[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[House]
[Pages 35942-35949]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism 
Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorism 
     Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of act of terrorism.
Sec. 3. Reauthorization of the Program.
Sec. 4. Annual liability cap.
Sec. 5. Enhanced reports to Congress.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ACT OF TERRORISM.

       Section 102(1)(A)(iv) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 
     of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by striking ``acting 
     on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest''.

     SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination Date.--Section 108(a) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended by 
     striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (b) Additional Program Years.--Section 102(11) of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Additional program years.--Except when used as 
     provided in subparagraphs (B) through (F), the term `Program 
     Year' means, as the context requires, any of Program Year 1, 
     Program Year 2, Program Year 3, Program Year 4, Program Year 
     5, or any of calendar years 2008 through 2014.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--The Terrorism Risk Insurance 
     Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 102(7)(F)--
       (A) by inserting ``and each Program Year thereafter'' 
     before ``, the value''; and
       (B) by striking ``preceding Program Year 5'' and inserting 
     ``preceding that Program Year'';
       (2) in section 103(e)(1)(A), by inserting ``and each 
     Program Year thereafter'' after ``Year 5'';
       (3) in section 103(e)(1)(B)(ii), by inserting before the 
     period at the end ``and any Program Year thereafter'';
       (4) in section 103(e)(2)(A), by striking ``of Program Years 
     2 through 5'' and inserting ``Program Year thereafter'';
       (5) in section 103(e)(3), by striking ``of Program Years 2 
     through 5,'' and inserting ``other Program Year''; and
       (6) in section 103(e)(6)(E), by inserting ``and any Program 
     Year thereafter'' after ``Year 5''.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL LIABILITY CAP.

       (a) In General.--Section 103(e)(2) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``(until such time as the Congress may act 
     otherwise with respect to such losses)''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``that amount'' and 
     inserting ``the amount of such losses''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``, except that, notwithstanding paragraph (1) or any 
     other provision of Federal or State law, no insurer may be 
     required to make any payment for insured losses in excess of 
     its deductible under section 102(7) combined with its share 
     of insured losses under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection''.
       (b) Notice to Congress.--Section 103(e)(3) of the Terrorism 
     Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary 
     shall provide an initial notice to Congress not later than 15 
     days after the date of an act of terrorism, stating whether 
     the Secretary estimates that aggregate insured losses will 
     exceed $100,000,000,000.''; and
       (2) by striking ``and the Congress shall'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting a 
     period.
       (c) Regulations for Pro Rata Payments; Report to 
     Congress.--Section 103(e)(2)(B) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Regulations.--Not later than 240 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Secretary shall issue final 
     regulations for determining the pro rata share of insured 
     losses under the Program when insured losses exceed 
     $100,000,000,000, in accordance with clause (i).
       ``(iii) Report to congress.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Secretary shall provide a 
     report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives describing the process to be 
     used by the Secretary for determining the allocation of pro 
     rata payments for insured losses under the Program when such 
     losses exceed $100,000,000,000.''.
       (d) Disclosure.--Section 103(b) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) in the case of any policy that is issued after the 
     date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007, the insurer provides clear and 
     conspicuous disclosure to the policyholder of the existence 
     of the $100,000,000,000 cap under subsection (e)(2), at the 
     time of offer, purchase, and renewal of the policy;''.
       (e) Surcharges.--Section 103(e) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``133 percent of'' 
     before ``any mandatory recoupment''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Timing of mandatory recoupment.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary is required to collect 
     terrorism loss risk-spreading premiums under subparagraph 
     (C)--

       ``(I) for any act of terrorism that occurs on or before 
     December 31, 2010, the Secretary shall collect all required 
     premiums by September 30, 2012;
       ``(II) for any act of terrorism that occurs between January 
     1 and December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall collect 35 
     percent of any required premiums by September 30, 2012, and 
     the remainder by September 30, 2017; and
       ``(III) for any act of terrorism that occurs on or after 
     January 1, 2012, the Secretary shall collect all required 
     premiums by September 30, 2017.

       ``(ii) Regulations required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary 
     shall issue regulations describing the procedures to be used 
     for collecting the required premiums in the time periods 
     referred to in clause (i).
       ``(F) Notice of estimated losses.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of an act of terrorism, the Secretary shall 
     publish an estimate of aggregate insured losses, which shall 
     be used as the basis for determining whether mandatory 
     recoupment will be required under this paragraph. Such 
     estimate shall be updated as appropriate, and at least 
     annually.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``(including any additional amount included 
     in such premium'' and inserting ``collected''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(D))'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by inserting before the period 
     at the end ``, in accordance with the timing requirements of 
     paragraph (7)(E)''.

[[Page 35943]]



     SEC. 5. ENHANCED REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Study and Report on Insurance for Nuclear, Biological, 
     Chemical, and Radiological Terrorist Events.--Section 108 of 
     the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Insurance for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and 
     Radiological Terrorist Events.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall examine--
       ``(A) the availability and affordability of insurance 
     coverage for losses caused by terrorist attacks involving 
     nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological materials;
       ``(B) the outlook for such coverage in the future; and
       ``(C) the capacity of private insurers and State workers 
     compensation funds to manage risk associated with nuclear, 
     biological, chemical, and radiological terrorist events.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives a report containing a 
     detailed statement of the findings under paragraph (1), and 
     recommendations for any legislative, regulatory, 
     administrative, or other actions at the Federal, State, or 
     local levels that the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate to expand the availability and affordability of 
     insurance for nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological 
     terrorist events.''.
       (b) Study and Report on Availability and Affordability of 
     Terrorism Insurance in Specific Markets.--Section 108 of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Availability and Affordability of Terrorism Insurance 
     in Specific Markets.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to determine whether there are specific 
     markets in the United States where there are unique capacity 
     constraints on the amount of terrorism risk insurance 
     available.
       ``(2) Elements of study.--The study required by paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) an analysis of both insurance and reinsurance 
     capacity in specific markets, including pricing and coverage 
     limits in existing policies;
       ``(B) an assessment of the factors contributing to any 
     capacity constraints that are identified; and
       ``(C) recommendations for addressing those capacity 
     constraints.
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report on the study required by paragraph (1) to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives.''.
       (c) Ongoing Reports.--Section 108(e) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``ongoing'' before ``analysis''; and
       (B) by striking ``, including'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the paragraph, and inserting a period; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and thereafter in 2010 and 2013,'' after 
     ``2006,''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this 
legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the effort 
and hard work of Mr. Bachus and Mr. Baker, as well as Mr. Kanjorski, 
Mrs. Maloney, the extraordinary efforts of my friend from New York, 
Pete King, and of course to Chairman Frank for his extraordinary 
leadership, as well as the entire New York legislative delegation, 
including our friends from New Jersey and Connecticut, who all know 
firsthand the anguish and the pain of regions suffering from a 
terrorist attack.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not 
the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had 
wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee 
hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full 
committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a 
strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for 
15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and 
domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human 
beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and 
radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761 
included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of 
increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major 
terrorism attacks against our country.
  I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York 
provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked 
out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future 
catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven 
forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the 
nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any 
insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at 
lower levels.
  God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God 
willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/
11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit'' 
of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset 
mechanism.
  Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and 
received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at 
risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its 
Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the 
Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this 
legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a 
catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so 
scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had 
been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama. I only pick 
Alabama, I think, because I went in alphabetical order. Sometimes bad 
things happen in alphabetical order. I don't read the obituaries 
because people die in alphabetical order.
  In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met 
the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with 
some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were 
another terrorist attack on our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we 
presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our 
homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and 
specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re-
insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is 
attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the 
cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our 
capacity to recover from an attack.
  Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our 
Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of 
the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by 
only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out 
every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept 
the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic 
acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would 
be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done 
so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate 
counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to 
go to conference.
  Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and 
disrupting the U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet 
again, Democrats and Republicans, working together, to try to find a 
compromise with the Senate, and last week we passed a limited but

[[Page 35944]]

still much-improved TRIA reauthorization over what they had done in the 
Senate.
  The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week 
by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as 
well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological 
coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA, 
which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House 
held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary 
to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our 
country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance 
coverage, and lower program triggers.
  Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA 
reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the 
case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very 
difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill 
and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against 
terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less 
than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in 
some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the 
terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people 
and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible 
thing.
  The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and 
represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come 
from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another 
attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world, 
developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without 
funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite 
policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an 
even larger scale.
  In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from 
9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable 
losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of 
mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is 
because the U.S. Senate said so.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America 
terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the 
Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be 
comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't 
make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national 
security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk 
insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers 
and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year.
  I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation 
out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration 
date, with the understanding that this fight is not over.
  We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are 
critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely, 
the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and 
NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation 
entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the 
reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here 
today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We 
will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the 
Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not 
only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2761, 
the Terrorist Insurance Revision Extension Act of 2007. I think the 
legislation is critical to our Nation's economic security and the 
proper functioning of the insurance marketplace.
  Let me thank Chairman Frank and his staff and Representatives 
Capuano, Price, Kanjorski and Baker for all their leadership and hard 
work on TRIA this year. We would not have enacted TRIA this year had 
the House not acted several months ago before the Senate and set the 
stage for this current compromise.
  I would also like to acknowledge the strong contributions of Mr. 
Ackerman and the New York City delegation, Mr. King and Mr. Fossella. I 
would also like to acknowledge their concern with regard to this bill. 
We all remember the attack on New York City more than 6 years ago. We 
are grateful that we have not suffered another attack on the homeland. 
I think there is recognition among many Members of this body that New 
York City is a symbol of our financial strength.

                              {time}  1445

  It is not only that it is a symbol; it is a gateway to our country 
for many immigrants and it quite naturally was on September 11, and 
could be, again, chief among the targets. So I would say to Mr. 
Ackerman, I appreciate your passion and your participation, and we are 
dealing with a compromise here.
  In the absence of further attacks, it would be easy to forget the 
chaos and the economic disruption that followed in the wake of 9/11 
and, more importantly, the loss of life that we all witnessed in a very 
personal way, but New York City's residents in an even more personal 
and deadly experience for them.
  In 2002, it was fresh in our minds, and we created TRIA, which did 
help to settle the markets and made possible the strong economic 
recovery that followed, and TRIA was and remains a central element of 
our commitment to the American people to do all that we can to ensure 
the stability of our economy in the event the unthinkable happens 
again.
  In a moment I am going to call on Mr. King, the gentleman from New 
York, who worked very hard on this bill. Terrorist acts are aimed at 
our Nation as a whole. The resulting damage and suffering inevitably 
fall on a relative few of our communities and citizens. We know that 
New York City is a primary target of these terrorists. And although I 
am an ardent supporter of free markets, I believe it is entirely 
appropriate for our government to minimize economic fallout and 
disruption sure to arise from any new attack. Terrorism is a relatively 
new phenomenon in America, and we are dealing with terrorist 
organizations which have both the intent and the potential to deliver 
deadly strikes against our homeland.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the chairman of the full committee 5 
minutes, Mr. Frank, whose extraordinary leadership has kept this issue 
alive.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the indulgence of my 
colleagues.
  I am glad that we will finally be acting on this. I share the 
frustration of my friend from New York and, indeed, all of my friends 
from New York and elsewhere, Connecticut, who wanted a more 
comprehensive bill. There is a consolation. I think 1 year or so ago 
there were people who thought even a 7-year extension was much too much 
and were talking about phasing this out. I am glad that we are moving 
forward. I want to address those who say, well, this was supposed to be 
a temporary program until the market could take over. I never believed 
that. I always wanted this to be a government program.
  I am a believer in the market; I believe almost all of us are. I 
understand how the market principle works in insurance. If you have a 
greater risk, you pay more; your premiums go up. We do that because we 
want to discourage people from taking certain risks, or at least make 
them pay the full cost. We also want to give them an incentive to 
diminish the risk. Those principles don't apply to terrorism.
  I don't want a situation to exist whereby, if you build a large 
building, because that is essentially what we are talking about here; 
people can't build large buildings without bank loans, and they can't 
get bank loans without insurance. I don't want the cost to go up in any 
particular part of this country because murderous, vicious thugs want 
to do this country ill.

[[Page 35945]]

  I don't believe that those who have been the victims of these kinds 
of terrorism ought to bear that cost. That is national defense. No more 
should any one State have to pay to protect itself against an invasion. 
We should have a national defense system that includes saying, we will 
hold you harmless against these murderous attacks. And it is, of 
course, because there is very little you can do to protect yourself 
against this. What do they do, put anti-aircraft guns on the roof? This 
is not a case where the market is failing. It is a case where national 
purpose is what is relevant, not the market.
  Now, the other point to make is that I do regret the breakdown in the 
United States Senate of the legislative process. And, in particular, 
and I believe that the chairman of the banking committee, the Senator 
from Connecticut, wanted to move on this, but we were told, partly I 
think they made a mistake by waiting too long, but then they were told 
it had to be done unanimously. And we were told that the senior 
Republican on the committee, the Senator from Alabama, simply refused 
to deal with this.
  Had this been up in the Senate and had the Senate voted ``no'' to 
nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological coverage, had the 
Senate voted ``no'' to group life and the very important provision of 
our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), to 
protect people against discrimination if they wanted to travel to 
Israel or elsewhere; if the Senate had voted against the reset 
mechanism, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said, well, 
that is the way it works. But to have the opposition of the senior 
Republican mean that no debate or discussion, much less a vote, could 
take place is a breakdown of the system.
  We are in a position where something at this point is better than 
nothing. But I want to say, as chairman of the Committee on Financial 
Services, we will begin early next year to try to get this back on the 
Senate agenda, and I will be urging my Senate colleagues not to put 
themselves in a position where this kind of one-person veto can 
prevent, not an outcome, none of us have the right to an outcome, but 
the American people ought to have a right to debate and discussion.
  Now, there is a problem, Mr. Speaker, that I acknowledge, and it is a 
problem that those of us who have been frustrated by this, really, I 
mentioned the Senator from Alabama. I disagree with his obstruction. 
But let's put the blame where it belongs also, on James Madison. We had 
an election last year, and we elected a new House and we elected one-
third of the Senate, and that is part of the problem. We have a House 
that responded to the election of 2006. We have at this point a House 
and a Senate each responding to somewhat different electoral impulses. 
We are here as a result of the election of 2006, every single one of 
us. Or subsequent special elections, sadly, in some cases.
  In the Senate, two-thirds of that Senate was elected in 2002 and 
2004. That is the disjunction. And it is not personal in general, it is 
electoral, and it is a frustration that cannot be overcome easily. But 
it does make me determined, as I go into the second year of this 
session, to pay more attention to that need. And we will be doing 
everything we can again. Again, we cannot guarantee outcome in the 
Senate or anywhere else, but the American people ought to be able to 
get the benefit of votes and debate.
  So this is a recognition that terrorism insurance, in my judgment, 
should be here as long as terrorism is here. It is not a case of 
waiting for the market. It is a case of stepping up, as we should, for 
national defense purposes. And we will work, and I will be following 
the lead of my colleague from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and others as we 
try to make this bill an even better bill, reflecting what it was in 
the House.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia, a member of our leadership team, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, and I too thank the gentleman and 
salute both sides of the aisle in bringing this bill to the floor. And 
I do rise in support of this bill.
  I think, if one thing was clear on 9/11, we saw the unthinkable come 
to reality. And going forward, given the context of this bill, I don't 
think there is any way that we can quantify the risk posed by the 
terrorists in terms of coming up with, God forbid, their next scheme of 
attack on this country. That is why this bill is so important. Because, 
in addition to providing a security backstop, this legislation will 
encourage urban development and will bolster economic growth.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, given the challenges and complexities in a 
post-9/11 world, we are compelled to consider and pass this 
legislation, and I would again urge its passage.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and I would like to 
acknowledge to him, publicly, and to the New York delegation that most 
of us in America probably do not realize the contribution and the 
special nature of the City of New York and its contributions, both 
financially and I think socially, to the United States. To many around 
the world, it does represent our leading city and is truly a target. 
When they target New York City, they target all of us.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama 
for yielding. And let me at the outset thank him for the courtesy that 
he has shown me throughout this process. There were several differences 
that he and I had regarding what the exact nature of the legislation 
should be, but that never in any way interfered with either our 
professional or personal relationship. And I want to thank him for 
that, for his patience, and for the effort he has put in to bring about 
this final product.
  I also want to thank Chairman Frank for, again, being totally 
bipartisan in trying to move this legislation forward and for always 
having an open door, and certainly, in my own case, allowing me to be 
part of the process from the start. Mr. Ackerman has been a stalwart 
fighter in this issue. And let me identify with certainly the points 
that Mr. Ackerman was making on this issue.
  Also, let me thank Adam Paulson on my staff for putting in an extreme 
amount of time on this, on an issue that can be very mind-bending at 
times and at the same time is extremely, extremely vital for the 
rebuilding not just of New York City but for the protection of our 
entire Nation.
  So let me say at the outset I support the legislation, and I will 
vote for it. I am glad that it is moving forward. I am glad we have the 
7-year extension. It is certainly far better than what was being spoken 
of last year, which was either a phasing out all together or perhaps a 
2-year extension.
  Having said that, I agree with Mr. Ackerman that I wish this were for 
a 15-year term rather than 7, and I wish that the reset provision had 
not been taken out by the Senate. The 15-year provision in particular I 
fought for in the committee. It was a hard-fought battle. The vote was 
39-30, but everything was on the table. We had the vote. If we had lost 
it, we would have lost it; but the fact is, we won it. And when the 
bill itself came to the House floor, it passed by an overwhelming vote.
  I am not trying to impose our rules on theirs, but I really wish on 
an issue of this magnitude the Senate would have allowed that full 
breadth of democracy to play itself out to allow the people to be heard 
on this issue. Because, as Mr. Ackerman said, this is not a New York 
issue. It is an American issue; it is a national issue. It is an issue 
of national security and homeland security. And by making this 7 years 
rather than 15 years, by eliminating the reset provision, we have put 
New York in a weakened position, or certainly in not as strong a 
position as it should be. And by doing that, we are basically telling 
the terrorists that we will not give the same level of support that we 
should be giving. We are in effect allowing them to pick the playing 
field here. And we have to keep in mind that, yes, it was New York on 
September 11. It could be any other city or

[[Page 35946]]

State at any time in the future. And as the former chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, as the ranking member of the Homeland 
Security, Mr. Speaker, I do receive regular briefings. I know how real 
these threats are. I also know that, no matter what analysis is used, 
New York is clearly number one on the target list of the Islamic 
terrorists.
  So this legislation is vital, and it was so important that the other 
provisions, the reset and the 15-year time period, be included. They 
were not. Having said that, this is still significant that we are going 
forward today. And I would hope that we can revisit it in the future, 
but again it is important that we pass this before it expires on 
December 31. It is important, again, for the people of New York, but 
also for the people of America. And if the rebuilding is to go forward, 
it is going to be difficult because certain provisions have been 
eliminated, but, again, we will find a way to go forward.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Ackerman, all the 
members of the New York delegation and most of the members of the New 
Jersey and Connecticut delegations who stood together. Again, somewhat 
of a victory today, but let's work together in the future to have a 
total victory that we need, not as New Yorkers but as Americans.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Alabama has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I opposed both the earlier 
versions of this bill, of the TRIA bill, but I support this one. This 
bill is shorter in duration, and it requires more participation by the 
private sector. Effectively, in the bill the Federal Government is a 
backstop, a reinsurer facilitating and allowing a private market in 
terrorism risk insurance.
  Now, some that we have heard today say that in this bill the Federal 
Government doesn't do enough. I disagree. I think it is the goal of 
this bill, and the goal of this act should be, to facilitate a private 
market, not to stand in for or subsidize either insurance companies or 
property owners.

                              {time}  1500

  Then there are others who say the Federal Government shouldn't be 
involved at all in this issue. Again, I disagree. The Federal 
Government is involved. Does anybody really believe that if there were 
another terrorist attack on the United States that the Federal 
Government would not step in to help? Of course they would. The Federal 
Government always steps in when disasters are too big for State or 
local governments to handle. And there are similarly casualty events 
that are too big for the private sector to insure without Federal 
involvement. Terrorism is one of them.
  The best alternative is not to have the government sail in later to 
facilitate a private market so that property owners and people can 
insure up front and know where they will be at a minimum if there is a 
terrorist act. That is what I believe this bill does, and I support it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the chairman of the subcommittee in whose 
jurisdiction this legislation originated.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2761, now known 
as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.
  Terrorism insurance plays a critical role in protecting jobs and 
promoting our Nation's economic security. This bill will extend the 
terrorism insurance program for 7 years. This length is more than 
double the duration of the program to date. This length is also in line 
with my original position of a 6- to 8-year extension. Seven years is 
both long enough to provide greater certainty to the marketplace and 
short enough to encourage the private sector to develop our own 
solutions to the problems posed by conventional terrorism.
  Importantly, the legislation eliminates the distinction between 
foreign and domestic terrorism. Terrorism, regardless of its cause or 
perpetrator, aims to destabilize the government. This change, 
therefore, has much merit, and the terrorism insurance program will now 
protect against these losses.
  This Chamber has worked diligently and thoughtfully throughout this 
year on legislation to extend the terrorism insurance program. I am 
disappointed at the end of the day we are unable to incorporate some of 
the provisions that we initially agreed upon before. This final 
product, for example, fails to provide stronger coverage for nuclear, 
biological, chemical and radiological terrorism events. TRIA currently 
provides a backstop to insurers for these losses, but only if insurers 
cover the losses.
  Our Nation needs to better plan for a potentially devastating act by 
NBCR means by putting in place an explicit program rather than an 
implicit promise now or a chaotic response later. Instead of taking 
action, as I would have preferred, the legislation before us requires a 
study and a report on the availability and affordability of insurance 
coverage for these losses. We will have a study. I look forward to it. 
I hope when we receive that study we will then get to work on this 
proposition.
  Members of the Senate, however, have supported this provision, but it 
was not included in the final package, and that provision is the 
coverage for group life insurance. Nonetheless, I include this letter 
by four Members of the Senate, sent to the chairman and ranking member 
of the Senate Banking Committee, for the Record.

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2007.
     Chairman Christopher Dodd,
     Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Richard Shelby,
     Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Dodd and Shelby: The risk of terrorism is a 
     persistent and evolving reality that we will be required to 
     confront for many years to come. It light of this reality, we 
     greatly appreciate your efforts to pass an extension of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act before it expires.
       Congress created the TRIA program in the aftermath of 
     September 11th to ensure the viability of our nation's 
     property and casualty insurance market in the event of 
     another catastrophic terrorist attack. Without reinsurance 
     through TRIA, these carriers could be forced to restrict the 
     availability of the coverage they provide, or face losses 
     that could undermine their ability to honor their policy 
     commitments. Unfortunately, our economy remains vulnerable 
     due to the current exclusion of group life insurance from the 
     TRIA program.
       Nearly 170 million Americans receive nearly $8.3 trillion 
     in group life insurance protection through their employers. 
     For many, group life coverage is the only form of life 
     insurance they have. But because of the concentration of 
     employees at insured worksites, the companies which provide 
     group life coverage are especially vulnerable to the 
     catastrophic losses which could result from a terrorist 
     strike. In this respect, group life insurance resembles 
     workers' compensation insurance, which is a TRIA-covered 
     line.
       Before September 11th, group life insurers were able to 
     purchase catastrophe reinsurance to protect against such 
     losses. Since those attacks, the decreased availability and 
     increased costs have made private reinsurance more difficult 
     to obtain.
       We believe that the inclusion of group life coverage in 
     TRIA is prudent to ensure that life insurance benefits for 
     American workers are not jeopardized by a terrorist attack. 
     We understand and appreciate your efforts to secure a timely 
     extension of the TRIA program, and respectfully request your 
     support for inclusion of group life as the Senate resolves 
     its differences with the House on this crucial legislation.
       We thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Susan M. Collins.
     Olympia J. Snowe.
     Tim Johnson.
     Ben Nelson.
                                                    U.S. Senators.

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who worked very hard on this bill. 
And as many of us know, when Louisiana was hit by Hurricane Katrina, he 
worked very diligently on that. I think he also has played a yeoman's 
part in this process.

[[Page 35947]]


  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for the gracious yielding of time 
and do appreciate his good leadership in this area, as well as that of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and the entire New York delegation, which 
is understandably focused on the issue of how we best respond as a 
Federal Government to a tragic event of another terrorist assault on 
this great Nation.
  I rise today not to be critical of the product but to say that we 
have moved far in our considerations. In the first response after 9/11, 
the first terrorism risk reinsurance proposal was only 3 years in 
duration, which was then extended for an additional 2-year term, 
without the inclusion of group life, NBCR, and some of the other 
modifications now suggested as being appropriate.
  I would point out that during that 5- to 6-year period after 9/11, 
contracts were entered into, loans were made by financial institutions 
and construction proceeded, only to make the point that having an 
absolute lifelong guarantee by the Federal taxpayer with any risk 
associated with a terrorist attack is not necessarily inherently a 
standard of operation which this Congress should consider.
  Rather, as we go forward, as the chairman has indicated in the 
hearings of next year, we should strongly consider enabling companies 
to build up internal reserves specifically to addressing and responding 
to these types of horrific acts, without accounting consequence or tax 
liabilities, and enable them to build up appropriate reserves in their 
eye to meet the insured losses which they potentially could share.
  There are alternatives to the plan currently in place, and we should 
reengage and have discussions on all of those alternatives. Some might 
find my position on this matter unusual, but I would say in facing the 
losses that we struggle with and continue to struggle with in the Gulf 
States, Louisiana and Mississippi alike, post Katrina and Rita, I still 
don't believe we can ask the taxpayers of this great country to pay off 
all of our losses in the event of a higher loss.
  We should build higher standards and adjust rates in accordance with 
the risks identified, and we should be smart in the enterprise, 
enabling market forces to function. The same should be said with 
terrorism risk.
  We should do all we can before we open taxpayers' checkbooks and 
write those big checks out when market function should be the first and 
appropriate response to any loss in the insurance world. So I stand in 
defense of the product, and I believe the 7-year term is more than 
adequate and echo the comments of my chairman on capital markets. We 
need to be careful before we move, and we certainly need to understand 
before we act.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked long, hard, and well on this 
issue.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank my colleague for his work on this 
bill.
  The bill we are moving forward today is necessary, significant, and 
timely. There are few issues that are more important to our Nation's 
economy than a stable, long-term Federal support system for our 
terrorism risk insurance.
  I am disappointed that this final TRIA bill omits key elements of our 
stronger House legislation, but this is a solid compromise law that 
will help stabilize the market and ensure the ongoing availability of 
affordable terrorism risk insurance.
  TRIA keeps Americans working, even in the face of terrorist threats. 
It is a powerful statement of our determination to keep our markets 
open, our cities vibrant, and our productivity strong.
  What markets hate most is uncertainty. This longer term bill will 
allow our economy to grow while protecting our economic security, which 
is an important part of our homeland security and our national defense.
  I am delighted to see this bill on the floor. I thank Chairman Frank, 
the New York delegation, Ranking Member Bachus and many, many others 
for their support of this important legislation.
  By renewing TIRA with a long-term extension we stand strong in our 
resolve not to allow terrorists to destroy our economy and our way of 
life.
  That requires a Federal commitment to provide a backstop and cut off 
the tail of an otherwise almost infinite risk curve so that the private 
sector can plan and put in place a framework of insurance that protects 
all of us.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of many of my House 
colleagues, the New York delegation, concerning certain aspects of this 
bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is the bill the Senate sent back 
over. I believe, despite the circumstances in which we find ourselves, 
it is a reasonable measure. I believe it will ensure the continued 
vitality of our commercial insurance markets as they operate under the 
threat of global terrorism. I believe it is fiscally responsible.
  Many on my side would have preferred a 3-year bill, as the gentleman 
from Louisiana talked about. Originally, it was a 3-year bill. I 
believe the New York delegation can take satisfaction from the fact 
that it was a 7-year extension and that it does cover domestic acts of 
terrorism. I applaud them for that.
  But I think, on the other hand, it does offer limits and improves 
taxpayer protections and prevents further intrusions by the government 
into a market-based system. For that, I thank many of my colleagues on 
my side, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Campbell and others, who voiced their 
concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the hard work and the willingness of the 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to work 
with Members on both sides of the aisle and to bring the bill here 
today before the House. He faced a hard decision. He has worked hard on 
this. He made, I think, a very passionate and, I think, in many 
respects, reasoned defense of his position.
  We do know going forward that we need to pay particular attention, if 
the terrorists continue to threaten our largest city and target it, 
that we are fully supportive of the people of New York City.
  I thank all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who 
worked on TRIA for a long time. Whatever else has happened, we have 
come together today. It may have been an emotional journey, but we are 
going to pass legislation that I believe will be effective, and I urge 
adoption of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I will surrender any time I have left to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to 
redistribute the wealth and attribute no social meaning to that, but 
those of us who are in need of the time are deeply appreciative, and we 
thank you for your cooperation.
  May I inquire of the Speaker how much time indeed is left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New York has 
2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Alabama just yielded 5 
minutes to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the majority 
caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks 
of Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Frank, Mr. Bachus, Mr. King, and all those who 
have spoken so eloquently on this floor.
  Mr. Frank made two points; one essentially about the need for this 
legislation and the process we must go through. We all understand, for 
the economy to grow, banks need to make loans. In order for banks to 
make loans, they have to have insurance.
  What this provides, as Mr. King says, is a security backstop for the 
Nation, not only in New York City but all across this great country of 
ours.
  Mr. Frank made a second point as well about the process here, quoting

[[Page 35948]]

Madison as being the problem here with our colleagues on the other 
side. I want to commend Senator Dodd for his willingness to go forward, 
and also Mr. Ackerman for pointing out the need for the reset 
provision, 15 years being better than 7, and the importance of 
including group insurance as well. These were all vitally important to 
the success and ongoing future of this Nation and the great City of New 
York.
  So I commend my colleagues, each and every one of them on the 
Committee on Financial Services, and thank them for this compromise 
piece of legislation that we know will go much further in the next 
session.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the vice chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished county leader of Queen's 
County who has fought so long and passionately on this issue.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Queens, New York, as well. I 
thank all of those who have worked so hard on this particular issue and 
this bill before us today.
  I wish, quite frankly, that the discussion and focus wasn't on the 
New York delegation. I wish I could stand here today and I didn't have 
the burden of the New York State and New York City delegation to craft 
and help make this legislation better legislation.
  And at the same time, I don't wish to transpose that burden upon the 
delegation from Chicago, Illinois, or Los Angeles, California, or 
Birmingham, Alabama. I wish not to transpose it to anybody else. We 
accept that responsibility. We accept it because we are the financial 
capital of the world, and the focus of so much of the attention and 
hate of the world, that New York has become that focus, we recognize 
our place here in the Congress.
  Having said that, I will note that this bill is better than what the 
White House proposed, which was no advancement, no extension of TRIA. 
The President's working group as well as the GAO report said no 
extension. We got a 7-year extension. I count our blessings. The best 
should not be the enemy of the good.
  But having said that, I think the rejection of a reset provision is a 
mistake.

                              {time}  1515

  And we will be back here, we will be back because we need to do this. 
We ought not leave a hole in the ground in Manhattan as a monument to 
Osama bin Laden. Six years out, and this is not the only reason why 
there hasn't been a redevelopment in Lower Manhattan. But 6 years out 
we still have not seen the development of the Freedom Towers.
  There is a message here, and the message ought not to be to our 
enemies that if you strike us we will cower, we will not redevelop. 
That's the message that's going out right now. And we will have an 
opportunity to change that, and I hope that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle understand this is not a New York City issue. This is 
not a New York issue, but an American issue; and to move forward we 
have to work together to see that come to fruition.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Mr. Bachus for the extraordinary 
cooperation between the majority and the minority on this particular 
issue. He led his caucus, along with Mr. Baker, in crafting what was a 
very open process led by the distinguished chairman, Mr. Frank, of the 
full committee, where everybody's voice was heard; everybody's opinion 
was allowed to be aired. We fought it out. Not everybody won every 
fight, but it was an extraordinary effort in goodwill. And the efforts 
of the Financial Services Committee should be something that set an 
example for the rest of the committees in the Congress, especially on 
this particular issue, everybody exercising goodwill and good judgment.
  Let me thank my staff especially Steve Boms, who, unfortunately, 
became one of our Nation's leading experts on terrorism risk insurance.
  Much has been said about the New York delegation, because, I think, 
of our high profile on this issue. But allow me to thank our colleagues 
and offer this: do not feel sorry for us. We do not make this case for 
your pity, because we think that our city, we think that our 
communities, we think that our State and our neighbors acted in an 
exemplary fashion at a moment of extraordinary terror and pressure, not 
just to us but to the entire Nation and to the world. What we faced was 
absolutely extraordinary, and we are so proud to be New Yorkers, and we 
make this fight not because of what we suffered as a city and a State, 
but because we already know the pain and the problems that each and 
every one of our colleagues and other communities across this country 
might face in the event of a terrorist attack.
  Much has been said of the courage of New York. We do not end this 
fight here because this fight is not for us.
  First, to those who have expressed concern about the cost of money as 
taxpayer money, let me say that the way this has been added up by CBO, 
the taxpayers would actually gain $200 million if there were a 
terrorist attack because of the scoring. Do this because it's the right 
thing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be given another minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Do this because it's the right thing to do, not because of New York. 
Because your community could be next, and it could be next yet again. 
That's what the reset is for.
  We pass this today to provide our country with ongoing insurance so 
that major development can continue to take place, not to allow the 
terrorists to dictate when and where and how construction might take 
place in America.
  Pass this, vote for this stripped-down version, provide this 
protection at least as a minimum for the next 7 years; and I guarantee 
we will all be back here next year to fight more and again and harder 
to include those provisions that will protect us all.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many 
insurance companies excluded terrorism events from their insurance 
policies, leaving businesses vulnerable to the threat of future 
terrorist attacks. In response, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act, TRIA, in 2002 and extended it in 2005 to create a 
federal backstop to protect against terrorism related losses.
  As a result, TRIA has helped make terrorism insurance available and 
affordable to businesses, particularly those in our major urban areas. 
If TRIA were allowed to expire at the end of this month, many major 
development projects across the country would come to a halt, putting 
many jobs and economic development opportunities at risk.
  Although I am disappointed that the stronger House version of this 
legislation did not get enacted, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
2761 so that this important program will continue for years to come.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, In 2002, we enacted the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in an attempt to stabilize the economy 
following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and to protect 
against economic catastrophe should another attack occur. This 
important program is set to expire at the end of the year, and it is 
essential that we reauthorize TRIA.
  The legislation before us is not the strong bill we passed in 
September or the compromise we passed last week, and it is not a 
perfect bill. It extends TRIA by only 7 years and does not include the 
strong new provisions that were included in the other bills we passed. 
However, this legislation does do one vital thing: It works to ensure 
the stability of our economy should another national crisis occur. For 
this very important reason, I support this legislation today but hope 
we can pass a stronger bill in the future.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2761.

[[Page 35949]]

  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BACHUS. 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 suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2761 will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending 
the rules and passing S. 2271 and suspending the rules and adopting 
House Resolution 542.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 360, 
nays 53, not voting 19, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1178]

                               YEAS--360

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--53

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Costello
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Butterfield
     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Miller, Gary
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Thompson (CA)
     Udall (NM)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1543

  Messrs. KINGSTON, WESTMORELAND, YOUNG of Alaska, BURTON of Indiana, 
MILLER of Florida, WAMP, BURGESS, INGLIS of South Carolina, DAVID DAVIS 
of Tennessee, and JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. McDERMOTT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________