[Pages S72-S85]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 26, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 26) to extend the termination date of the
Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 1:45
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The President pro tempore.

Keystone XL Pipeline

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, both
Democratic and Republican, to urge the swift passage of a bill in the
Senate that would create jobs, strengthen our economy, and put more
money in Americans' pocketbooks--the bipartisan Hoeven-Manchin bill to
authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline. I will talk about that for a few
minutes, and then I might have some remarks about what the assistant
minority leader has said.
I wish to address the Keystone Pipeline project and why it is
important, but first I will focus on how the Keystone debate reflects
on the state of the Senate and on good governance more broadly. After
all, this project is now in its sixth year of limbo, waiting for a
single permit to be issued. This debate has gone on longer than an
entire term of the Senate.
My colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, recently commented that the
America public no longer has confidence that the Federal Government
works anymore. He is right, and the American people are justified in
their skepticism. He is right. This project is a perfect example of
why.
A debate over the merits of and drawbacks to the pipeline--a debate
that centers upon sound science and agreed-upon ground rules--is long
overdue.
Such a debate represents the best traditions of the Senate--a meeting
of minds where respect and tolerance shape the contours of debate. Such
a debate is particularly valuable because a commonsense regulatory
process is integral to a sound economy and the rule of law.
Time and again, President Obama has suggested that an issue such as
this is too important to get bogged down in politics and that we should
trust in the integrity of the regulatory process. To this I have two
replies.
First, this is exactly the sort of debate we should be having in the
Senate. This is the body that is supposed to debate the important
issues of the day. When a project as important as this is stalled
without meaningful justification for so long, our investment and
involvement is even more important. In this case, we have sought to
legislate according to the best traditions of this body, reaching
across the aisle and taking all voices into account.
Second, curtailing debate on this issue has only had the result of
turning the construction of what should be a commonsense infrastructure
project into an abstraction, a political symbol that has little to do
with the actual proposal under consideration. Without discussion of
facts and evidence in this Chamber--all of which I believe counsel in
favor of approving the project--the opposition has been able to
obfuscate the facts and avoid having to defend their position. The
Senate is a place where we can best accomplish good policymaking, not
political grandstanding, especially on an issue of such importance as
the Keystone Pipeline.
I was encouraged by yesterday's colloquy on the resolution to allow
the Keystone Pipeline to move forward because it represents a return to
the way we should talk about serious issues; that is, through actual
debate. But that colloquy and the work we are doing today has been met
with further resistance from the White House. Even before we consider
any number of amendments from both sides of the aisle, the President
has already threatened to veto our legislation calling for pipeline
construction to move forward. This is an unfortunate way for any
President to begin work with a new Congress.
Our country and North American energy security will greatly benefit
from this project. It improves efficiency and energy infrastructure. It
takes pressure off of moving oil by rail. It will increase our GDP by
approximately $3.4 billion annually. The State Department, which has
provided clear-headed analysis of the benefits of this project, has
found that Keystone will support roughly 42,000 jobs during the
construction phase alone. It will provide refineries with up to 830,000
barrels a day of North American oil.
The Keystone Pipeline is an environmentally sound way to transport
this oil. In fact, the State Department's extensive environmental
impact statement concluded that building the pipeline would actually be
better for the environment than not. We have to be clear: The oil is
going to go to market no matter what--by truck or rail, if not by
pipeline. Building this pipeline takes this oil off of the tracks, off
of

[[Page S73]]

the roads, and transports it in a way that is safer, more efficient,
more environmentally sound, and better for creating good-paying
American jobs.
At the end of the day, the Keystone Pipeline and so many other
bureaucratic failures demonstrate that the regulatory process is
broken. It should not take years and years navigating the Federal
bureaucracy only to have the Federal Government decide not to make a
decision. In this new Congress we are focused on helping to create jobs
and getting our economy back on the right track, which is why
regulatory reform will be a key part of our agenda over the next 2
years. I hope the President will change his mind and join us not only
in approving this important project but also in preventing similar
abuses from occurring in the future.

affordable care act

Mr. President, having said that, I wish to make a few remarks about
what the distinguished assistant minority leader had to say this
morning about the Affordable Care Act. I have a great deal of
admiration for him and his abilities, especially to articulate matters.
I have to disagree with him on this issue, because after all of this
hoopla, after all of the problems, after all of the costs, after all of
the rising costs, after all of the many problems with the Affordable
Care Act, we are still going to have about 30 million people who don't
have insurance.
Think about it. That is why we passed the Affordable Care Act--or why
the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act--was to take care of those
people. We have a great many people covered, but there is still going
to be almost the same amount of people without health insurance that
existed before.
A number of the provisions he finds so good about the health care
bill, we would have included in a health care bill ourselves. Yes,
there were needed changes, such as this business of putting children on
the parents' policy until age 26 and some of the other provisions the
distinguished Senator spoke to.
I have a great deal of admiration for the distinguished Senator from
Illinois. He is a very bright guy. He is one of the most articulate
Senators in this body. Having said that, I was a little disappointed in
some of the statements he made.
Just this week Harvard University--these are professors who are
pretty well paid--yes, it is an expensive jurisdiction, I know, because
I have some family there. The fact is that at Harvard these professors
are upset because their costs are going up, which they will have to pay
out of their own pockets. My goodness gracious. If they think they are
being hurt, with their high salaries--and most of it is covered by
their insurance from Harvard--can we imagine how the average person is
going to feel. They are going to have a rough time because they have
held off on a lot of the Affordable Care Act--I should say ``Affordable
Care Act''--they held off on this until after the election that just
occurred, knowing the costs are going to continue to escalate and rise
in ways that we can't even take care of them. If we don't do something
about it now, it is going to be a doggone mess in this country that
nobody--nobody--not my friends on the other side who voted for it or
Republicans or anybody else can truly contemplate.
All I can say is that it is a mess. Most people are admitting it is a
mess, except those who want to take us down this social path toward
having the government control every aspect of our lives in health care.
To be honest, I could talk all day on this issue, but we are on the
Keystone Pipeline. I have to say, as somebody who helped put through
some of the most important health care bills in history, ranging from
the orphan drug bill to the Children's Health Insurance Program, many
pharmaceutical bills and others as well, I have always been willing to
sit down and try and work these matters out. I have to say that my dear
colleague from Illinois, having chosen one Senator's comments about
every word, doesn't represent everybody on this side. Any Senator is
entitled to their viewpoint and opinion, but a lot of us believe there
is a great deal of work that has to be done if we are going to have
health care truly improve in this country and work the way it should
work.
I could go on and on, but I just wanted to make a few of those
comments. Even with the so-called 8 million they claim have health
care--I don't know that that is true.
They have problems in every step of this program, and the reason is
because it is a poorly written program that was forced through in ways
that didn't allow the real process in the Senate to work. Whenever we
have a bill that is that high off the floor, passed by only one side--
in both Houses by only one side--we know it is a lousy bill. There is
nothing that costs as much as this bill is going to cost.
I would challenge my friends on the other side--especially my friend
from Illinois--to acknowledge that we need to work together to solve
these problems because they are not going to go away. That bill is one
of the lousiest pieces of legislation I have seen in the whole time I
have been here, and that is why it was only supported in a totally
partisan way.
I have talked long enough on this. I don't want to take more time
away from the Keystone Pipeline because that also is extremely
important. Right now we are down to 50 bucks a barrel or even below,
but that isn't going to last a long time. The fact that we have oil
now, that we are discovering oil now--something that wasn't allowed in
years past--the fact that we are working to have this country be
totally oil independent is terrific, and the Keystone Pipeline will
help us in that regard. It is hard for me to understand why my friends
on the other side or at least some of them--and maybe the President,
who has issued a veto threat which I found profoundly disappointing--
continue to argue the way they do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, just for clarification, it is my
understanding that H.R. 26 has been reported on the floor and we now
have 2 hours of debate equally divided; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 1:45 p.m. is equally divided.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise to speak in favor
of H.R. 26, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act or
what is more popularly known as the TRIA legislation.
During the last Congress my colleagues and I worked hard to put
together a bipartisan bill that gained wide support. However, literally
in the waning hours of the session, we were unable to complete our work
at the end of the last Congress. I am very glad to see that this
legislation has now been moved promptly by the House of Representatives
and again promptly today in the Senate toward finalization and passage.
I particularly wish to thank the majority leader for bringing this
bill to the floor so quickly because reauthorization of the TRIA
Program is essential for the certainty we need in our insurance
marketplace and for other important functions in our markets. I also
wish to recognize some of the Senators who have been very heavily
involved in this process in the past. There are many who could be
named, but in particular I think we need to recognize Senator Kirk and
Senator Heller on the Republican side and Senator Schumer and Senator
Reed on the Democratic side, as well as Senator Brown, our new ranking
member on the Democratic side, and many others who have worked to help
us move this legislation forward.
Additionally, I wish to give thanks to the former chairman of the
banking committee, Senator Johnson and his staff, who deserve a great
amount of thanks as they have worked with us very closely in moving
this bill forward, and of course my own staff on the Republican side
who have put in so much time and effort to make sure we got this
important legislation moved over the finish line. Working together we
developed a bill that was supported unanimously out of the banking
committee in what was a very partisan environment that we can all
recall from last Congress. We then approved it in the Senate by a vote
of 93 to 4, showing the broad, bipartisan support that has been
developed for this legislation.
Building on the Senate's framework, the House passed their own
version of TRIA last Congress by an overwhelming vote of 417 to 7.
Yesterday in

[[Page S74]]

this new Congress the House again voted by a margin of 416 to 5 to
extend the program another 6 years--the legislation that is currently
before us in the Senate. These strong votes demonstrate the importance
of this program.
Chairman Hensarling, Representative Neugebauer, Senator Schumer, and
others deserve our thanks for bringing the differences to a focus and
getting us to this point.
This bill requires the private insurance industry to absorb and cover
the losses for all but the largest acts of terror--ones in which the
Federal Government would almost certainly be forced to step in if this
program were not in place.
The bill increases the insurance industry's aggregate retention level
and the company coinsurance level, meaning that it increases the
participation of the private sector in responding to the insurance
issues created by an act of terrorism in the United States but still
provides the stability the market needs to assure there is coverage and
protection. Once it reaches that level, the recoupment will be indexed
to the amount of insurer deductibles for all insurers participating in
the program. This is a significant reduction in the potential exposure
and cost to taxpayers.

Under this bill each company will take on a greater portion of losses
above their deductible. This is done by increasing the coinsurance
level from 15 percent to 20 percent and raising the level at which the
program is triggered from $100 million to $200 million. As these levels
are increased, the Federal share is reduced.
This bill maintains the amendment offered by Senator Flake to create
an advisory committee focused on finding additional private sector
solutions to lowering the Federal exposure to loss from a catastrophic
terrorist incident in the United States. Getting terrorism risk
insurance right is important in order to protect taxpayers and to limit
the economic and physical impact of any future terrorist attack on the
United States.
This bill will help us maintain a properly balanced terrorism risk
insurance program that increases the Nation's economic resilience to
terrorism.
The bill also includes separate legislation that will establish the
National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers or what is
commonly known as NARAB. I have been an original cosponsor of this
legislation in the past because it simplifies the process of agent
licensing across State lines while preserving States rights--
specifically, the authority of state insurance regulators.
The bill has broad support from the insurance community, including
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Independent
Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the National Association of
Insurance and Financial Advisors, and the Council of Insurance Agents
and Brokers.
By reducing costs and increasing competition among insurance
producers, we will generate lower costs and better service for
consumers.
Importantly, NARAB II, this legislation, deals specifically with
marketplace entry and would not impact the States' day-to-day authority
over the insurance marketplaces. State regulators will serve on the
board of NARAB with the same objectives they have as insurance
commissions--to protect the public interest by promoting the fair and
equitable treatment of insurance consumers. The idea for NARAB is now
14 years old, and I am very glad to see we are now going to get it
across the finish line.
The final TRIA bill includes the Vitter amendment that was added in
the Senate to require that the Federal Reserve Board have at least one
member with experience working in or supervising community banks.
Finally, the bill also includes a very critical reform to the Dodd-
Frank financial legislation. This commonly has been referred to as the
end user amendment issue--a piece of legislation that historically has
also received wide bipartisan support. This is a targeted fix I have
been pushing for over 4 years. Ever since the Dodd-Frank conference,
there has been a debate regarding whether nonfinancial end users were
exempt from margin requirements. Most Americans won't really understand
the details of these kinds of transactions if they aren't involved in
the derivatives industry. But it is critical that we allow end users,
those who produce products or provide services--those are the ones who
are using the financial system and the benefits it can provide to
provide productive additions to our economy--that they not be subjected
to the rigorous requirements that were put into place to control
financial sector dealings in derivatives.
Then-Chairman Dodd and Senator Lincoln acknowledged that the language
for end users was not perfect and tried to clarify the intent of their
language with a joint letter. In the letter, they stated:

The legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose
margins on end-users, those exempt entities that use swaps to
hedge or mitigate commercial risk. If regulators raise the
costs of end-user transactions, they may create more risk. It
is imperative that the regulators do not unnecessarily divert
working capital from our economy into margin accounts, in a
way that would discourage hedging by end-users or impair
economic growth.

I might add to that quote from these Senators that it would also
increase costs in the marketplace to consumers.
Stand-alone legislation passed the House to fix this problem last
Congress with 411 votes--broad bipartisan support. In the Senate,
legislation to deal with the end-user program was introduced originally
by a bipartisan group of six Democrats and six Republicans.
Congressional intent was to provide an explicit exemption from margin
requirements for nonfinancial end users that qualify for the clearing
exemption, which this language accomplishes.
Unless Congress acts, the new regulations will make it more expensive
for farmers, manufacturers, energy producers, and many small business
owners across this country to manage their own unique business risks
associated with their daily operations--an unintended and harmful
consequence of the language in the Dodd-Frank legislation.
I mentioned in my earlier statement that this bill had the support of
93 Senators in the last Congress. The final bill before us today passed
the House by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 5.
Again, I encourage all of the Senators to vote for the legislation we
have before us today and help this first piece of legislation in the
Senate in this Congress get a quick resolution so we can resolve one--
in fact, two or three--of the critical issues facing our economy today,
help strengthen our economy, promote jobs, and increase our movement
along the pathway toward economic recovery.
Again, I thank Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Kirk, and
Senator Heller for their partnership in bringing this bill forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 26, the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. I thank Senator Crapo, and I
appreciate and enjoy the relationship we have had over the last 8 years
since I joined the banking committee. He was already a relatively
veteran member of that committee and very knowledgeable and very
straightforward and fair. I appreciate his work, especially on this
legislation.
I support the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program, and I did not want it to expire in December. Many of us on
both sides of the aisle in the Senate worked to try to get this
reenacted in December. Unfortunately, because of partisan games in the
House of Representatives, it didn't happen. But that is why I voted for
TRIA reauthorization, S. 2244, in the banking committee last June. I
supported the bill that the full Senate passed in July by a strong vote
of 93 to 4. S. 2244 made important reforms to TRIA in order to gain
bipartisan support, but it still provided long-term certainty in the
marketplace.
What was unfortunate was that last fall the House Republicans were
unable to embrace the Senate bill--similar to immigration, if you
will--that had broad bipartisan support. They waited until the last
days of the last Congress to engage the Senate in an effort to
reauthorize TRIA. The situation could be dangerous if it is
unauthorized. Fortunately, we will be able to move today and get this
to the President pretty quickly and at least protect our cities and our
communities and our people.

[[Page S75]]

While the TRIA provisions the House and Senate eventually agreed on
went further than I would have liked, they represent a compromise--
something we obviously don't see enough around here these days.
Ultimately, though, the swap end-user provision that was added by House
leadership to the TRIA bill at the last moment was not a compromise. It
was moving in a different direction. It was a weakening of Dodd-Frank.
It was not the way this Congress or any Congress should enact
legislation and should proceed. That end-user provision did not go
through regular order in the Senate. The committee held no hearings and
no markups to consider its merits or its demerits. This bill was never
brought to the Senate floor to be debated.
That is what people, whether in Florida or Idaho or Ohio, are unhappy
about--legislation that needs to pass, things for which there is
strong, bipartisan, across-the-board, almost unanimous support, and
then special interest groups get provisions in that don't belong there
that were not debated and never discussed.
Unlike TRIA, the swap end-user provision is controversial and
overrides regulators' proposed rules. It prevents future regulatory
flexibility. It allows another avenue for derivatives risk to build up
in the financial system.
These actions of inserting this provision in legislation with
overwhelming, almost unanimous support--adding these kinds of
provisions simply doesn't work for our system. It is not the way we
should be legislating. It begs the question, Did we learn nothing less
than a decade ago? We know what happened to our financial system. The
greed on Wall Street and the pain it caused on Main Street in Boise,
Pocatello, Columbus, and Cleveland was pretty hard to measure.
The financial crisis exposed risks in all areas of the market, and
the provisions in Wall Street reform target dangerous exposure in the
system by strengthening protections using clearing and margin
requirements.
Under Wall Street Reform, commercial end users are exempt from
clearing requirements, and regulators have provided them with
accommodations from margin requirements, recognizing the business-
related need of the companies.
The end-user legislation added to the TRIA bill goes above and beyond
the existing law and the existing rulemaking and could tie regulators'
hands in the future if excessive risks were to develop, thus exposing
the financial system and taxpayers to more harm.
In just one example that this end-user provision could cut both ways,
2 days before Christmas Reuters reported that ``major U.S. airlines
including Delta and Southwest are rushing to finance losing bets on oil
and revamp fuel hedges as tumbling crude prices leave them with
billions of dollars in losses, according to people familiar with the
hedging schemes.''
We know most of us are thrilled with the price of gasoline at the
pump going significantly below $2 a gallon. We know there are other
people who are a little bit less thrilled, as this story illustrates
with Delta and Southwest. We know the economy of Texas and North Dakota
have had problems because oil revenues declined. We know all of that,
but we also know that when you enact provisions such as this that
aren't debated and aren't discussed, that haven't had hearings, there
could be unforeseen consequences.
Less than 7 years after the financial crisis, we shouldn't forget the
risks involved. Let's not forget the impact of the financial crisis on
consumers, investors, taxpayers, and the financial system as a whole.
What we do here has impact in Omaha and in Cleveland, and it is
important that we really understand what we are doing by going through
regular orders. Slipping this provision in the TRIA bill is just the
latest Republican effort to roll back Wall Street reform.
In December, we know the same cast of characters attached an
effective repeal of section 716, the Lincoln amendment, to the end-of-
the-year spending bill. Yesterday they tried--and thankfully failed--to
pass a bill consisting of 11 smaller bills that included attempts to
weaken a number of important Dodd-Frank provisions.
I don't like the way this has been done today. I want to see TRIA
pass. We have seen this movie before. We will keep seeing it over and
over again. This seems to be the new Wall Street playbook. It seems to
be the new Republican playbook. I hope it is not the Senate
leadership's playbook, where you take a bill that most people like,
that has pretty much overwhelming support, is a must-pass bill, and you
help Wall Street and Wall Street lobbyists get provisions in, and they
can weaken consumer protections. Consumer protections rules on Wall
Street will keep Wall Street safer so we don't have to have another
Federal bailout.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I wish to thank my colleagues
who were here today. This is Senator Brown's first--just a day into the
session as ranking member, and it is clear to all of us in the caucus
that he is going to be a hard-working, conscientious ranking member,
and I look forward to working with him and congratulate him on his new
position. I thank my good friend Senator Crapo, who will be leaving as
ranking member. We have the new ranking member and the former ranking
member. I wish that were not the case but so be it. Senator Crapo has
been a pleasure to work with on this bill and on so many other bills. I
appreciate his hard work as well.
I rise today in support of reauthorizing the terrorism insurance
program--a purpose that has brought me to the floor of this body
several times in the last year. We all know what a crucial piece of
legislation TRIA is for our country. It should be reauthorized and
reauthorized without political jockeying and attempts at point-scoring
that we have seen through several months. But the good news is that
TRIA will pass today and millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of
relief, not just those who insure buildings and build buildings but
people who work in buildings, office workers, restaurant workers, those
who work at shopping centers, sports fans, those who care about having
new stadiums. All of those depend on terrorism risk insurance.

We all know the history. After 9/11, when my city was devastated,
people could not get financing to build new buildings. Insurance said
the damage from terrorism, both loss of life and property damage, is so
great that they were not going to insure without a Federal backstop.
In a bipartisan way we came together in 2002 and passed the TRIA
bill. It helped propel the economy for the last decade. Because some on
the other side are not sure this should be a government function, we
could not make it permanent. It would be a lot better if we could, but
we extended it for periods of years. It came to pass that it expired on
December 31 of this last year, 2014.
In the Senate the bill I was proud to sponsor, helped by my
cosponsors, Senators Murphy, Jack Reed, Tim Johnson, Menendez, Kirk,
Heller, Crapo, Blunt, and Johanns, we anticipated no problem. The bill
passed 93 to 4. Senators from Bernie Sanders to Ted Cruz voted for it.
Everyone thought it worked. It has not cost the government a nickel.
It will pass easily. But unfortunately it got caught up in the
machinations of the House. There were some on the House side who did
not want terrorism insurance at all and some who were extremely
reluctant. I will say this: I believe Speaker Boehner and Majority
Leader McCarthy understood the importance of this. I worked with them
in the latter months of last year to try and get a bill done. At the
end of the day I was able to negotiate a bill with the chairman of the
House banking committee who was at best a reluctant supporter of
terrorism insurance and came up with a proposal that made some changes
but kept the program intact.
It was a good compromise. It is the compromise that is before us
today. It is a little different than the original bill. Instead of 7
years, it extends us for 6 years. The $100 million limit has been
raised to 200. But still, the program can function very well under
these proposals. I am very glad we have brought it to the floor very
early in this session. I am glad it passed the House. I am glad that
hopefully by the end of today it will be moving to the President's
desk.
But there is one sour note in all of this; that is, the attempt--and
I agree completely with my colleague from

[[Page S76]]

Ohio, the ranking member, Mr. Brown, that the idea to add extraneous
measures to this provision is a wrong one. In my view, Dodd-Frank has
strengthened the financial system, the banking system, and this
country. The loose regulatory regime that was in place before, everyone
agreed, helped cause the worst financial collapse we have had since the
Great Depression.
There are some on the other side I understand who disagree with that
view. That is something that will obviously be subject to debate. But
to attach a provision at the last minute, which is what the House did
at the end of last year, put it on the bill and said take it or leave
it, is wrong and unfair. I think every fairminded person, whatever
their view of Dodd-Frank is, would feel that we should debate an
important amendment, any amendment, that would roll back parts of Dodd-
Frank, given the fact that most everyone who has looked at it has
thought it has been a success.
So that, plus a change in the NARAB provision, which my colleagues
have mentioned, led to some problems. We on this Democratic side, while
we do not like the rollback of Dodd-Frank in the end user provision,
even last year were not prepared to stop the bill from going forward.
But the change our House Republican colleagues made was blocked by a
Republican, Senator Coburn, and at the last minute, in the waning hours
of the session, it was stymied. Today Senator Coburn, my dear friend
whom I miss--and I wish him the best of health--is not here. He will
not be here. He will not be here to object to the unanimous consent
request that was made in a bipartisan way. So we were voting on this
bill.
But the bottom line is simple. Republicans monkeyed around with the
bipartisan compromise to earn a pound of flesh in what they knew was a
must-pass piece of legislation. I am glad it will not kill the bill,
but it never should have been there to begin with. The amendment that
will be proposed will allow many on this side of the aisle who believe
in TRIA but did not want to see at the last minute a rollback of Dodd-
Frank, albeit one of the smaller rollbacks that has been proposed, to
ride on the back of the important antiterrorism proposal.
Using must-pass unrelated legislation to chip away at Dodd-Frank
piece by piece, even small pieces such as the end user provision,
without debate or even in the committee process, is not how we should
go about the business of considering important regulations on financial
services. I join Ranking Member Brown in saying that should not happen
in the future, and we should do everything to stop it from happening.
The good news is in this new session there were attempts by some on
the Republican side to dilute the TRIA provisions further. From what I
am told, Chairman Hensarling wanted to dilute it further, despite the
negotiations we had. I thank our Republican leadership for not allowing
that to happen, the Republican leadership in the House. So the same
basic compromise that Chairman Hensarling and I negotiated in the wee
hours of the last year's session will be on the floor today. TRIA will
not be weakened any further. I am proud of the compromise Congressman
Hensarling and I reached on the substance of TRIA. I am hopeful we can
pass a bill without extraneous issues. I certainly believe TRIA should
be signed into law as quickly as possible, because we all know that if
we do not have terrorism insurance, it is going to greatly hurt our
economy.
The damage has been minimized because most of the insurance clauses
have 30- and 60-day notice provisions, so there has been no effect up
to now. But if we dither any further, it will have serious effects on
our rebounding economy, effects that I think no one who cares about
jobs, who cares about working people, who cares about new construction
in America would want to count.
I am glad TRIA will pass today. Our country needs it. I thank again
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both Houses who
worked hard to do this. I hope we will not find what happened today
happening again, which is adding extraneous rollbacks to Dodd-Frank,
without debate, without discussion, to future legislation.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I do not see another speaker on our side
so I would like to take a few minutes and just respond to some of the
remarks of my colleagues.
First of all, let me say I am very pleased to see that we have strong
support across the aisle on a bipartisan basis for two of the three key
parts of this legislation, the reauthorization of TRIA--or the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program--and the NARAB provision for the
insurance industry. It appears that the focus of the debate between us
or disagreement between us is going to come down to that part of the
bill that deals with the end user exemption under the Dodd-Frank
legislation. So I would like to talk about that for a little bit,
because in some of the arguments about this provision there has been
the implication that this is an effort to help strengthen Wall Street
at the expense of Main Street. The reality is just the reverse. This is
an opportunity to try to stop unintended and bad legislative language
from hammering Main Street under the guise that it was to protect us
against Wall Street.
Let me explain what I mean. Derivatives are--I am reading right now
from the summary of the House bill, which is the version of the
language we are going to be voting on today. I will be reading and
summarizing some. But derivatives are contracts whose value is linked
to changes in another variable, such as the price of a physical
commodity.
My colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, referenced Delta Airlines,
which buys contracts for fuel for their airplanes. They do this in
order to hedge the risk on the price of fuel. It is a critical part of
their risk management for their business. Other businesses, farmers in
Idaho, hedge their risks in their farming and ranching operations in
the same way, by trying to make sure they have protected the price of
certain commodities they need to utilize in the conduct of their
business.
Derivatives have historically been used by large businesses, such as
Delta, and small, such as the Idaho farmer, and everything in between,
to manage the risk of their business. End users trade in derivatives to
hedge business and economic risk. That is very important to understand
because over time derivatives have grown and the use of an investment
in derivatives has grown. Instead of just end users trying to manage
risks in commodities for their products and for their physical needs
and business needs, many derivatives, in fact probably most of the
many--more than a majority of the derivatives that are invested in
today are no longer based on a physical commodity but are linked to
variables such as interest rates or stock prices or currency valuations
or other factors such as that.
The market in derivatives has moved into areas that are similar to
investments such as in the stock market. Because of that, Dodd-Frank
sought to--and one of those kinds of activities was one of the big
problems in the financial collapse. So Dodd-Frank tried to address that
abuse of derivatives that was found during the time of the financial
collapse.
But it was never intended to deal with the original utilization of
the derivatives by end users--again, as I said earlier, those who
produce a product such as a farmer or deliver a service such as airline
transportation similar to Delta Airlines or others, those who utilize
derivatives in their business to hedge a business risk and economic
risk as opposed to those who invest in derivatives for speculation in a
market. That distinction was very important.
I was on the conference committee when we did the conference
committee on Dodd-Frank. We discussed this then. Everyone, literally
all of us, including the two sponsors of the bill, Senator Dodd and
Representative Frank, agreed that end users were not intended to be
covered.
In fact, I will quote again the language that Dodd--after the passage
of

[[Page S77]]

Dodd-Frank--put into a letter along with his then-colleague Senator
Lincoln. This is Senator Dodd's language:

The legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose
margins on end users, those exempt entities that use swaps to
hedge or mitigate commercial risk. If regulators raise the
cost of end user transactions, they may create more risk.

I am still quoting Senator Dodd--continuing: ``It is imperative that
the regulators do not unnecessarily divert working capital from our
economy into margin accounts, in a way that would discourage hedging by
end users or impair economic growth.''
So it was not the intent, although it was a concern at the time that
the language may have gone too far. But clearly the sponsors of the
amendment--and I don't have the language in front of me, but
Representative Frank has made similar comments that it was not intended
for this to be covered by the legislation. But the language actually
did go so far as to cover end users.
Now the regulators, in hearings before the banking committee, have
uniformly told us they feel their hands are tied and that following the
language of Dodd-Frank they have to start imposing margin requirements
on end users, which will cause the kind of economic harm which I have
discussed earlier. So it is necessary for Congress to respond and
clarify that this exemption exists for end users in our financial
system.
Now, one of the arguments that has been made--actually, before I move
on to that, let me go back and give a couple of examples. This is, I
believe, from testimony that was given in the House, where hearings
have been held multiple times on this issue. It is true we haven't been
able to get hearings in the Senate on this issue, but it doesn't mean
the issue hasn't been raised in the Senate.
I personally, in 2011, brought an amendment to an appropriations bill
to make this exemption part of the law and was stopped by the then-
majority, who said they would not allow either a vote or a hearing on
the issue. So it is true that we have not been able to engage in
hearings or votes in the Senate on this issue, but it is not true that
we have not been engaging in trying to get to this issue in the Senate.
In the House they were able to hold hearings. I wish to quote a
couple of examples of testimony that were made in the House. This first
one is from the CEO of MillerCoors, Craig Reiners, who gave this
testimony said:

MillerCoors uses derivatives for the sole purpose of
reducing commercial risk associated with our business. At
MillerCoors, we brew beer, and our commitment to our
customers is to produce the best beer in the United States
and to deliver it at a competitive price. In order to achieve
these goals, we must find a way to mitigate and prudently
manage our inherent commodity risks.

This is what the end users do. The other example is Ball Corporation,
which is a supplier of metal and plastic packaging to the beverage and
food industries. In testimony in the House, the CFO of Ball stated:

A requirement for end-users to post margin would have a
serious impact on our ability to invest in and grow our
business. For example, Ball is currently investing
significant amounts of capital in plant expansions in Texas,
Indiana, California, and Colorado, totaling well in excess of
$150 million, and adding several hundred jobs when complete.
Tying up capital for initial and variation margin could put
those types of projects at risk at a time when our economy
can ill afford it. The impact of posting initial margin for
us can easily exceed $100 million, while the change in value
on our trades over time could easily surpass $300 million.
Diverting more than $400 million of working capital into
margin accounts would have a direct and adverse impact on our
ability to grow our business and create and maintain jobs.

Again, my point is the end-user exemption must distinguish between
those who invest in derivatives for speculation and those who invest in
derivatives in order to control and hedge risk in their business--a
critical distinction. Economists, experts, and regulators alike have
said that imposing those extra margin requirements on the end user will
have negative economic effects and not positive stabilizing economic
effects.
Having said that, I want to move forward. Again, going back to the
House report--and I am almost done--it says:

However, derivative end-users, the firms trying to manage
their risk, rather than speculate for profits, do not pose a
systemic risk. Furthermore, forcing end-users to post margin
in the form of cash or government securities could cause
harmful effects for the economy and consumers. If end-users
are posting a margin, those funds are unavailable for
investment in jobs and expansion.

That means we are pulling capital out of our economy unnecessarily
and in a harmful way, in the very arena--not Wall Street but Main
Street--the very arena where we need capital formation and need the
kind of growth in our economy that would then cause us to generate
greater jobs, strength, and stability.
The examples I have used were examples of companies that were dealing
in hundreds of millions of dollars of issues. But as I said earlier,
this is not just that. Small businesses, ranchers, farmers, and others,
all utilize this in order to hedge their commodity risks and their
business risks in our economy.
I want to reinforce the point and make it clear that this is
something that was never intended to be in the law and that our
regulators have said they have to do. In hearings before the Senate
banking committee I have asked our regulators about this. In fact,
frankly, that reminds me that we have actually had testimony in the
Senate on this issue because I have raised it in multiple banking
hearings with our financial regulators.

They have told us they believe this fix is a prudent fix. We have our
regulators telling us they have to issue regulations they don't feel
are needed or necessary and that a congressional fix would be helpful
to our financial markets and to our business productivity in America.
We have those being regulated as end users pleading for relief from
this harmful statutory language, and we have an opportunity today to
correct that problem. I encourage all Senators to recognize the
critical need to move forward rapidly on fixing this end-user exemption
just as we need to move forward rapidly on reauthorizing TRIA and
passing the NARAB legislation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will be no more than 3 minutes.
I wish to make a short response to my friend from Idaho that the
issue here is more about process than substance. We have slight
disagreement on substance, partly from the delta issue. I understand
the farmer and rancher in Idaho and the farmer in Ohio and the
importance of managing risks.
I was also a bit amused by the examples he used of manufacturers,
those same manufacturers who came in front of our committee that
produce beer or soft drinks that were paying more for their metals, for
their aluminum cans because of the overreach in some commodities from
some Wall Street firms. But this is not the time to debate that.
The issue is really the process of this change. I was part of
legislation with Senator Collins and with Senator Johanns in the last
session. It was a lengthy process. Senator Crapo supported our efforts
in committee and beyond.
It was a slight change to Dodd-Frank. It was a change that we did
cautiously. We made agreements and compromises. We brought in Sheila
Bair, who had helped in some of the crafting of the language with the
Collins amendment.
We worked with her, we worked with Senator Collins, we worked with
Senator Johanns, and I started the process. Senator Collins became the
lead sponsor of it--the compromise through hearings in both Houses and
hearings in the Senate banking committee. There were discussions in
both Houses. We eventually came to that agreement with a free-standing
bill.
That is the way this should be done. I would be happy to have a
debate on the end-user provision with Senator Crapo, Senator Shelby,
and the rest of us. Then we come to a conclusion, we get compromise,
and we move forward.
The lesson, before Senator Coats gives his comments, is let's do this
in the future the way we did--Senator Collins, Senator Brown, and
Senator Johanns last year, and do this right so all sides can be
represented, we come to a compromise, and the stand-alone bill goes to
the President.
That is the way this should have been done, and I am hopeful that is
the way it will be done in the future.
I yield the floor to Senator Crapo and Senator Coats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes or such time as he may
consume to Senator Coats.

[[Page S78]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Idaho for yielding time. I don't
anticipate using that much time.
I apologize to my colleague from Ohio whom I didn't see standing
before I rose for recognition.
I very much appreciate comments made that support the legislation
that is before us.
However, I wish to make a few remarks relative to the start of a new
Congress and a new Senate in this new cycle.
This is a fresh start for us and an opportunity to reverse course
after a very frustrating period of time of dysfunction in the Senate.
I am hopeful and I am optimistic that all of us--colleagues, both new
and old, Republican and Democrat--will be able to work together to
achieve serious and positive results on the many issues before our
country that we face.
We have to put the days behind us when Congress careened from one
cliff to the next, from one crisis to another, and fail to successfully
bring forward positive legislation that addresses the problems we face.
There are threats to our national security--including radical extremism
such as ISIS, terrorists such as those responsible for the horrendous
murders in Paris yesterday, cyber attacks, and inadequate border
security. There are a number of foreign policy issues that also
threaten the security of the United States.
Unfortunately, many of the administration's responses to these
challenges have fallen short of what is needed to successfully address
these threats.
Therefore, addressing these issues and protecting our homeland is
paramount in this critical time. Congress has an important role to play
in 2015. I want Hoosiers whom I represent to know that I will continue
to engage fully in what I believe is this essential priority. Here on
the home front, the 114th Congress must prioritize legislation that
sets the conditions for economic growth. I consistently hear from
Hoosiers at home who tell me that Washington needs to focus on building
an economic climate that encourages job creation and expands
opportunity for all who seek to work.
We have staggered through a very difficult period of time. I believe,
personally--and I think it has been demonstrated by the results--that
the policies of this administration have not successfully addressed
this problem, falling far short of what is needed. These concerns must
be addressed. They must be addressed now. There are several areas where
Republicans can work with the President and work with our colleagues to
grow our economy if the President is willing to work with us.
Many of these issues have bipartisan support in this Congress--items
that we will be taking up very shortly, such as the Keystone Pipeline.
Unfortunately, the President has already issued a slap in the face to
those of us who simply want to bring up something that is supported by
nearly 70 percent of the American public and has been cleared of any
kind of negative environmental impact. But it has been resisted over
and over with less feeble and more and more feeble excuses from our
President as to why we can't go forward.
Repealing the excise tax for medical devices is something with very
significant bipartisan support. Seventy-nine Members of this body in
the last cycle voted for repeal of this egregious tax on gross sales
that has hampered growth of one of the most dynamic industries in our
country and something that provides exports, revenue, and high-paying
jobs that put people back to work and give them a good income.
Reforming Federal regulations, that are currently preventing
businesses in my State from hiring and growing, opening more markets to
American-made products, and reforming our Tax Code are just a few of
the issues that have bipartisan support and can be addressed in this
Senate. Hopefully the President will join us in that effort.
In addition to what I have listed, there are many other issues the
114th Congress must tackle. For example, just last week an employer
survey revealed a majority of small businesses say Obamacare has
reduced their profits, causing many of them to freeze or cut workers'
wages or reduce other benefits. This survey affirms the constant flow
of letters and emails I receive from Hoosiers who have seen their
premiums and deductibles rise because of Obamacare.
We were promised by the President that premiums would not rise--not a
penny, he said.
That has obviously not been the case. We have seen egregious and
crippling increases in deductibles and premiums as a result of
Obamacare.
Now, with a divided Federal Government and in order to achieve needed
results, we have no other option but to work together on responsible
legislative solutions to grow our economy, tackle our debt and deficit,
and keep America's homeland safe from terrorist threats. That is the
challenge that is before us. That is the challenge the American people
want us to address.
So I look forward to rolling up my sleeves, redoubling my efforts,
and getting to work on behalf of Hoosiers and the Nation, and I trust
my colleagues will join in that effort and we can move forward in a way
we haven't in the last few years.
With that, I thank my colleague for the time, and I yield back
whatever time may be remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. I yield 10 minutes or such time as he may consume to
Senator Heller.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I rise to speak on TRIA, the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Program. Before I get started with my remarks, I thank
my friend from Idaho for his hard work and efforts on behalf of all of
America on this issue. I think his efforts to educate us in our
conference and others on both sides of the aisle speak volumes to his
ability to lead on an issue such as this. As a member of the banking
committee and a coauthor of the Senate TRIA reauthorization bill, this
is a critical issue I have worked on closely with my colleagues for
nearly 1 year.
Terrorism is a real threat to both rural and urban areas, whether it
is north, south, east or west, and that is why I have been so involved
with trying to get TRIA extended. When we think of terrorism, we think
of Los Angeles, we think of New York, we think of Chicago, and some of
these bigger cities. But as I have said before, and I will say again,
in my home State Las Vegas is considered to be one of the leading
international business and visitor destination cities in the world.
Southern Nevada welcomes 40 million visitors annually and has a
population of nearly 2 million people. We have 35 major hotels along
the Las Vegas strip, many of which have 15,000 occupants at once. If a
terrorist attack were to occur in Las Vegas, our entire State economy
would be devastated without TRIA.
But it is not just about Las Vegas. In northern Nevada our visitor
and gaming industry is one of the largest employers in Washoe County,
which includes the city of Reno. They know unless they have access to
affordable terrorism coverage they will have difficulty starting new
capital projects and creating new jobs. TRIA has helped many hotels,
helped hospitals. It has helped office complexes, shopping centers.
Colleges and universities have access to terrorism insurance coverage,
and I want that to continue.
While I was disappointed we could not reach agreement before TRIA
expired at the end of 2014, I am pleased this legislation has been
brought to the floor so quickly by the majority leader. This bill
before us is a good bill. Yesterday it passed the House with 416 votes.
Let me repeat that: 416 Members of the House, both Republicans and
Democrats, supported this legislation.
I strongly support this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support
passage of this bill.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S79]]

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum calls all
time that elapses be allocated equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Commending Pope Francis

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, a little over 5 years ago a USAID worker
named Alan Gross--a contractor with USAID--went to Havana, Cuba. He
took with him some Internet equipment he was going to leave at a small
synagogue that has survived for decades in Havana, Cuba. He checked in
at the airport when he arrived, took all of the equipment he had
brought and put it right through Customs for inspection by the Cuban
Government. Shortly thereafter he was arrested and charged with spy
activities and the like and imprisoned for 5 years--Alan Gross of
Maryland.
I am happy to report that just before we adjourned for the holiday
recess we were greeted with the great news that Alan Gross, who had
been jailed in Cuba for 5 years, was finally on his way home.
I met with Alan in Havana at his holding area in a prison hospital
several years ago. I couldn't understand how this man could survive day
after weary day of being imprisoned for trumped-up charges that truly
bore no relationship to reality. He was given a 15-year sentence for
simply bringing Internet equipment to the Cuban people.
When I saw Alan, he had lost more than 100 pounds and had been unable
to visit back home with his mother, who later passed away. Amid their
own enormous pain, the Gross family remained tirelessly committed to
ensuring his well-being and return to the United States.
Many Members of the Senate and House of Representatives visited him
in Havana, when they had the chance, to keep his spirits up. We tried
everything imaginable with the Cuban Government and with our own
government and others to secure his release. Tragically, Alan's
detention was yet another obstacle in trying to turn the page on what I
considered a decades-old failed foreign policy toward Cuba.
Many people helped make Alan's joyous homecoming a reality; notably,
President Barack Obama and many Members of the Senate. Senators
Mikulski and Cardin, from his home State of Maryland, helped to lead
our efforts; Chris Van Hollen, Congressman from the State of Maryland
as well; and I can't leave out Senator Pat Leahy, who truly took a
personal interest, as his staff did, in trying to help.
President Obama was the one who helped to finally engineer his
release, but I think the President would be the first to say he could
not have achieved this goal without the able assistance of an amazing
man, who has millions of fans around the world, named Pope Francis.
Pope Francis urged both sides--the United States and Cuba--to meet
and talk with one another, to work to find a solution for the release
of Alan Gross and try to resolve other humanitarian issues between our
two nations. Writing personally to both President Obama and Cuban
President Raul Castro, Pope Francis played an important role in finally
bringing these sides together after decades of separation.
Over 18 months quiet talks moved forward, including a critical one
late last year hosted by the Vatican. Pope Francis said to a group of
new Vatican Ambassadors the day after the release of Alan Gross:

The work of an ambassador lies in small steps, small
things, but they always end up making peace, bringing closer
the hearts of people, sowing brotherhood among people. . . .
And today we're happy because we saw how two peoples, who had
been apart for so many years, took a step closer yesterday.

What wise and beautiful words from this impressive new Pope Francis--
the first Pope from Latin America and one widely recognized for his
humility, his dedication to the poor, and his commitment to dialogue
and reconciliation. He is clearly continuing the role of the Vatican in
pursuing peace and freedom, whether it be the role of Pope Paul II in
helping to encourage the Solidarity movement in Poland or the Vatican's
help in diffusing a border standoff between Chile and Argentine in the
1970s and a 2007 dispute between Britain and Iran over hostages.
That is why Senators Leahy, Flake, Cardin, Mikulski, Enzi, Collins,
Udall, and Brown will join me in submitting a resolution that praises
Pope Francis's role in securing Alan Gross's release and fostering
dialogue between the United States and Cuba.
The resolution's message is simple and straightforward. It extends
its gratitude to Pope Francis for his extraordinary efforts in helping
to secure the release of Alan Gross; it commends His Holiness for his
role in encouraging improved relationships between the United States
and Cuba; and it warmly welcomes home Alan Gross to the United States.
I know that Cuba itself elicits many strong and passionate political
feelings here in the Senate and across America. I respect the
differences many of us have on this issue. I am certainly no fan of the
Castro regime, neither Fidel nor Raul, and I have pursued
accountability and progress on human rights violations on that island,
including the suspicious death of Cuban patriot and democracy activist
Oswaldo Paya.
While many of us may disagree on the best path forward in seeing
democratic change in Cuba, I think and I hope we can all agree that
Pope Francis deserves special thanks and praise for his role in
bringing Alan Gross home.
I will submit this resolution. I ask any of my colleagues of either
party who would like to join in cosponsoring it--if they would like to,
I would be honored to have them. I will try to move this resolution in
a timely fashion, but I hope we can at least go on record in the Senate
commending the Pope's efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Democratic whip for his
comments. I was part of a group, with Senator Leahy, Senator
Whitehouse, and Senator Flake, who worked on this. The credit
overwhelmingly goes to Congressman Van Hollen and Senator Durbin and
Senator Leahy in the negotiations and discussions the administration
had. It was so important.
I also appreciate the opportunity to be a cosponsor of Senator
Durbin's resolution. I mentioned to him that one of the most intriguing
and most admirable things Pope Francis has said as he travels the world
and ministers to the poor and talks to his flock--one day he exhorted
his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock--a good
admonition to all of us to make sure to go out and know how people live
their lives so that we can minister to them and govern this country
better. So I appreciate Senator Durbin's words.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for a moment, I failed to
mention Congressman Jim McGovern. Congressman Van Hollen and
Congressman Jim McGovern were both very committed to Alan Gross's
release.
Mr. BROWN. Senator Durbin is right about that.
Madam President, before putting us in a quorum call, I ask unanimous
consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Reverend Michael C. Murphy

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to pay special tribute to
Rev. Michael C. Murphy, a dear friend of mine, a man of great faith who
for decades inspired the people in Lansing, MI, and who passed away
recently in Washington, DC, a city where he had only just begun to make
his mark.

[[Page S80]]

Reverend Murphy talked often about being called--being called in the
spiritual sense--into service. In the spiritual sense of the word, he
followed that calling at pivotal moments in his life, and we are all
better for it. For instance, even though he was born and grew up in
Chicago, Reverend Murphy felt a calling not long after he arrived in
Mid-Michigan. While enrolled at Michigan State University in pursuit of
a master's degree in counseling, he got a job at the Michigan Consumers
Council. As he learned about the legislative process and how public
policy affects families and individuals and communities, he decided he
wanted to devote himself to that kind of important work. Yet at the
same time he felt a spiritual call to the ministry, which led him back
to a seminary in Chicago. For some time he drove back and forth from
Lansing to Chicago, balancing a public service mission with a mission
that was more personal and spiritual.
Ultimately, in 1987 my friend Mike Murphy, as a recently ordained
minister, founded St. Stephen's Community Church in Lansing. It would
belong to the United Church of Christ, a denomination that appealed to
Reverend Murphy because it was multicultural, committed to social
justice and human rights, just like Reverend Mike Murphy himself. For
the next 22 years these causes were consistent themes of Reverend
Murphy's sermons.
Even as the minister of a growing congregation, however, Reverend
Murphy felt the calling to serve a broader public, a broader community
beyond his church. In the mid-1990s he won election to the Lansing City
Council, and then in 2000 he won a seat in the Michigan Legislature. I
was honored that year to be on the ballot with Reverend Murphy, as I
came to the U.S. Senate at the same time.
During Reverend Murphy's three terms in the Michigan house, he was a
champion for improving education, enhancing access to health care for
all citizens, and policies that would promote job growth in his great
district and all across Michigan.
More than anything, though, Reverend Murphy's constituents knew that
when times were tough, he would be their champion. In May 2003 a 13-
year-old middle school student named Jasmine Miles was struck by a car
and killed. She was walking home from school on a road that didn't even
have sidewalks. Reverend Murphy decided that the best way to help
Jasmine's family was to prevent any other family from being devastated
in the same way, so he gave Jasmine's family a role in the bill he
sponsored in the Michigan house to require crossing guards, skywalks,
and other safety enhancements at crossings used by schoolchildren.
Since the Jasmine Miles School Children Safety Act became law--and with
his leadership, it is law--there is no telling how many young lives
have been saved. That was one of so many ways his actions impacted the
people in Lansing and in Michigan.
Even after he stepped down due to term limits, he continued working
with the State as an activist who offered tips on how transportation
officials could improve the safety of walking routes for children
across Michigan. He also continued to be a force for bringing neighbors
closer together.
Lansing never felt more vibrant than it did on the day of the Capital
City African American Parade--a great celebration, an annual event
Reverend Murphy founded. There were marching bands, floats, delicious
foods, music, and dancing.
About 5 years ago Reverend Murphy was called again, and this time he
was called to come to Washington, DC, where he would become pastor of
the Peoples Congregational United Church of Christ.
We tend to find comfort in knowing that a person we loved passed away
while doing the thing he or she was most passionate about, and that is
certainly most true about Reverend Murphy. He spent his final moments
in prayer preparing for one of those wonderful sermons he always gave
that were uplifting to everyone who was fortunate enough to listen. He
brought his spirituality into his service to the community, and his
service to the community is what strengthened his spirituality. He was
a wonderful man who touched so many lives, including mine, in very
powerful ways.
To Reverend Murphy's son Brandon, his daughter Rachel, and all of his
family, we will keep you in our thoughts and prayers. We are grateful
to you for sharing your father's gifts with us, and we will dearly miss
him.
Thank you, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Nebraska.

Tribute to Mike Hybl

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to begin my
remarks by expressing my deep gratitude to a hard-working public
servant and loyal friend, Mike Hybl. Mike and I have known each other
for more than 10 years. I was so grateful that after I was elected to
the Senate his wife Chris gave her blessing so he could come to
Washington to serve as my chief of staff.
Mike has had a long career of public service working for his fellow
Nebraskans, including two decades in the Nebraska legislature, where he
provided policy and legal advice to a number of our State's top
leaders. In this role and in the private sector, Mike has brought a
wealth of experience on a range of issues. Before coming to the Senate,
he also served as executive director of the Nebraska Public Service
Commission for nearly 6 years. When I chaired the Nebraska
Legislature's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee, I had
the chance to work closely with Mike to improve infrastructure across
our State. When the time came for me to choose a chief of staff, I had
exactly one name in mind, and that was Mike Hybl. His integrity, his
level head, and his tireless work have served him well in Washington.
Anyone who has ever opened a Senate office from the ground up
appreciates the unique challenges that come with being a chief of staff
and being a chief of staff for a freshman Senator. A wide range of
skills are required to hire staff, establish operations, and even to
pick out paint samples. Through it all Mike was patient, he was
persistent, and he worked closely with me to always ensure that the
interests of Nebraskans were and remain the top priority.
He never lost his sense of purpose. He always kept us laughing with
those deadpan one-liners.
After 2 years on the job, Mike will be returning home to God's
country, the State of Nebraska, which we both love so much.
I have no doubt that in whatever path Mike chooses next, he will
continue to work for the people of Nebraska. I thank his family, his
wife Chris, his son Patrick, his daughter Emma, for letting me have him
and letting the State have him here for 2 more years. I know they are
looking forward to spending more time with Mike as he moves back home
in the coming weeks.
On behalf of all Nebraskans, I do thank Mike Hybl for his many years
of service to our State and for his leadership as my chief of staff for
the last 2 years. I thank him for his counsel, his candor, and his
leadership.
Mike, you are going to be missed, but know you have made a
difference.

Welcoming New Colleagues

Mr. President, I would also like to welcome our new colleagues to a
new year and a new Congress and to the Presiding Officer as well.

Great Challenges For Our Nation

Our Nation is facing many great challenges from threats to our
national security to a languishing economy that is starting to show
signs of revival. We have been granted a sacred trust by the people we
represent to decrease barriers to opportunity and growth, and we have
been entrusted by voters to alleviate the burdens that misguided
policies have placed on the backs of hardworking American families. I
have been honored to serve as the voice for Nebraska in the Senate for
the past 2 years, and I am excited to take on the important issues we
face in this new Congress.
As we begin this new year, I wish to share some of the priorities I
am going to be focusing on. Congress's first duty is to defend this
Nation. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am
committed to working to neutralize the growing threats to our homeland,
to our allies, and to destroy our enemies. We must maintain our
presence as a powerful force for good. Peace through strength is a
proven strategy. However, it also requires us to meet the changing
demands and

[[Page S81]]

needs of our military, including the need for a more robust strategy to
counter increased cyber warfare.
At the same time, providing for a strong defense abroad also requires
a robust economy here at home. In my home State of Nebraska people have
faced an onslaught of Washington redtape--from middle-class families
struggling with Obamacare's broken promises to community banks that are
forced to meet impossible new standards. Moreover each new day seems to
bring about costly new Federal regulations from agencies such as EPA.
Washington's invasive reach is unending. Now we have bureaucracies at
the EPA attempting to regulate everything from farm ditches to backyard
ponds. This overregulation is killing jobs, driving up consumer costs,
and disproportionately hurting families who still feel too much
economic pain. Far too often we focus on complex terms and big picture
policies without looking at people and families and how they are
impacted. From a mother working multiple jobs to put her children
through school to a young woman who is a college graduate hoping to
start a career, millions of people are being impacted by policies that
are hampering our growth and our potential.
Similar to most Nebraskans, I believe we need to do more to promote
innovation and economic growth so there are more opportunities and
greater options. That means a simpler, fairer Tax Code, more regulatory
certainty for job creators and modern rules for new technology. We must
help and not hold back innovators and small businesses so they can
grow, expand, and invest in the people who make them great. Tackling
any of these problems must begin by shining the light on the waste,
fraud, and abuse occurring in our Federal Government.
The American people have sent a clear message to Washington this past
November. They have had enough. They have had enough of a do-nothing
Senate. They have had enough of the White House side-stepping Congress
and running roughshod with Executive orders.
The American people are demanding accountability and now with this
Congress that is going to happen. There is much to be done and it
starts with keeping the priorities of our middle class at the
forefront. I for one am excited to face these challenges each and every
day in 2015, and I thank Nebraskans for the privilege of serving as
their voice in the Senate.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will speak for the last time on this
bill, but I wish to also speak about an amendment that I expect will be
brought forward by the Senator from Massachusetts in a few minutes.
Because we are running out of time, I will respond to her amendment
before she actually offers it, and then I expect she will offer it in
the next few minutes.
Senator Warren I expect will offer an amendment to strike the end-
user provisions of the legislation before us today, and I have already
discussed those to some extent so I will not get into too much detail
about it, but I do wish to respond once again on the importance of
keeping this end-user exemption in this legislation.
For those who did not hear the earlier debate, this provision would
enable nonfinancial end users--these are organizations that are trying
to manage their own economic risk in their businesses. This is not Wall
Street. This is Main Street. These are farmers, ranchers, small
businesses, and large businesses across this country. It would allow
them to keep their limited funds and capital in play for their use for
investment, growth, and for expansion and job development in our
economy.
In recent months there has been an increased discussion by both sides
of the aisle about the issues relating to the Dodd-Frank legislation
and the need for fixes. Some of these fixes should not be controversial
or political. There is bipartisan agreement that the Dodd-Frank rules
go too far, and some of them need fixed, such as fixing the end-user
exemption that is before us.
I have just been notified that there is only 5 minutes remaining. I
expect I will only use about 5 minutes, but if I go longer, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my time for a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. The architects of the Dodd-Frank legislation itself--
Senators Lincoln and Dodd on the Senate side--stated their intent to
provide an explicit exemption from margin requirements for nonfinancial
end users. I know that is a complicated issue to explain. I have
explained it in detail already, so I will not do that again now. But
acknowledging that the language for end users in the draft of Dodd-
Frank was not perfect, they sent a letter, which I quoted from earlier,
to then-Chairmen Frank and Peterson, stating that ``[T]he legislation
does not authorize the regulators to impose margins on end-users, those
exempt entities that use swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk.''
Despite the clarity of their intent, Dodd-Frank was not fixed in
conference and regulators had interpreted that in fact the statutory
language does contain an ambiguity which they interpret requires them
to impose margin requirements. It is not just current or former
Senators who have advocated for this clarity. Regulators have spoken
out about it as well.

As I mentioned earlier, in February 2013 at a Humphrey-Hawkins
hearing, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, identified
the end-user exemption as one of the specific Dodd-Frank provisions
that Congress should reconsider. I specifically asked him about it.
I asked:

If we were able to achieve some bipartisan consensus on
steps to improve Dodd-Frank, what are some of the provisions
that you think need clarification, or improvement for
reconsideration?

An end-user legislation reform was one of those he identified. I also
asked former Chairman Bernanke about the role of end users in our
economy and whether they posed a systemic risk.
He stated:

I certainly agree that nonfinancial end-users benefit, and
that the economy benefits, from the use of derivatives. It
seems to be the sense of a large portion of Congress that
that [end-user] exemption should be made explicit. And
speaking for the Federal Reserve, we're very comfortable with
that proposal.

We attempted to address this issue in the last Congress. We
introduced a Senate bill with six Republican and six Democratic
sponsors, which ultimately grew to 20 sponsors, but were unable to get
any consideration of it in this Congress.
Unless Congress acts, regulations based on the current statute will
go into place which will make it more expensive for farmers,
manufacturers, energy producers, and many small business owners across
this country to manage their risks. There are many examples of other
Members of Congress in the House and Senate, Republican and Democratic,
who have spoken about the need for certainty and exemptions with
respect to this provision.
I will conclude by reading from a letter sent out by a coalition of
end users. These are businesses, as I said, large and small across this
country, that are alarmed at the damage this current statutory language
will do to their business operation. I gave several specific examples
of this earlier in our debate.
The end-user coalition has said in a letter it sent to Congress that
they represent hundreds of end-user companies that employ derivatives
to manage their business risks; in other words, not to speculate in
markets but to manage their business risks and that they strongly
support this language.
Their point is that this language ``would not help financial
companies. It would not create any systemic risk. It would not reverse
any regulatory policy. And it would not create an exemption that
Congress did not intend. In fact, it fulfills the commitments made on
the record to end-users by the committee chairs and sponsors of the
Dodd-Frank Act at the time of its passage. The end-user language simply
would

[[Page S82]]

protect main street companies''--and I emphasize Main Street; we are
not talking about Wall Street--``from harmful and unnecessary margin
requirements and preserve jobs.''

A Coalition survey of chief financial officers and
corporate treasurers released earlier this year underscores
the need. . . .

Eighty-six percent of the survey of these companies responded ``that
fully collateralizing over-the-counter derivatives would adversely
impact business investment, acquisitions, research & development and
job creation. Another Coalition survey found that a 3% initial margin
requirement could reduce capital spending by as much as $5.1 to $6.7
billion . . . and cost 100,000 to 130,000 jobs.''
The issue is not just fixing an issue because it is going to have a
huge, damaging impact on companies across this country that need it for
their business risk management, it is an issue for developing more
robust economic development and jobs in our economy which badly needs
it.
The idea for providing clarity to end users and regulators precedes
the passage of Dodd-Frank, and I am hopeful that now we can get it
across the finish line.
Including the end-user fix provides certainty for Main Street
businesses that played no role in the financial crisis by establishing
a clear exemption for excessive margin requirements on our economy.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support
for the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.
This bill will ensure that communities and businesses will continue
to have the insurance protection they need to quickly recover after
major terrorist attacks.
You see, the September 11, 2001 attacks resulted in approximately
$32.5 billion in claims paid by insurers to terrorism risk insurance
policyholders, which makes the deadly terrorist attack the second most
costly insurance event in the history of the Nation.
Due to the catastrophic damage, the record breaking insurance payout,
and the threat of future attacks, the private insurance industry
stopped offering terrorism risk insurance. The aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 attacks sent a shockwave through the insurance
industry and the lack of the availability of terrorism risk insurance
contributed to the economic recession that followed the attacks.
To address the issue, Congress established the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Program in 2002. The program is federally backed so private
insurers can continue to offer terrorism risk insurance. The Federal
Government only pays out when damage from a terrorist attack exceeds
$100 million. The program is also designed so the Federal Government
recoups any funds that it pays out. I also want to note that the
Federal Government has not paid out a single dollar since the creation
of the program in 2002.
Congress has created other federally backed insurance programs to
address market failures where the risk of damage due to a disaster is
so large it makes insurance unaffordable. The best example of this
being done at the national level is the National Flood Insurance
Program. At a State level, California created a State-backed program
for earthquake insurance.
Since 2002, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program has worked well to
make sure the Nation, and California, is prepared to rebuild in the
aftermath of a major terrorism attack.
Terrorism insurance is particularly important for California, due to
my State's many large metropolitan areas, its public transit systems,
and its many public events. The program makes sure communities and
businesses across California are resilient and are prepared for the
risk of a terrorist attack.
The recent World Series held in California, which drew over 40,000
fans to each game at the AT&T Park in San Francisco, is a prime example
of how terrorism risk insurance works to protect California. The U.S.
Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building west of the Mississippi
River, is protected by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. Terrorism
risk insurance provides workers' compensation protection to many of the
14.6 million members of California's labor force. California is also
home to many major airports, tourist attractions, and sporting venues
that all benefit from the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.
The math is simple: terrorism risk insurance means businesses and
local governments will have the resources to repair and rebuild should
another major terrorist attack occur in the United States.
I also want to point out several positive changes in the
reauthorization being considered on the floor today. First, this
legislation will gradually increase the ceiling at which the Federal
Government would provide payments after a terrorist attack from $100
million to $200 million. It will also increase the amount of money the
Federal Government would recoup after any payout from 133 percent to
135 percent.
These smart reforms gradually place more risk in the hands of the
private market. Due to these changes, the Congressional Budget Office
actually estimates that the reauthorization of the program will save
the government $450 million over the next 10 years.
I do want to express my disappointment that a provision was included
in the House-passed bill which would make changes to Dodd-Frank's
approach to the regulation of the swaps market. Swaps, a kind of
derivative instrument, played a key role in the financial crisis and we
should tread carefully when considering any revisions to our swaps
regulatory regime.
The provision in question prevents regulators like the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission
from imposing collateral requirements on counterparties to swaps
transactions with commercial end users. While I am sympathetic to the
concerns of commercial end users, preventing regulators from acting to
impose collateral requirements on their counterparties could result in
more costly risks building up in our financial system. This is the
wrong approach.
However, terrorism risk insurance is critically important to
California and to the Nation. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to
support the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that all future quorum calls, in
terms of time, be equally allocated between the two parties and suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts, [Ms. Warren], for herself
and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, after
9/11, Congress passed TRIA, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, to make
sure commercial developers could afford the high costs of insuring
their properties against the possibility of a devastating terrorist
attack.
This is a bill for the people who own the tallest buildings in the
world. TRIA is a critical program that helps drive economic development
and create jobs.
Last July Senate Democrats were united in support of a bill that
would reauthorize TRIA and establish a National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers, called NARAB.
The bill passed with 93 votes. Senate negotiators then reached a
compromise with the House on both TRIA and NARAB, but at the eleventh
hour House Republicans tacked on a provision that would roll back an
unrelated provision in Dodd-Frank, and then they left town for the
year, knowing the Senate would either have to swallow the change or let
TRIA expire.
That same bill, the TRIA compromise with the extra Dodd-Frank

[[Page S83]]

change attached to it, is currently being debated by the Senate.
We have seen this movie before. At the end of the last Congress,
House Republicans tacked a rollback of a ``no bailouts'' provision in
Dodd-Frank on to the must-pass funding bill. That rollback, which was
literally written by lobbyists for the giant bank Citigroup, was a Wall
Street giveaway--plain and simple. It made our financial system less
safe, and it increased the chances of another taxpayer bailout--all so
the biggest banks in the country could rake in more profits. But it
passed the House and then the House left town, and the only way to stop
it here in the Senate would have been to shut the government down.
Now, once again, the House has attached a Dodd-Frank change to a
must-pass piece of legislation. Whatever one's views are on the
substance of that provision, none of us should endorse the tactics
House Republicans have used to try to achieve this change. While some
might find this particular Dodd-Frank change desirable or
unobjectionable, that may not be the case with other changes that
Republicans decide to strap on to important, must-pass bills. If we
fail to challenge this cynical strategy now, it will only encourage
Republicans to pull our financial regulations apart piece by piece.
Just over 4 years ago, every Democrat voted for Dodd-Frank as a
necessary response to the worst financial crisis in generations.
Republicans have not hidden their intention to try to undo these basic
financial reforms. If Republicans want to try to roll back financial
reforms, let's have that debate on the merits of each proposal. But we
cannot have that debate if we permit Republicans to attach financial
reform rollbacks to must-pass pieces of legislation such as government
funding bills and the TRIA reauthorization bill.
That is why Senator Schumer and I are offering a substitute amendment
that reflects the original compromise between the House and the
Senate--an amendment that includes the compromise language on TRIA and
NARAB but omits the Dodd-Frank change.
A vote for this amendment is fully consistent with the vote that 93
Senators took last July--a vote in favor of a clean reauthorization of
TRIA and establishment of NARAB. For that reason, I am hopeful it will
pass, we can send the President a clean TRIA bill, and we can debate
this Dodd-Frank provision separately.
I am also hopeful Senate Democrats in particular will support it on
the principle that the Senate expects the House to honor the results of
good-faith negotiations and will not support procedural tricks to tack
on Dodd-Frank changes to unrelated, must-pass bills--no matter what
those changes might be.
The Treasury Department supports this amendment. Here is what they
said:

We support a long-term renewal of TRIA, given the important
role it plays to our national security and economy, while
making sensible reforms to further reduce taxpayer exposure.
It is unfortunate that some are attempting to use TRIA
legislation to modify the Wall Street Reform Act. We support
the Warren substitute amendment which represents the
bicameral, bipartisan TRIA compromise from last year that
would have averted any lapse in the program.

I agree with the President.
I voted for TRIA in the banking committee, and I was one of 93
Senators who voted for it on the Senate floor. But I cannot support
Wall Street reform rollbacks through these hostage tactics. So if we
are unable to pass a clean TRIA amendment, then I will also vote no on
the bill.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the
reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which I
strongly support. As I have emphasized in the past, reauthorizing TRIA
is vital. In addition to serving on the Banking Committee, I also now
serve as the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Committee, and it is
through this dual perspective, and from what we know of the significant
terrorist threats our Nation still faces, that I am convinced that
there is value in reauthorizing TRIA.
We must keep markets effectively operating in light of these threats.
We must continue to have policies in place to make sure our economy
stays on track in the event of another attack on our nation. In short,
reauthorizing TRIA is not only a matter of economic security, it is
also a matter of national security.
I believe most of my colleagues share this view, and it is one of the
many reasons why the Senate in the last Congress was able to pass a
TRIA reauthorization bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a
vote of 93 to 4 in July of last year. This did not happen by accident
but through a concerted bipartisan effort in the Senate to steer clear
of controversial and ideological demands on both sides of the aisle in
an earnest attempt to work together in defense of our country and our
economy.
We are here today because the House of Representatives did not abide
by these same principles and insisted on including in the
reauthorization bill an unrelated provision that would weaken the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform Act. This provision effectively prevents the
banking regulators, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, from calling for margin or
collateral protections if they happen to notice excessive risk in
derivatives transactions with commercial end users. In short, this bill
would prevent our financial regulators from utilizing this tool to
protect our markets.
Especially in the wake of the financial crisis, it would seem that we
should be providing our regulators with all the necessary tools to
limit excessive risk instead of limiting their ability to protect our
markets. Indeed, the financial regulators have already been exercising
the discretion we gave them in Dodd-Frank to exempt commercial end
users from having to post margin through a proposed rule. But by
passing this provision today, we eliminate this discretion to protect
our markets through this particular tool even when the facts on the
ground may call for its use in the name of market integrity.
For example, in December of last year, Reuters published an article
that explained the unexpected risks that certain commercial end users
are facing in light of falling oil prices. The article noted, ``with
oil prices tumbling faster and further than anyone had anticipated, the
collar hedges left the airlines with insurance against high costs they
no longer need and on the hook for protection they sold against a
further slide, with potential liabilities on the rise.'' In short, even
commercial end users face risks, both expected and unexpected, in their
derivatives transactions, and if the circumstances call for it, we
should be giving our regulators the necessary tools to police and
protect our markets; not further restricting them.
All of this goes back to the need for considering these very
complicated and consequential bills that impact our financial markets
in a deliberative manner, not through attaching them at the last minute
to unrelated and must pass bills. I voted against the Omnibus
Appropriations bill in the last Congress, in part, because it repealed
section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which sought to
prevent bank subsidiaries that are covered by federal deposit insurance
or that take advantage of Federal Reserve lending programs from
engaging in the riskiest derivatives trades. In essence, the riskiest
derivatives trades would have been pushed out from these subsidiaries
in an effort to reduce systemic risk and provide greater assurances
that Wall Street gambles would not be subsidized by taxpayers.
Unfortunately, this provision was repealed before it even had the
chance to be fully implemented by the regulators.
During my tenure as the then-chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on
Securities, Insurance, and Investment, I spent many hours working on a
bipartisan basis with Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to thoughtfully
and carefully develop a derivatives compromise. While our effort was
transformed during the conference on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
Act, I am keenly aware of just how complicated derivatives can be, and
I have come to see that even the most seemingly innocuous provisions
can have devastating and unintended consequences.
Everyone should understand by now that the last thing Congress should
be doing is passing derivatives legislation with little deliberation as
part of any must pass legislation. This assault, bit by bit, on the
Dodd-Frank Act must

[[Page S84]]

stop. It is a disservice to the seriousness of this issue, to our
constituents, and to our economy. Lately, my Republican colleagues have
called for working cooperatively through the committee process, and I
welcome this opportunity. While this did not happen with this
particular derivatives provision, I hope my Republican colleagues will
do so in the future.
For these reasons, I support the Warren amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am in strong support of Sen.
Warren's amendment to strike the unrelated swaps provision from this
very important TRIA legislation.
While I am sympathetic to the concerns of commercial end users about
increased transactions costs, it is simply the wrong approach to
prevent regulators from acting, if needed, to protect our financial
system from risky transactions.
We must afford our financial regulators with sufficient discretion to
act to prevent more financial crises. The financial market regulators
have already acted to provide relief for counterparties to swaps
transactions with commercial end users. That makes the inclusion of
this swaps provision in the TRIA legislation unnecessary. Sen. Warren's
amendment would preserve the current regulatory approach to uncleared
swaps transactions with commercial end users, while also allowing for
sufficient regulatory discretion to impose margin requirements on the
counter parties to these transactions in the future should it become
necessary to protect our financial system.
The inclusion of the swaps provision in this critically important
terrorism risk insurance bill is a part of a disturbing trend. Some
policymakers believe that Dodd-Frank should be undone. They believe
that the derivatives reforms which for the first time regulated a
market that contributed to the financial crisis should be dismantled
piece by piece. Just last month, a major reform was repealed in a must
pass appropriations bill, despite being an objectionable policy which
would not have passed were it considered on its own merits. This is a
troubling trend because the derivatives reforms are in place to protect
our financial markets and protect the taxpayer.
Title VII of Dodd-Frank introduced historic reforms of the
derivatives market establishing transparency and accountability. Those
who would dismantle Dodd-Frank's derivatives reforms should explain to
the American people why they should once again be on the hook for deep
systemic losses caused in part by these high risk financial products.
It does not make sense to undo this important set of reforms. I am
pleased to stand with Senator Warren and with any other Senator on
either side of the aisle to defend these important reforms and defend
the taxpayer.
Dodd-Frank's swaps reforms are critically important to addressing the
regulatory gaps in the swaps markets which contributed to the magnitude
of the crisis and the costs of the response to it. We should not roll
back these needed reforms. Regulators have already provided sufficient
relief to counterparties on this matter and moving forward with the
provision, as it is creates new risks that are unnecessary and which we
may one day regret. There is no need to tie their hands on this point.
I firmly support Senator Warren's important amendment because it
protects the critical swaps reforms made by Dodd-Frank at a time when
financial stability is important in our economic recovery. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 5\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the majority has none.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York. I
thank him for his leadership for a number of years on this bill and the
hard work he did leading up to December to try to get this passed
before the unfortunate response of the Republican majority in the House
of Representatives, and I thank him for his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio
on his ascending to the ranking membership of the banking committee. I
know he will do a very outstanding job there and we look forward to it.
Before we vote on the amendment before us, which I urge my colleagues
to support, I wish to reiterate the importance of reauthorizing the
TRIA program.
Undoubtedly, TRIA is a national priority, but it is particularly
important to my home State of New York, one of the world's most
targeted cities. After 9/11, I helped introduce and pass the program as
a solution to what was a vexing problem in the insurance industry--how
to calculate the risks associated with a terrorist attack. It was an
issue we never had to deal with before. Construction and economic
growth did not depend on whether developers could ensure their property
against a terrorist attack. But, of course, 9/11 changed that as it
changed so many things that day.
TRIA emerged as a responsible partnership between the public and
private sector, with the government providing a backstop for private
insurers. As far as new programs go, it has been extraordinarily
successful.
Over the past decade, TRIA fueled the rebirth of Lower Manhattan. I
see it every time I drive through it. One only needs to look at the
skyline because we now have a new World Trade Center which has emerged
from the shadow of the old towers. One need only ask the construction
workers who have helped rebuild the area or look at the tens of
thousands of jobs that came back after we rebuilt. The redevelopment of
Lower Manhattan is first and foremost a symbol of our city and our
Nation's resilience, but it is also a testament to how effective TRIA
insurance has been at creating the right conditions for growing our
economy and creating jobs in our cities. Passing TRIA today will keep
the program alive and continue the remarkable growth we have seen in
New York over the past several years. It will do the same for the
skyscraper in Los Angeles, the stadium in Nebraska, the shopping center
in Tennessee. So this program affects the whole country. Any large
project depends on terrorism insurance.
I know there are some of my colleagues, particularly those in the
House, who say this isn't the government's role. Well, government
hasn't spent one nickel on this program. It has been fully reimbursed,
and it is the government's role to foster jobs, to foster economic
development, to step in not when the private sector can do the job well
but when the private sector can't do the job. After 9/11 people weren't
building, construction wasn't going forward not only in New York but in
the country, because people could not get terrorism insurance. That is
why I am glad TRIA will pass today so we can put the temporary
expiration of the program behind us.
I am proud to say that attempts by the other body to either not pass
the program or so limit it that it would be ineffective, which happened
as recently as within the last few days, have failed. I thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank Mike Crapo who was the
ranking member of the banking committee, and I thank Speaker Boehner
and Leader McCarthy for understanding the importance of passing this
legislation. The negotiated bill between Chairman Hensarling and me
preserves the terrorism insurance program largely intact--just about
fully intact--to what it was before and has successfully worked. We did
not back off on what we had to do.
As I have said before, it is regrettable that extraneous measures
were attached. They should be openly debated. That is why I will be
fully supporting the amendment that has been offered by the Senator
from Massachusetts. But terrorism insurance will be renewed, and I am
very glad for that.
I thank Senator Johnson, the former chairman; I thank Senator Brown,
the present ranking member, and all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, particularly those who voted yes--from Bernie Sanders to Ted
Cruz--who saw

[[Page S85]]

the worthiness and the necessity of this program, which will now go
forward.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 1 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 1 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hirono
Kaine
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--66

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Capito
Reid
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been
read the third time the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--4

Cantwell
Rubio
Sanders
Warren

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Capito
Reid
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved,
the bill (H.R. 26) is passed.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________