Providing for consideration of 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; providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; and providing for proceedings during the period from December 12, 2014, through January 3, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 775 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is considering a rule for consideration of a bill to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, or a program known as TRIA. Without this bill, TRIA is set to expire on December 31, meaning that the House and the Senate must now act or the program will end at the end of this year.

Since TRIA was signed into law in 2002, it has served as an effective means of dealing with the problem of availability of terrorism insurance. TRIA has enabled the private insurance market to provide an essential type of coverage that otherwise may not exist.

However, like many other government programs, TRIA needs to be looked at and reformed in order to serve its original purpose, and that is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Vice Chairman Randy Neugebauer of the Financial Services Committee, S. 2244 provides for many of those necessary reforms that will protect taxpayers, promote market stability, and provide for economic security for the American people, all in one, brand-new package.

What we are doing here today is important and essential for many people, but it is here to maintain the stability of a marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take us back to 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. None of us will ever forget where we were when we first heard and saw of the terrorist attacks that attacked our homeland in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. The accompanying stories of heroism and the deeds by Americans and others were simply heroism at its finest at a time of attack on this country.

What some might not remember, though, is the remarkable amount of economic uncertainty and damage that was caused to America and in the following weeks and months after 9/11. While we mourned the loss of many loved ones, our economy was shaken to its core.

Those attacks created and caused $32.5 billion in losses, approximately $20 billion of which were incurred by insurance companies. A second similar attack would have left the U.S. insurance economy insolvent, which in turn, being insolvent, would have undermined our entire economic structure of the free enterprise system. That is why TRIA was pressed into law, to provide a Federal backstop to avoid an immediate terrorism risk insurance crisis.

Sadly, terrorism has continued to be an ongoing threat to our Nation and, for the foreseeable future, I think that we need to remain vigilant and prepared for those consequences. So the cost of terrorism still looms large, and acts of terrorism are uninsurable risks that could sink our insurance markets without this new, updated program.

In this way, TRIA is a vital economic piece of our Nation's comprehensive security strategy because it allows for the American economy to recover more quickly in the event of an attack. I believe it does more than that. I believe it puts in place building blocks for us to understand responsibility, economic security, and how we would build back based upon rule of law and understanding about what would happen at a time of chaos.

TRIA provides certainty, certainty to our marketplace, by giving policyholders and insurers the tools that they need to understand and to develop a market-based solution to the economic threat that could be posed by terrorism. It gives policyholders and insurance providers the opportunity to model risk and to diversify their exposure with an understanding of what the law would provide.

I am encouraged by the reforms championed by, yesterday, up in the Rules Committee, Chairman Jeb Hensarling from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, who has placed many of these new items directly into the bill as a result of hard negotiation.

These are called reforms, Mr. Speaker, and three reforms stand out to me as being particularly important.

First, section 102. It would decrease the Federal share of losses under the program by 1 percentage point annually until it equals 80 percent. That means that the Federal taxpayers will be responsible for less of the initial costs incurred after a terrorist attack than under the current law.

Second, section 103. 103 would increase the program trigger to $200 million in $20 million increments over 5 years. This means that TRIA would not kick in, the government program would not kick in until there was $200 million in insurable losses following an attack, ensuring that the government would not only get involved if an attack had a massive impact, but we would know the rules ahead of time.

Third, section 104. Section 104 would increase the amount of Federal assistance that the Treasury Secretary must recoup from the insurance industry following a certified act of terrorism. This means that Federal taxpayers are getting, once again, a better and well-understood deal with insurers than they would have gotten before this important reform.

Finally, S. 2244 would provide a much-needed change to Dodd-Frank. It is a piece of legislation that was passed a few years ago that is causing chaos in the marketplace: higher cost, uncertainty, and overwhelming regulation by the Federal Government. Federal regulators have interpreted parts of Dodd-Frank to apply to nonfinancial companies who are called ``end users.''

These end users are people who were never expected to become subject to the requirements of Dodd-Frank, such as ranchers, farmers, and small business owners. This Dodd-Frank fix would clarify that true derivatives end users are exempt from the margin requirements applied by Dodd-Frank to derivatives contracts. With this reform, end users will be able to use derivatives to hedge risks, which allows them to maintain low and stable prices for consumers. That, in turn, frees up capital that can be used to create brand-new jobs, current jobs, and to grow our free enterprise system in America.

This fix is not particularly controversial. In fact, the current policy of requiring nonfinancial companies to adhere to the same margin requirements as financial companies was not intended when the original bill passed.

To fix this problem, earlier in this Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 634. Yes, I voted for it, along with 410 other Members of this body, in a bill presented by and authored by Congressman Michael Grimm of New York, 411-12, overwhelming, broad bipartisan consensus as we looked at the impact of that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the young chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling, for his hard work. I also applaud the vice chairman of the committee, Randy Neugebauer from Lubbock, Texas, who has worked very hard on this reauthorization of TRIA. It is essentially his bill. It came out of his subcommittee, and he has done yeoman's work to make sure that we understand what the deal is through law, how to protect taxpayers, what the government role is, and it means that we can move forward from here with the certainty that American taxpayers and the industry have a well-understood deal.

I am also glad, though, that this is good for small business; it is good for farmers; it is good for ranchers; it is good for Members of Congress, 411 of us that had voted for pieces of this bill before today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I note that today we have a speaker for our friends, the Democrats, as well as the vice chairman of the Committee on Financial Services who are here, really, I believe, to give this body a real shot in the arm about how important this legislation is. I think about what a great job the process has gone through and achieved.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). Then I want to bring him back as he wants to talk a little bit more, but we want to make sure that we get to our colleague from New York before it takes too much time.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Exactly what the gentlewoman speaks about was part of the long discussion that we had in the Rules Committee yesterday. The gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Chairman Hensarling, very clearly went through-- piece, by piece, by piece--the things which the Senate had added which were extraneous to TRIA and that were in their bill that they passed. Likewise, the chairman outlined what he was for. He described a bill that got 411 votes in this body.

One thing was a very pleasant surprise, and I thought it was very wisely done by the Secretary of the Treasury. I would like to read what Secretary Jacob Lew said in a letter that was addressed on December 7, just this week, to the Honorable Charles E. Schumer. Chuck Schumer is the leader of this TRIA bill in the Senate.

He said:

Dear Senator Schumer, I want to thank you for your

leadership on extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and

its program. As you know well, TRIA is critical to our

economic and national security. Terrorism insurance is

necessary for a broad range of economic activities in areas

across the country and would be prohibitively expensive or

unavailable in the absence of the program.

There is clear bipartisan support in both the Senate and

the House to enact a long-term extension while making reforms

to further reduce taxpayer exposure. Time is running short to

head off an unnecessary, unprecedented, and disruptive lapse

of the program, which is scheduled to expire in just a few

weeks.

Given the economic necessity and national security

implications of this legislation, TRIA's reauthorization

should not be delayed due to disagreements over entirely

unrelated financial regulatory issues. I appreciate the hard

work you and your bipartisan colleagues are doing to

reauthorize a long-term extension of the TRIA.

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

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, December 7, 2014.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Schumer: I write to thank you for your

leadership on extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act

(TRIA) and its Program. As you know well, TRIA is critical to

our economic and national security. Terrorism insurance is

necessary for a broad range of economic activities in areas

across the country, and would be prohibitively expensive or

unavailable in the absence of the Program.

There is clear bipartisan support in both the Senate and

the House to enact a long-term extension while making reforms

to further reduce taxpayer exposure. Time is running short to

head off an unnecessary, unprecedented, and disruptive lapse

of the Program, which is scheduled to expire in a few weeks.

Given the economic necessity and national security

implications of this legislation, TRIA's reauthorization

should not be delayed due to disagreements over entirely

unrelated financial regulatory issues. I appreciate the hard

work you and your bipartisan colleagues are doing to

reauthorize a long-term extension of the TRIA.

Sincerely,

Jacob J. Lew.

Mr. Speaker, this is from the Secretary of the Treasury, who is asking Mr. Schumer, please, let's work to get this done because it makes sense.

I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the vice chairman of the committee, who can further delve into the issues about how important this measure is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida not only for the effort that we have had today but also at the Rules Committee yesterday, where the committee heard really, really great points, perhaps on both sides, but great points about how important this legislation is not only to the country but to the stability of the marketplace and the ability to keep and grow jobs.

I also heard the gentleman very clearly talk about his displeasure of having a number of closed rules. And I would just thank the gentleman for reminding me, as chairman of the committee, and would respond back that almost every single week we were in session, we put into play more amendments for Democrats than Harry Reid did in 6 years for any Republican in the United States Senate. And I have tried to make sure that what I do is based upon some bit of fairness.

But the facts of the case are, the last time this TRIA bill was on the floor, then-Chairman Barney Frank asked for and received a closed rule, so he did the same thing in 2007. Republicans have also, under these processes, done the same thing, except that in 2005 and 2007, they were done on suspension, meaning that we had about 10 minutes to talk about the effort.

Today what we have tried to do is to have a full debate in the Rules Committee. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), among others, was allowed as much time as anybody wanted to discuss the ideas and fully vet the views of not only the ranking member and the gentlewoman from New York but also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) to explain to the Rules Committee that most Members are not aware of all the arguments, the real need to make sure that TRIA was done well, and it was better to do it well. And certainly putting a closed rule means we can get through things in these remaining days. Good legislation--this bill is a 411-vote piece of legislation.

You heard from Chairman Neugebauer from Lubbock, Texas--really, the architect of much of this legislation and the person who has the authority and the responsibility to the subcommittee--who worked with Chairman Hensarling to develop leading-edge ideas that they could feel free to bring to this body and support.

So I think it is just critical that we are here today. We are going to get our work done. It is really noncontroversial, except if we just want to roll over and second-guess what the Senate wants to do. They had their shot at it, and they added some ``extraneous measures,'' none that had been passed with 90-plus percent of their body. We are going to work through this, and it is going to be doing the right thing for the right reason.

As I have said, I think it is important that we know why we are here, what we are doing. We have talked about the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary Lew, writing a letter to Chuck Schumer, the lead in the Senate, saying, Hey, listen, let's get this thing done. It is so important.

Chairman Neugebauer, Chairman Hensarling, the just-in-time arrival of a bill, the Rules Committee, a long debate, a long discussion--there is plenty of time to debate on the floor today. Any Member that wanted to could show up here. There is just not a lot to be upset about. It is just really a good mark of the fine work that the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Hensarling, have done.

So it was really a pretty interesting meeting yesterday. I got to learn a lot. And the members of the Rules Committee said, this is the right thing to do. Let's not get in the way. It is important to the country.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say that I think the Secretary is right. I think the chairman of the committee is right. I think the vice chairman of the committee is right. I think many of the people who came up to the Rules Committee yesterday were right.

This is a great piece of legislation. This package will provide a long-term extension to TRIA. It is going to make reforms to protect taxpayers. It is going to make sure the industry understands what it is. It is a bipartisan fix. It is going to include a bill with 411 votes out of this body. I think it is a darn good deal, and I am delighted to do that.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the preliminary estimate of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was available at the time Rules Committee Report 113-654 was prepared, estimated that the legislation would reduce the deficit by $457 million over 10 years. The final table provided by CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce the deficit by $456 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

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

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. 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said to you when I first got up, I said to you I wanted to shine light on the bill.

And I have done that.

Before I finish my remarks on this bill, I will tell you what my position is.

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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the answer.

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----

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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.

Does the gentlewoman oppose or support?

It is obvious the gentlelady refuses to answer the question.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the incoming chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield on that one point?

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.

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.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for allowing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation to our country. We have heard a little bit of the history that, after 9/11, the insurance industry took a pretty substantial hit. Their reserves were drained to pay out on these claims. As they were looking at writing new business, they were very concerned about what the future held because America had never experienced that kind of disaster in the past, so they were trying to figure out how to underwrite those in the future. TRIA was put into place temporarily to be a backstop for the industry for them to get back on their feet. They have gotten back on their feet, and their reserves are at all-time highs, and they have had a number of years now to model this risk.

The reason it was originally important to do that was, basically, in order to continue the construction projects or the number of projects around the country, the insurance industry needed some assurance that they wouldn't have to bear that kind of event again.

When we began to look at this process when we knew this was going to expire at the end of this year, we knew that there were kind of three options out there. One was to let the program expire as it was meant to be a temporary program. There were some Members who wanted to do that, and some Members did not. Others wanted to just extend the program the way it was. Under the Bush administration, though, we began a process to begin to reform this and to begin to transition more and more of the risk away from the taxpayers and back to the insurance companies. Unfortunately, when it was last reauthorized, none of those reforms were built into it. Even the President of the United States says that TRIA needs to be reformed, and he has offered up, for example, to change the trigger levels.

One of the things we have done with this bill is we didn't really change the overall structure of TRIA. We could have written a whole new terrorism insurance program. We didn't think that was good for the market. The market had already begun to adapt to the current framework, so we felt, if we worked within the existing framework--changing some of the triggers and some of the knobs on this particular program--that that would begin to allow the industry to take on more of the risk and for the taxpayers to take less of that risk. I think we have accomplished that with this bill.

As has been pointed out, I think a lot of people, quite honestly, don't know a lot about TRIA. One of the things is that the insurance industry takes the first losses under this program. So, if there were a loss today, as the gentleman mentioned, 20 percent of the previous year's premiums, which, if industrywide, would be about $40 billion today, would go directly to the insurance companies. Should those losses exceed that--should we have another catastrophic event--then what would happen is that the taxpayers and the insurance industry would begin to share those expenses with a provision now. We have strengthened that in this bill. I think one of the more important parts of it is that the taxpayers would get their money back and would get some return on their money. I think we are headed in a good direction.

I would respond to the point that some extraneous things were put in this bill. When it came over from the Senate, it came over with an extraneous item in it as well, and that was to change the structure of future Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

They also sent over a program which, quite honestly, I agree with, which is something that is in this bill, of allowing your local insurance agent--if he is licensed in or she is licensed in the State one resides in, to do business in other States. None of the policy that is in this bill is new policy. This is policy that this body has voted on in the past. With that, I think we have got a good bill.

I see my good friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney) over there, and I am anxious to hear her thoughts on that because this is an issue that she has been very interested in.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point that we want to continue making here is that when we use the existing framework, the objective here was to give certainty to the industry--both the insurance industry and to the people that the insurance industry is insuring--so that over the next 6 years, they will know what the policy is. But at the same time, we are beginning to transition some of these reforms that hopefully will be a trend for future reauthorizations, should they be necessary. And let me emphasize that: should they be necessary.

One of the things that we do know is that the industry is doing a better job of being able to model what the potential risks are. There is some mitigation going on to make sure that new structures, new facilities take into account preventing the potential for certain types of attacks. So we want to encourage that kind of behavior. But it doesn't encourage that kind of behavior if there isn't some economic incentive. There is no economic incentive if the taxpayers keep having to pick up the bills on a number of these programs.

I am very pleased with the reforms that are built into this. I think we bring the market certainty in that we didn't materially change the program and that we are doing a long-term reauthorization.

I think the interesting thing is--and I think we can make the point-- there is really not anything controversial in this bill. Now, there are some people who don't like the fact that there have been some things included in it. But, quite honestly, we are taking up a Senate bill that was sent over to us with extraneous policy built into it. It is policy that, quite honestly, some of us agree with, particularly the NARAB. And why that NARAB provision, NARAB II, is important, as I said earlier, is because your local insurance agent now can do business in adjoining States without having to go take a license test in each individual State. It doesn't preempt the States' ability to regulate the insurance activity in that State but actually streamlines it and basically is a small business bill.

The other issue that has been talked about is this Business Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Act. That is an important piece of legislation because a lot of our small businesses are out there. They are trying to raise capital. They are trying to create jobs. And there are certain risks that they just don't want to take or they feel like it is in the best interest of their business to be able to help someone risk-share that with. And many of the products that they buy to share that risk, the risk factor of doing business with that company is already priced into that transaction.

But we have an overinterpretation here now, where not only are those businesses paying a risk premium but they are also having to put up additional collateral. So this begins to keep the working collateral for the company so that they can invest in new equipment and in things that can help create new jobs in this country.

I want to talk about the fact that 411 people, including the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), voted for this piece of legislation. So this is not something that we are trying to sneak in on anybody. This is something that was voted on, in this House, by 411 votes.

And Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, the primary authors of the Dodd-Frank bill, both said that this was never an intention of Dodd-Frank and have spoken in favor of some kind of reform to that in the future.

So this is a good piece of legislation, and I am a little concerned that my colleagues think that it is in jeopardy. Well, the only reason it would be in jeopardy is if our colleagues over on the other side of the building decide, for some reason, that they don't want to reauthorize TRIA. That is certainly a decision that they would be making on their own. But, again, nothing in this bill is policy that has not been considered by this body in the past.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. We need to move this forward. Time is running short, and the marketplace needs that certainty. I am confident that we will pass this bill in the House today, and we are going to encourage our folks over in the Senate to ratify that. We hope the President of the United States will help bring market certainty to the American industry in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2244 reauthorizes, through December 31, 2020, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, also known as TRIA.

This much-needed reauthorization ensures that the program will continue to protect our Nation's taxpayers in the event of severe loss from an act of terror, while providing the security and stability necessary for our Nation's businesses to grow and invest.

TRIA was a direct response by the Federal Government to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting disruptions from that act of terrorism to coverage under commercial policies in the marketplace.

Since 2002, it has provided companies with affordable access to terrorism insurance coverage, while serving as a backstop for insurers against the most severe terrorism-related losses.

Currently, in order to receive payment for claims, insurance companies must pay a deductible equivalent to 20 percent of the previous year's direct earned premium for covered commercial lines.

Furthermore, the insured loss must be at least $100 million before the Federal Government will cover 85 percent of each company's losses up to $100 billion, with the other 15 percent of losses the obligation of insurers.

In addition to extending TRIA by 6 years, S. 2244 also makes a number of important changes to the program. Gradually, as Mr. Sessions explained, it will increase the program's threshold from $100 million to $200 million as well as slightly increase the amount the government recoups from private insurers up to 140 percent. Moreover, this legislation decreases the government's share of losses from 85 to 80 percent.

I am pleased to share that the final measure before us today does not include a contentious provision that would have bifurcated TRIA based on the type of terrorist attack, essentially treating nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks differently than conventional attacks. The reauthorization of TRIA is broadly supported by members of the business community and by many of my colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle.

However, while we can agree that TRIA is both necessary and must be reauthorized, S. 2244 also includes an unrelated provision that changes the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In particular, it exempts manufacturers, energy companies, and agricultural firms, known as end users, from having to put up collateral when they are trading derivatives.

With less than 2 legislative days left before funding for the Federal Government expires, I am troubled by the addition of this extraneous, nongermane derivative end user margin provision, which is a disappointing setback to the progress made during the last few weeks of bipartisan negotiations, and it risks the entire bill's defeat over in the other body.

These last-minute changes to Dodd-Frank were not previously agreed to, as they were included without informing Democrats after an agreement was reached on Monday night. After months of negotiations, my friends, the House Republicans, then announced an emergency Rules Committee meeting with only 2\1/2\-hours' notice.

Almost 3,000 lives were lost and an estimated $40 billion in insured losses sustained in the absolutely horrible attacks of 9/11. TRIA helped our Nation rebuild and recover, and it continues to protect the American people today. Such an important program deserves better than the partisan sleight of hand represented by the last-minute addition.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time, although I certainly don't intend to use that much time.

But I do wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, since there has been discussion regarding the changes that are extraneous to the base bill-- more specifically, the changes with reference to Dodd-Frank--and other changes that the Senate included in the measure that has now come to the House: my understanding is, and I stand to be corrected, that the changes that were made in the Senate were not measures having to do with Dodd-Frank. It appears that that is where the provisions are likely to come into play in that my friends on the other side included the Dodd-Frank language after the negotiations had been put forward.

The fact of the matter is, it does appear that several Members of the other body have indicated that they are opposed to it. I don't believe that means that they are opposed to TRIA, but I do believe it means that they are opposed to changes in Dodd-Frank.

TRIA has been a widely successful program that has created jobs, fostered certainty in the marketplace, and protected U.S. economic security, all at no cost to the taxpayer. Reauthorization, in my judgment, is essential to current and future commercial development in communities all across this country and to our Nation's long-term economic prosperity.

I don't believe my Republican colleagues really want to play chicken with this vital national and economic security program in order to strong-arm the process on an unrelated financial services provision.

You know, Mr. Speaker and friends, when the 113th Congress began, it began with the distinguished Speaker of the House enunciating, among other things, that we would have an open and transparent process.

This is the 83rd closed rule that my friends on the other side have brought to this body. It rivals any in the history of this country, and I have been in the majority and in the minority as a member of the Rules Committee and have seen Members of my party advocate and pass closed rules.

When I came to the body in 1992, I had very little understanding about the process, and I recall very vividly when I went home for the first time--the Democrats were in the majority--and all of the talk on the radio shows that I would appear on was, Your party is passing closed rules. I am not so sure that generally the public is mindful of this inside process, but the essence of it allows that Members who are not on

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

But I will close by saying that I never thought that we would have 83 closed rules.

I am privileged to be able to serve in the 114th Congress, and my great hope is that we get past this particular method of cutting off other Members in this body from having full participation in the world's greatest deliberative body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.