clean bill
with nothing else in it. If we want to debate Dodd-Frank--what we don't
like about it, what we like about it--let's do it straight up. Let's
not slip it in at the eleventh hour at a time when our backs are up
against the wall, at a time when we are closing down this session. And
that is what I am opposed to.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to thank the
ranking member for her fascinating, elongated narrative that proves
just how reasonable House Republicans were in this negotiation.
I have to correct her yet again, though, and say that I have never
said publicly or privately that we should allow the Federal backstop of
terrorism to lapse. She is entitled to her own opinions. She is not
entitled to her own facts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.
And previously she has said that she has been in favor of this
provision. She has been in favor of the end user exemption and has said
the bill would clarify the intent of the Wall Street Reform Act. I urge
the committee to adopt the bill.
So she was for it before she was against it. But whether it be
Biggert-Waters, whether it be Export-Import, whether it be end user,
she has changed her mind frequently.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry), the chief deputy majority whip.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend Chairman Hensarling
for bringing this bipartisan agreement and construct to the House
floor. It extends a very important Federal backstop against the risk of
terror on the American people, small businesses, and substantial
businesses as well. As I have said in the past, it is very important
that we reauthorize the TRIA program, and the chairman incorporated
diverse opinions, including those from across the aisle.
I also want to commend our colleagues from New York, Congressman
Grimm and Congressman King, for the important work that they did to
bring this about today.
As amended, the bill will ensure that terrorism risk protection is
available for the next 6 years, while lessening the taxpayer burden.
Since September 11, the TRIA program has provided an important
Federal backstop for businesses that must insure against the
devastation of a future attack.
Congressman Hensarling has worked with our friends across the aisle
to make commonsense changes to this program while ensuring that both
businesses and taxpayers are not exposed to the risk of future
terrorism attacks.
In addition, as amended, this bill will make some very important
technical changes to the Dodd-Frank Act by protecting manufacturers,
ranchers, and small businesses that need to hedge against business
risk.
While this legislation will become law--and I expect a substantial
number of my Democratic colleagues to cross the aisle and vote with
almost all of the House Republicans and the Democrat Senate to pass
this, and a Democrat President to sign this--I urge my other colleagues
on the other side of the aisle to come on over. It is a good reform, a
necessary reform, and it is going to be a fantastic strong vote that we
are going to have in the House of Representatives to do the right
thing, both for the taxpayer, the American people, and small
businesses, while at the same time protecting against the devastation
of a future attack.
I thank the chairman and I also thank subcommittee chair, Mr.
Neugebauer, for their work on this very important program. It has been
a long process, but it shows that the Financial Services Committee can
get the deal done.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) who is inviting us to come
on over.
We have been inviting them, from day one, to come up with a terrorism
risk insurance bill reauthorization. So we have been inviting them to
come on over. We have had Members on the opposite side of the aisle who
have been pleading with them to come over. We have always had 100
percent support on the Democratic side for the reauthorization of
terrorism risk insurance, and the Republicans have basically held us up
and only negotiated at the last minute. Don't invite us to come over.
They can come on over with us.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B.
Maloney).
(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission
to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the ranking member for
her leadership and for yielding and for her hard work on this important
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2244, which is critically
important to the economy and national security of the city I am
privileged to represent, New York, and to our Nation at large.
After the terrible attacks on 9/11, insurers realized that they could
not accurately model for terrorism risk--it was simply too
unpredictable, and the market for terrorism insurance completely dried
up. No one could get insured. Businesses stopped. The only place we
could get insured was Lloyd's of London, and we lost thousands of jobs
and our economy came to a standstill.
In response, Congress came together, united and determined, and, in a
bipartisan way, passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, which
provides a government backstop for terrorism insurance.
The goal of TRIA was to make terrorism insurance affordable and
available, and that is exactly what it has done. This has come at no
cost whatsoever to the American taxpayer.
This bill represents a true bipartisan compromise, and I commend the
gentlemen from Texas, Chairmen Hensarling and Neugebauer, for working
with my colleagues, Senator Schumer and Ranking Member Waters, to reach
a deal on TRIA.
Initially, the House TRIA bill raised the trigger for the government
backstop by a whopping 500 percent, from $100 million to $500 million.
This would have forced many small- and medium-sized insurers out of the
market entirely and would have actually decreased the amount of
terrorism insurance available in our country.
Fortunately, this compromise bill only raises the trigger for the
government backstop from $100 million to $200 million. This modest
increase will ensure that small- and medium-sized insurers are not
forced out of the market, while also protecting taxpayers. I fully and
completely support this compromise.
Importantly, however, the compromise does not include the so-called
``bifurcation'' proposal, which would have treated nuclear, biological,
chemical, and radiological attacks differently from the so-called
``conventional'' terrorism attacks. This made no sense whatsoever, and
this compromise sensibly drops the proposal entirely.
Finally, I am pleased that this bill reauthorizes TRIA for a full 6
years. This will provide much-needed certainty to businesses across our
country as they expand and create jobs.
This compromise will ensure that terrorism insurance remains widely
affordable and available. This has always been the underlying purpose
of TRIA,
[[Page H8985]]
and I believe that this bill accomplishes that goal.
I would like to commend the gentlemen from Texas, Chairman Hensarling
and Chairman Neugebauer, for recognizing that a long-term
reauthorization of TRIA is incredibly important for our economy. I
thank my good friend from New York, Peter King. He has been a tireless
advocate for TRIA, and without his hard work on this bill, we wouldn't
be voting on this compromise today. And I thank the gentlewoman from
California, Ranking Member Waters, for working with me on this bill.
I would like to particularly thank my colleague from New York,
Senator Schumer, for his excellent work in negotiating this compromise.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is the right
thing to do for America.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York,
the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, for her
support.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the
chairman of the Financial Services Housing and Insurance Subcommittee,
the champion and author of the House TRIA bill, and the author of the
amendment here. I thank him for his work.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about this bill, and
people were talking about reforms. And you know what? I think what the
American people need to understand is why these reforms are important
to them. The reason they are important to them is, quite honestly,
right now, the taxpayers in this country are underwriting part of the
risk for terrorism attacks in this country for the property owners.
What this bill does is it begins to bring certainty for the industry,
for the insurers, and also certainty for the people who are building
the new buildings and apartment houses and shopping centers and other
types of public facilities. It gives them the certainty of what the
policy is going to be over the next few years. But I think the
important part is that the taxpayers are an additional cushion that is
being put between them and any potential loss.
One of the things that has been mentioned, we raised the trigger from
$100 million to $200 million. That is an important part of that. I
think the other issue that we have tried to do with this in order to
create this certainty was, we didn't change the overall structure of
the TRIA program. We have tried to keep it within the confines of how
it has been operating over the last few years, that way, creating the
least amount of certainty that we could.
I think the part that isn't mentioned a lot of times is the fact that
we did leave in place a deductible, and basically the industry has to
take the first loss up to about 20 percent of their annualized premium
for the previous year. Today, on an industry-wide basis, that is about
$40 billion. So if you have got a $200 million trigger, you have got a
$40 billion cushion between the taxpayers and a potential loss.
The other thing that we did in this bill is we said when we get to
the point where after the deductible the taxpayers start sharing that
loss, then the taxpayers' portion moves from 85 percent to 80 percent.
So that is another cushion.
I think one of the things that we want to let the folks know also is
that an additional protection that was built into this bill was the
amount of money that the taxpayers could recover if, in fact, they had
to put additional money into the TRIA program. So now we have increased
that amount substantially.
{time} 1545
I am feeling good that we are moving in the right direction, but
ultimately, what we need to do is get the taxpayers out of the
insurance business. When you look across the board where the taxpayers
are having to underwrite insurance-type losses, whether it be flood
insurance or mortgage insurance, quite honestly, the government doesn't
do well at pricing those.
There are some good things in this bill besides the TRIA reform in
that we have that NARAB II. What is that? Well, that is a good small
business bill. A lot of people have independent insurance agents in
their districts or in their communities or in their States that may
want to write business in other States.
To do that today, they have to go pass another license, take another
license in that other State. Under NARAB II, they would be able to take
their existing license if they meet the requirements in other States
and follow those laws. They would able to underwrite that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, the third piece of this legislation that
is important is that we are going to help farmers, ranchers, and small
businesses be able to cover the risks that they need without taking a
lot of their operating capital, putting that operating capital into a
plant, into equipment so they can hire and create more jobs in America.
These are all issues that have had bipartisan support in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I now urge my colleagues: let's do something good for
the American people, and let's pass S. 2244, as amended.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure, as those who are watching this on C-SPAN
across the Nation, we can comfortably say that what we have in motion
on the floor of the House of Representatives is something that
Alexander Hamilton leaned over and said to Thomas Jefferson: ``My
friend, what we have here is an old-fashioned, good old compromise.''
Compromise, a word that has been out of our lexicon for so long that
the American people are looking for us to put it back in. Well, that is
what we have on this floor. It is a compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member because of her
tenacity and her leadership because in his vision on the other side,
the distinguished Chairman Hensarling, who is a very good friend, in
his own way sought for a $500 million trigger.
We on our side felt that we wanted to hold to the $100 trigger which
is when the actual Federal assistance would go into action, and we knew
that that was further. I commend the ranking member and I certainly
commend Mr. Hensarling for agreeing and recognizing that we would come
to the 200 level.
I also want to thank Mr. Hensarling for including in this NARAB, that
is such an important measure, and many people may not realize this, but
we have worked on NARAB for 10 years in the Financial Services
Committee. It has been a major part of my whole legislative history in
this body every year working on it.
I want to thank you, Chairman Hensarling, for listening to us,
talking, and agreeing to make this a part of this bill that we have
before us. Thank you very much for doing that.
The other part, I want to thank both, and I certainly want to thank
our ranking member for her wisdom in compromising on the end user. Now,
we all know of the differences with Dodd-Frank. I tried to have a clear
view on this, and it was very important that we make this technical
change, so that we don't let our ranchers, our farmers, and our
manufacturers--none of which had anything to do with the Wall Street
debacle and none of which are financial institutions--that we will
exempt them from the cumbersome and the overbearing need to put margins
out when they are doing swaps and derivatives.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an excellent bill, it is a good bill,
and it is one that we urge to move forward.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say I
heard so many kind words from my friend from Georgia that maybe I need
to go back and reexamine the bill; but, indeed, compromise is not a
vice, as long as you are advancing your principles, and both sides can
advance their principles in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. King), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee, a
tireless advocate--and occasionally tiring advocate--for TRIA
reauthorization.
[[Page H8986]]
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
and for his mostly kind words.
Very seriously Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. At the outset, let
me thank Chairman Hensarling; Chairman Neugebauer; Ranking Member
Waters; my good friend, Mrs. Maloney from New York; and also Senator
Schumer.
As the gentleman from Georgia said, this has been a long and winding
road, but we have arrived at a compromise which I believe is worthy of
the support of all Members of this body, certainly those of us who
strongly support TRIA.
I have been a supporter of TRIA going back now 12, 13 years because
after 9/11, we realized it was absolutely essential that TRIA be
enacted for not just New York to be rebuilt, but also so that
construction be allowed to go forward anywhere around the country where
there could be a risk of a terrorist attack which is why Major League
Baseball, the NFL, NASCAR, and virtually every large university in the
country supports TRIA.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a compromise, and it is a compromise where
all of us can find some fault with it, but the bottom line is the
essence of TRIA has been sustained, and as we go forward, it is
essential, I believe--strongly believe--that it be extended.
Let's make it clear there has not been 1 cent of Federal money
expended on TRIA, but during the 13 years it has been in effect, we
have had billions of dollars in construction, jobs, and revenues coming
into the Federal Government. There is also not one Federal employee
involved in administering TRIA.
Mr. Speaker, we are where we are, and 6 years to have that certitude
is absolutely essential. I respect those on the other side who may have
objections to added provisions in the bill. I would just say: let us
keep our eyes on the prize. For those of us who realize how important
TRIA is, we are never going to get all we want. I happen to fully
support the provision for end users, but even if I didn't, I would
still support this bill because it is so essential.
Mr. Speaker, let me just also say in closing that in addition to
those I have mentioned, let me also acknowledge Congressman Grimm for
the outstanding work that he has done on this from the day he first
came to this body.
In closing, I urge all Members, both parties and both Houses, to
support this bill. It is a solid piece of legislation, and all of us
can be proud for voting for it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members, a special appreciation to Mr. King who has
worked very, very hard on both sides of the aisle to try and make sure
that we did not abandon our citizens in this country and leave them at
risk in case of a terrorist attack.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my chairman held us up for a long time
and would not negotiate. He finally came around, but this is typical.
He mentioned the flood insurance bill. We never could get him to
negotiate on that, and so we had to bypass him to make sure that we
didn't put our homeowners at risk. As he mentioned the Ex-Im bill, he
has only supported extension of that for a short period of time.
When it comes to helping our citizens and the least of them, it seems
as if my chairmen have problems with providing for the average citizen
on Main Street, but no problems when we talk about how we can enhance
the ability of the biggest banks in America and others to get richer
and richer. I thought it would be worthwhile to shed some light on
those comments that he made about Ex-Im and about flood and now about
TRIA.
We are glad, we are very happy that he finally saw the light, even if
he had to insert a little something in it, and he came around, and he
is now on the side of the people. This is about patriotism. This is
about American citizens. This is about protecting our cities and our
neighborhoods at a time when this country has to be sure that it is
focused on the safety and security of our citizens.
It is no time to dither around with whether or not we will rebuild
neighborhoods in these important venues in case of a terrorist attack;
so, yes, we have a compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the Democratic side of the aisle on
this. As I said, Democrats were fully supportive of the reauthorization
of the terrorism risk insurance program from day one. We have never
ever wavered. None of us have ever tried in any way to reduce the
program, to change the trigger, et cetera, but we did compromise as we
said.
Now, let me speak to the end user part of this. Yes, I worked with
Mr. David Scott and others because I have always said that on Dodd-
Frank, that we have a responsibility to implement what is in law, but I
always said I would support technical changes and I would support ways
that we work together to straighten out things that were not clear in
Dodd-Frank. I have never said that I would not be at the table to deal
with these kinds of technical changes, and I was.
When I got up today, I didn't speak about being against the bill. I
spoke about what has happened that led us to this point, why we are at
the eleventh hour, and the way that the negotiations went on.
Again, TRIA is important, and it should be reauthorized. I wish it
had been a clean bill. It is not, and I hope that we are not going to
have to have attempts to undermine Dodd-Frank in every bill that comes
along where my chairman sees an opportunity to try and slide something
in at the eleventh hour.
I hope that when we talk about negotiations and trying to get
together to compromise, to work on things that are in the best
interests of this country, that nobody will play games with us, no one
will lead us to the point where our backs are up against the wall at
the eleventh hour, but we will openly debate these issues, we will
listen to the pros and cons on these issues and that we hopefully will
come together in the best interests of all of the citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself 10 seconds for, Mr. Speaker, those who
may be listening could be confused, as are those in the Chamber. I am
very curious whether the ranking member is opposed or supporting this
bill as amended. I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as I said to you when I first got up, I
said to you I wanted to shine light on the bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Does the gentlewoman oppose or support?
Ms. WATERS. And I have done that.
Mr. HENSARLING. It is obvious the gentlelady refuses to answer the
question.
Ms. WATERS. Before I finish my remarks on this bill, I will tell you
what my position is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee and a distinguished member of the House Financial
Services Committee as well.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2244, a bill to extend the
expiration date of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Specifically, I
support H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization
Act that is included as a part of this larger effort.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 634 provides critical regulatory relief to end
users, the market participants, businesses, and job creators that use
derivatives to manage the risks they face in their daily operations.
For example, farmers who need to hedge against the volatility of crop
prices and manufacturers who need to hedge against the rising input
costs of fuel use derivatives as a part of their business plans.
During the consideration of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress clearly
intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new
regulations, such as margin requirements. Margin requirements
needlessly divert working capital away from job-creating production and
investment; however, the CFTC has narrowly interpreted the law which
has negatively impacted end users and their bottom line.
Mr. Speaker, including the Business Risk Mitigation and Price
Stabilization Act in today's bill permanently
[[Page H8987]]
fixes this issue for end users. It ensures that those businesses which
have been exempted from clearing requirements of their trades are also
exempted from margining their trades, just as Congress always intended.
The language in H.R. 634 has passed through the Committee on
Agriculture by a voice vote and then through the House four other
times. As a stand-alone bill, it passed with the support of 411
Members. Other times, as part of a larger package, it continued to
receive overwhelming bipartisan support. The House of Representatives
has spoken clearly on this issue: end users should not be required to
post margin on their transactions.
I thank the chairman for including the Business Risk Mitigation and
Price Stabilizations Act in today's bill. It is time to give our farms
and our businesses the relief they need from this costly and damaging
rule. I urge a vote for TRIA.
{time} 1600
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Today I call on my colleagues to pass reauthorization of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, a public-private partnership that is
vital to continued economic development across the country.
Following the tragic events of 9/11, terrorism became uninsurable.
Many insurers left the market, and rates skyrocketed. As a result,
thousands of small businesses were impacted, causing job losses and
hindering the recovery effort. To address the growing market gap,
Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, creating a Federal
backstop and enticing insurers back.
I can say without a doubt, our efforts were successful. I have
witnessed firsthand how this program has helped New York City recover
and prosper over the past 12 years. TRIA has provided thousands of
small businesses with the certainty needed to manage long-term costs,
grow reliably, and create new jobs. In fact, the program has tripled
the number of small businesses that have terrorism protection since
2002. Today, over 60 percent of firms now have coverage.
TRIA also ensures rates remain affordable. Under the program,
terrorism coverage averages just 3 to 5 percent of a small business'
annual insurance premium.
Is today's bill perfect? No, but it will restore certainty to the
marketplace and prevent a rate spike that could force two-thirds of
small businesses to stop carrying coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has stated that
terrorism remains an uninsurable risk. In light of such findings, the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program continues to be a vital component of
our economic growth and national security. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared a yield a small amount of
time to any Democrat Member on the floor who intends to vote ``no'' on
S. 2244, as amended, because I have not heard one say that yet.
Mr. Speaker, I have no takers.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer),
who is the incoming chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and
Chairman Neugebauer for their tireless work on this important issue,
and I tell my colleagues that while TRIA is an important program, it is
also in need of reform. This bill that we are considering today does
just that in a responsible way, and I urge support of it.
Let there be no mistake: this bill reforms the TRIA program. It takes
important steps to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that industry
has more skin in the game. Also, I remind my colleagues that without
TRIA, it is entirely possible that taxpayers would be on the hook for
the entire bill in the wake of a terrorist attack. This legislation
includes a strong recoupment mechanism and a higher threshold for
Federal assistance, building a program that has a long-term
reauthorization with greater protections for taxpayers.
The legislation we are considering today, however, does more than
reauthorize TRIA. It also contains important language to ensure
derivative end users, including farmers, ranchers, utilities, airlines,
and small businesses, can lock in prices, remove volatility from the
marketplace, and keep consumer prices stable.
Without this fix, those farmers, ranchers, and Main Street businesses
will have to post margin against trades they enter into for the sole
purpose of managing their commercial risk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage and support of this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member for
her hard work and focus and dedication for getting this done. I know
that any time you have things added to a bill so it is not a clean
bill, it makes it difficult. But I thank her and the chairman for
working together to make this happen because this is a major bill,
significantly important.
As we learned, I think, from the impact of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, this was substantial. When you look at the losses, it was
about $32.5 billion, or $42.9 billion in 2013 dollars. It was the
largest insurance loss in global history at that time. And prior to 9/
11, insurance companies generally covered all of the costs of terrorist
attacks. After 9/11, terrorism risk insurance quickly became either
unavailable or very, very expensive and unaffordable. Furthermore,
premiums for workers' compensation insurance increased significantly,
and real estate and commercial ventures were stalled because of an
inability to attain the requisite insurance coverage.
Now, 9/11 happened in New York, and so, yes, you see New York and New
York City Members here supporting the bill. But this is not a bill just
about New York. It is about all of America because they did not attack
for New York; they attacked New York because it was part of America. We
don't know, and we pray that we don't have another attack ever on our
homeland again, but it could be someplace else. It doesn't have to be
New York. This is when we should rally around as Americans, as
patriots, to ensure that we continue our economy flowing and moving.
That is why, even though there are things added and certain things that
people don't like, we are trying to figure out how we get this right
because it is too important to America to allow TRIA to expire.
Furthermore, when you examine TRIA, it costs taxpayers virtually
nothing, yet it continues to provide tangible benefits to our overall
economy. TRIA allows for terrorism insurance market stability,
affordability, and availability so that those in business, et cetera,
can know, predict, and be confident that we will continue to move on.
TRIA is a critical part of the U.S. economy's security infrastructure
and would ensure a swift recovery in the event of a significant
terrorist attack.
Now, in New York, I am proud we have the Freedom Towers up because it
also sends a message, is a symbol to those who don't like us that you
can't keep us down, that we will get back up on our feet, stronger and
better than ever, and that is what makes this country the great country
that we are going to rally around and work with one another.
So this TRIA bill is significantly important, and I ask my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on TRIA.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the incoming chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee for his tenacity and hard work to make
sure the American taxpayer is protected, on the hook just a little bit
less for the next terrorism attack that could happen in our country,
and the private sector is on a little bit more.
I am encouraged by this bipartisan bill because it ensures that my
constituents in central, northern, and western Wisconsin can purchase
affordable terrorism risk insurance. This 6-year reauthorization is a
backstop for all Americans. This is not just a bill for New York, as my
friends have mentioned, or Chicago or L.A., but it helps
[[Page H8988]]
small town America. If you have a small mall in your community or for
Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, they can purchase terrorism risk
insurance. The reauthorization of this program is incredibly important.
I want to note one other important part, and that is the requirement
that we have a community banker as part of the Federal Reserve, making
sure that as the Fed goes in to a larger role with rules and
regulations, they have a perspective and a view that takes into account
small community banks all around America that right now are being
crushed by overburdensome rules and regulations.
I commend the chairman on the bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a valued member of our committee.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for
yielding me this time. I appreciate his work on this very important
bill, as well as the work of the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Neugebauer,
for this 6-year reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance bill.
This bill protects taxpayers by reforming the program to reduce
potential taxpayer costs associated with the terrorism risk reinsurance
program. It builds capacity in the private insurance market, and it
ensures access to terrorism insurance for communities like mine in
Columbus, Ohio, and southern Ohio, as well as all around America.
The bill provides meaningful reforms by reducing the government's
share of losses over time, by increasing the triggering amount over
time, and ensuring that the Federal recoupment is increased over time.
It also provides important transparency on data collection that will in
the future let us know how much money insurance companies are billing
for terrorism coverage and what the potential exposure is for terrorism
losses. Those are all good things. The other thing that is good is it
will build capacity in the private marketplace. When we increase the
trigger, we build capacity in the private marketplace.
But the most important thing is the certainty this bill creates. A
multiyear reauthorization ensures that businesses across Ohio and
across the entire country get access to terrorism insurance for
multiple years. It creates certainty. It is good for jobs, and it is
good for commercial development and construction. I think this bill is
a very important reform and a great move forward.
I again want to applaud the chairman for all of his work on it, and I
applaud the bipartisan support this bill is getting today. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in that case, I now yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the TRIA amendment to
the Senate bill S. 2244 and overall reauthorization, and I really would
like to commend Chairman Hensarling and his staff for their hard work
throughout this process.
TRIA's reauthorization is not a Wall Street or big business issue; I
believe it is a conservative issue. Illinois and American jobs and
prosperity are at stake. If TRIA is not authorized, Illinois' small
insurers may be subject to costly rating downgrades or have to exit
certain insurance markets altogether, leaving customers in the lurch.
In the event of an attack, potential targets like Soldier Field or
Chicago skyscrapers would be left without protection for massive
economic losses.
TRIA protects the taxpayers because it sets the terms of how our
country will cover losses before, instead of after, a terrorist attack.
The Rand Institute has estimated that it protects our taxpayers by as
much as $7 billion. TRIA also ensures the continued viability of long-
term construction projects. One estimate found that for the first 14
months after the 9/11 attack, $15.5 billion of real estate projects in
17 States were stalled or canceled because of continuing scarcity of
terrorism insurance. So this backstop either costs very little if it is
never used, or it saves taxpayers money if it is.
Each program deserves continuous oversight and periodic review, and
TRIA is no different. I commend Chairman Hensarling for his commitment
to examine the program. I believe that this reauthorization contains
conservative reforms that protect the taxpayers from excessive loss and
still ensures a functioning terrorism insurance market that doesn't
punish businesses--such as Illinois' small insurers--for offering this
much-needed terrorism insurance. The end user provision passed by the
Financial Services Committee with unanimous support sailed through the
House with 411 votes. Congress should come together to support
reasonable, bipartisan reforms that provide much-needed relief for Main
Street America.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization, known as TRIA.
I would like to commend Chairman Hensarling and Congressman
Neugebauer.
TRIA does not curtail terrorism, but this legislation does protect
taxpayers, promotes stable markets, and enhances economic certainty in
the face of terrorism.
Another important provision included in this legislation is the
bipartisan legislation known as the Business Risk Mitigation and Price
Stabilization Act, which the House has passed by 411-12. This is a
basic but very important clarification to the highly regulatory Dodd-
Frank Act. This reform will ensure that end users, such as
manufacturers, ranchers, and small companies, are not subject to the
burdensome margin and capital surcharge requirements imposed by the
Dodd-Frank Act.
{time} 1615
Even the creators of Dodd-Frank have argued in favor of exempting
these end users from margin requirements.
Without this essential clarification, small Main Street businesses
will have to post additional margins against trades that they enter
into for the sole purpose of managing commercial risk.
These transactions do not pose a systemic risk to our financial
systems, and they did not cause the 2008 financial crisis. A failure to
address this issue will cause serious harm to the Main Street economy.
Instead of investing and expanding their business to create jobs,
small business owners are being forced to direct resources to comply
with more burdensome and unnecessary regulations coming out of
Washington.
This is not a controversial issue. This is a bipartisan provision
that 181 Democrats in Congress have already voted for in support. We
must not play politics with something as important as TRIA, and I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Grimm), who for months has played a leading role in
bringing both the TRIA title and the end user exemption title to S.
2244.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
legislation.
But before I begin, I would like to say a very special thank you to
Chairman Jeb Hensarling for his outstanding leadership on this bill, as
well as Chairman Neugebauer and Ranking Member Waters.
I am proud to have worked so long and so hard in what I would say was
truly a bipartisan manner, so let me also thank and acknowledge my
senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, for his tireless efforts
and for making TRIA reauthorization one of his top priorities.
I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from New York,
Peter King, for being such a champion on this issue.
As someone who witnessed the tragedy of 9/11 firsthand, and as a
Member
[[Page H8989]]
whose district saw the greatest loss of life during the September 11
attacks, I know all too well the destruction and the suffering that is
caused by terrorism. However, as a proud New Yorker, I have also seen
the tremendous recovery, a recovery that has taken place since that
fateful day. But in order to ensure that such a recovery would be
possible in the face of, God forbid, a future attack on our country, as
well as to ensure the further economic development across the United
States, we must ensure the continuation of TRIA and the vitally
important insurance coverage that it provides to projects and
facilities that create so many American jobs, like the pending Hudson
Yards project in Manhattan, or the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, as
well as our hospitals and universities, such as the Staten Island
University Hospital and the College of Staten Island.
I would also like to add my strong support for the inclusion of my
legislation, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act,
which passed, I believe, this House with 411 votes right here in this
Chamber and does anything but undermine Dodd-Frank. In fact, what it
does, it will actually ensure that commercial end users of derivatives
contracts will not be subject to costly and unnecessary margin
requirements that needlessly tie up capital and impede job creation.
With that, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical,
commonsense legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased that I had an opportunity to
be on the floor today managing this legislation on behalf of my caucus.
I am pleased that I was able to shine some light and create some
transparency on what has transpired over a long period of time. I am
sorry that it had to take this long. I am sorry that my chairman at
first refused to support reauthorization. He finally came around and
that is good. The negotiations took place and there was a compromise.
That compromise is not everything certainly that we would have wanted,
but at least it is a compromise that will allow terrorism risk
insurance program reauthorization. That is extremely important for all
of the reasons that you have heard on the floor here today.
I want to say to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle--some
of whom I talked with when it was unclear what the chairman was going
to do--I am so pleased that we have been able to relieve your anxiety
about what was going to happen. I know that many of you early on were
in support of the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance
program just as it had been framed in the Senate.
So now we are at the point where we have flushed out the fact that
this terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization is needed, that
businesses and our citizens deserve it, and they should have it. We
have also flushed out that adding to this legislation a Dodd-Frank
concern was not necessary. It is this kind of interference with the
process that oftentimes causes confusion. We would hope that this kind
of legislating would not continue.
Let's take up these issues in a way that they are clear, that they
can be debated, that we can hear from both sides of the aisle, we can
hear the pros and cons, without having to drag it out until the last
moment when we feel that you have the opposition up against a wall and
they have no choice but to accept whatever you have done because you
have a legitimate issue that is before us, even when that issue is
attached to something that has nothing to do with that main issue.
Having said that, I am going to move on because we still have work to
do as we move toward trying to make sure that we do not shut down this
government, that we have the omnibus bill to fund the government and to
keep it operating. I am going to move on to deal with the fact that
just as this was inserted, the end user provision was inserted in this
bill.
In the omnibus bill, we have an even more difficult situation to try
and resolve. As a matter of fact, we know that our citizens are at
great risk because there is an attempt to repeal an important part of
the Dodd-Frank legislation. There is an attempt to make sure that
somehow the biggest banks in America have an opportunity to use the
taxpayers' dollars to do risky trading and put the taxpayers at risk
one more time of having to bail out these institutions that have used
the taxpayers' money that was protected by FDIC, have used their money
to do this risky trading.
We simply ask in Dodd-Frank for some of these trades, for some of
these derivatives trading ideas, not to be placed in such a fashion
that they would cause us to have to say to our consumers and our
taxpayers, once again, we are going to have to bail out some big bank
because they have failed. We need to protect our consumers, we need to
protect our taxpayers. All they have to do is push out, push out these
derivatives into their subsidies where they don't have the taxpayers'
protection.
So I am going to be working on that. I am going to stand here today
and say to my chairman, I am going to ask for an ``aye'' vote on the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and I am going to
vote for it. Will you work with me to pay attention to the omnibus bill
and help me to negotiate tonight to get out of that bill the risky
trading that is now being put back in the bill, the same bill that came
through our committee, that was written by Citicorp, that would allow
this to happen? Will you work with me to try and prevent this from
happening and prevent another bailout of the biggest banks in America
with taxpayers' dollars? I am going to support TRIA. Will the gentleman
support me getting rid of that in the omnibus bill?
Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the answer.
Mr. HENSARLING. I would point out to the gentlewoman, as I think she
knows, it was the Democrat Senate who I believe is putting this in the
bill, so perhaps she could negotiate that with Senator Schumer.
Ms. WATERS. The gentleman knows that he was involved in the
negotiation for placing that in the omnibus bill. I have raised a
question with you, even though you are saying you had nothing to do
with----
Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentlewoman yield on that one point?
Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, I simply asked the gentleman if he
would join me in helping, whether he was part of the negotiations or
not, as the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where this is
one of the biggest issues that we have been confronted with. I know
that you care enough about the consumers that you would not want them
to have to bail out another AIG, another big bank. I know that you
don't want that. I am simply saying that I am going to support the
reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance. Will the gentleman support
helping to get rid of that risky derivative trading opportunity that
has been placed into the omnibus bill by your side of the aisle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I am glad that the ranking member has had yet another change of heart
from her opposition to S. 2244, as amended, that she articulated last
evening. It is fascinating to me that as she characterizes other
Members of Congress as unpredictable, I guess it is somewhat
predictable now that she will change her opinion. I am glad she did.
Rarely have I seen in my congressional career a Member of the House
come to the floor quite so vociferous and quite so grumpy about a bill
that they have previously supported and now ultimately choose to
support. Regrettably, frequently when the ranking member comes to the
floor, we enter into a fact-free zone.
I have not been involved in any of the negotiations on the omnibus.
If I were involved, we would have far more Dodd-Frank relief in there,
since it is a bill that was aimed at Wall Street, hits Main Street, and
working men and women across our country are collateral damage. Our
economy has slowed down, families can't find work, they have no
financial security because of what Dodd-Frank is doing--the sheer
weight, volume, complexity load of the regulatory burden. As unelected,
unaccountable bureaucrats try to run this economy, they have run it
into the ground.
[[Page H8990]]
Be that as it may, I look forward to working with the ranking member
so that we can get more Dodd-Frank relief to Americans and get this
country back to work.
Finally, I once again wish to thank and offer my gratitude to the
gentleman from Texas, Chairman Neugebauer, whose leadership in bringing
this bill to the floor was indispensable. He has been a rock throughout
these proceedings. Every Member who supports the end user exemption,
who supports the TRIA compromise, owes an incredible debt of gratitude
to Chairman Neugebauer of Lubbock, Texas. I am proud to serve with him
on the House Financial Services Committee.
I urge an ``aye'' vote for all Members of Congress on S. 2244, as
amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the inclusion of H.R.
634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stability Act, as Title III
of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This
language, which was also included in H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection
and End-User Relief Act, provides an important protection to end-users
from costly margining requirements that will divert need capital away
from job creation.
I support of this title, I would like to request that the pertinent
portions of the Committee on Agriculture report to accompany H.R. 4413
be included in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record.
Title 3--End-User Relief
SUBTITLE A--END-USER EXEMPTION FROM MARGIN REQUIREMENTS
Section 311--End-user margin requirements
Section 311 amends Section 4s(e) of the Commodity Exchange
Act (CEA) as added by Section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act to
provide an explicit exemption from margin requirements for
swap transactions involving end-users that qualify for the
clearing exception under 2(h)(7)(A).
``End-users'' are thousands of companies across the United
States who utilize derivatives to hedge risks associated with
their day-to-day operations, such as fluctuations in the
prices of raw materials. Because these businesses do not pose
systemic risk, Congress intended that the Dodd-Frank Act
provide certain exemptions for end-users to ensure they were
not unduly burdened by new margin and capital requirements
associated with their derivatives trades that would hamper
their ability to expand and create jobs.
Indeed, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act includes an
exemption for non-financial end-users from centrally clearing
their derivatives trades. This exemption permits end-users to
continue trading directly with a counterparty, (also known as
trading ``bilaterally,'' or over-the-counter (OTC)) which
means their swaps are negotiated privately between two
parties and they are not executed and cleared using an
exchange or clearinghouse. Generally, it is common for non-
financial end-users, such as manufacturers, to avoid posting
cash margin for their OTC derivative trades. End-users
generally will not post margin because they are able to
negotiate such terms with their counterparties due to the
strength of their own balance sheet or by posting non-cash
collateral, such as physical property. End-users typically
seek to preserve their cash and liquid assets for
reinvestment in their businesses. In recognition of this
common practice, the Dodd-Frank Act included an exemption
from margin requirements for end-users for OTC trades.
Section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act (and Section 764 with
respect to security-based swaps) requires margin requirements
be applied to swap dealers and major swap participants for
swaps that are not centrally cleared. For swap dealers and
major swap participants that are banks, the prudential
banking regulators (such as the Federal Reserve or Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation) are required to set the margin
requirements. For swap dealers and major swap participants
that are not banks, the CFTC is required to set the margin
requirements. Both the CFTC and the banking regulators have
issued their own rule proposals establishing margin
requirements pursuant to Section 731.
Following the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act in July of
2010, uncertainty arose regarding whether this provision
permitted the regulators to impose margin requirements on
swap dealers when they trade with end-users, which could then
result in either a direct or indirect margin requirement on
end-users. Subsequently, Senators Blanche Lincoln and Chris
Dodd sent a letter to then-Chairmen Barney Frank and Collin
Peterson on June 30, 2010, to set forth and clarify
congressional intent, stating:
The legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose
margin on end-users, those exempt entities that use swaps to
hedge or mitigate commercial risk. If regulators raise the
costs of end-user transactions, they may create more risk. It
is imperative that the regulators do not unnecessarily divert
working capital from our economy into margin accounts, in a
way that would discourage hedging by end-users or impair
economic growth.
In addition, statements in the legislative history of
section 731 (and Section 764) suggests that Congress did not
intend, in enacting this section, to impose margin
requirements on nonfinancial end-users engaged in hedging
activities, even in cases where they entered into swaps with
swap entities.
In the CFTC's proposed rule on margin, it does not require
margin for un-cleared swaps when non-bank swap dealers
transact with non-financial end-users. However, the
prudential banking regulators proposed rules would require
margin be posted by non-financial end-users above certain
established thresholds when they trade with swap dealers that
are banks. Many of end-users' transactions occur with swap
dealers that are banks, so the banking regulators' proposed
rule is most relevant, and therefore of most concern, to end-
users.
By the prudential banking regulators' own terms, their
proposal to require margin stems directly from what they view
to be a legal obligation under Title VII. The plain language
of section 731 provides that the Agencies adopt rules for
covered swap entities imposing margin requirements on all
non-cleared swaps. Despite clear congressional intent, those
sections do not, by their terms, exclude a swap with a
counterparty that is a commercial end-user. By providing an
explicit exemption under Title VII through enactment of this
provision, the prudential regulators will no longer have a
perceived legal obligation, and the congressional intent they
acknowledge in their proposed rule will be implemented.
The Committee notes that in September of 2013, the
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
and the Bank of International Settlements published their
final recommendations for margin requirements for uncleared
derivatives. Representatives from a number of U.S.
regulators, including the CFTC and the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve participated in the development of
those margin requirements, which are intended to set
baseline international standards for margin requirements.
It is the intent of the Committee that any margin
requirements promulgated under the authority provided in
Section 4s of the Commodity Exchange Act should be
generally consistent with the international margin
standards established by IOSCO.
On March 14, 2013, at a hearing entitled ``Examining
Legislative Improvements to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank
Act,'' the following testimony was provided to the Committee
with respect to provisions included in Section 311:
In approving the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress made clear that
end-users were not to be subject to margin requirements.
Nonetheless, regulations proposed by the Prudential Banking
Regulators could require end-users to post margin. This stems
directly from what they view to be a legal obligation under
Title VII. While the regulations proposed by the CFTC are
preferable, they do not provide end-users with the certainty
that legislation offers. According to a Coalition for
Derivatives End-Users survey, a 3% initial margin requirement
could reduce capital spending by as much as $5.1 to $6.7
billion among S&P 500 companies alone and cost 100,000 to
130,000 jobs. To shed some light on Honeywell's potential
exposure to margin requirements, we had approximately $2
billion of hedging contracts outstanding at year-end that
would be defined as a swap under Dodd-Frank. Applying 3%
initial margin and 10% variation margin implies a potential
margin requirement of $260 million. Cash deposited in a
margin account cannot be productively deployed in our
businesses and therefore detracts from Honeywell's financial
performance and ability to promote economic growth and
protect American jobs.--Mr. James E. Colby, Assistant
Treasurer, Honeywell International Inc.
On May 21, 2013, at a hearing entitled ``The Future of the
CFTC: Market Perspectives,'' Mr. Stephen O'Connor, Chairman,
ISDA, provided the following testimony with respect to
provisions included in Section 311:
Perhaps most importantly, we do not believe that initial
margin will contribute to the shared goal of reducing
systemic risk and increasing systemic resilience. When robust
variation margin practices are employed, the additional step
of imposing initial margin imposes an extremely high cost on
both market participants and on systemic resilience with very
little countervailing benefit. The Lehman and AIG situations
highlight the importance of variation margin. AIG did not
follow sound variation margin practices, which resulted in
dangerous levels of credit risk building up, ultimately
leading to its bailout. Lehman, on the other hand, posted
daily variation margin, and while its failure caused shocks
in many markets, the variation margin prevented outsized
losses in the OTC derivatives markets. While industry and
regulators agree on a robust variation margin regime
including all appropriate products and counterparties, the
further step of moving to mandatory IM [initial margin] does
not stand up to any rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
Based on the extensive background that accompanies the
statutory change provided explicitly in Section 311, the
Committee intends that initial and variation margin
requirements cannot be imposed on uncleared swaps entered
into by cooperative entities if they similarly qualify for
the CFTC's cooperative exemption with respect to cleared
swaps. Cooperative entities did not cause the financial
crisis and should not be required to
[[Page H8991]]
incur substantial new costs associated with posting initial
and variation margin to counterparties. In the end, these
costs will be borne by their members in the form of higher
prices and more limited access to credit, especially in
underserved markets, such as in rural America. Therefore the
Committee's clear intent when drafting Section 311 was to
prohibit the CFTC and prudential regulators, including the
Farm Credit Administration, from imposing margin requirements
on cooperative entities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 775, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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 the passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute
votes on suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate amendment to
H.R. 4861; suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate amendment
to H.R. 2719; and suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1204.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 7, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 557]
YEAS--417
Adams
Aderholt
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--7
Amash
Broun (GA)
Jones
Massie
McClintock
Sensenbrenner
Stockman
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Capuano
Duckworth
Granger
Hall
Johnson (GA)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Negrete McLeod
Smith (WA)
{time} 1656
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________