don't seem the least bit concerned about the casualties they leave behind in the process. i've tried to get some of these bureaucratic foot soldiers down to kentucky to see the impact of their efforts firsthand, but of course they're not interested. they're not interested in people like the 32-year-old unemployed miner who walked into a pregnancy center to ask for baby clothes. an employee at the center wrote to tell me what this miner had to say. here's what he said: i don't come from a family that has ever had to ask for help, he said. i feel humiliated, but my baby is suffering. that pregnancy center employee wrote that the look on his face broke her heart, but this is the plight of many of our families in eastern kentucky. she wrote, their livelihood is being taken away from them by the war on coal.

these are the people that distant bureaucrats here in washington should be forced to meet before they draft their rules. this guy just wants to put food on the table, to keep the lights on and to give his kids a better life. but the war on cool jobs is taking -- the war on coal jobs is taking away more than his livelihood and that of many others. it is taking away his dignity as well. maybe that's why the administration doesn't want to meet kentuckians like him. maybe that is why they don't want to look at my constituents, look them in the eye. it's a big problem, and that's why i'm so proud of the people who stood up to this latest ominous regulation. yesterday the e.p.a. confirmed that it won't hold a single hearing within hours of my state as it works to finalize national energy tax regulations that could devastate the lives of tens of thousands of kentuckians.

they don't care, and they're not listening. well, i care. i see these folks when i go home. i hear their stories. my heart breaks for them. and so i'm going to keep fighting this kind of thing. i'm going to keep fighting against the obama administration's various power grabs and its regulatory overreach. i'm going to keep fighting against a national energy tax. i'm going to keep fighting for practical ideas that aim to help struggling families for once, a marked departure from the administration's constant attacks against them. ideas like the coal country protection act and the saving coal jobs act, these proposals are just common sense. and if the majority leader would stop blocking them, we could deliver some relief to middle-class families for ones.

so he should know that i'm not going to let up, and neither are the american people. we won this important victory yesterday on another subject over the e.p.a.'s latest power grab. because as we also saw with the administration's recent withdrawal of an i.r.s. regulation aimed at restricting free speech, the people can still win with enough determination. civic involvement works, and given the pattern of abuse we kept seeing from this administration, it's absolutely critical. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of senate 2244, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number

438, s. 2244, a bill 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 committee-reported amendments are agreed to and the bill as amended is considered original text for the purposes of further amendment. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent to speak for three minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, the administration sent several cabinet secretaries and high-ranking appointees to brief all senators last evening on the crisis of the children on the border, and what it appears is that they are getting their arms around addressing the problem of

the children in the crisis, the humanitarian crisis on the border. however, it is the opinion of this senator that they do not recognize the root cause of the problem. and if the administration would listen to their four-star general, the head of the united states southern command, general kelly, and the testimony that he has already given to the armed services committee of what is the problem, then we could get to the root cause of the problem and stop these future humanitarian crises. the problem simply is that we are not devoting the time and the resources, the money to the interdiction of the big drug shipments coming out of south america into central america.

they come in big shipments from colombia through venezuela by air or sea on the eastern side from colombia through ecuador or originating ecuador out on the western side coming in to three central american states: honduras, guatamala, and el salvador. as a result, the drug lords have completely taken over those countries. as a result, the violence is the highest. honduras is the murder capital now of the world. and as a result of that drug violence of which there is very little law and order, you have the whole system corrupted, and with parents, with children, is it logical that they would want

to send their children to a safer environment? mr. president, the administration has got to address this issue with regard to going back what we did so successfully in plan colombia. interdict the drug traffic before it gets to those central american countries, because once it does in the big shipments, then they break it down into smaller packages and it goes north. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, first i want to thank my good friend from florida for his heartfelt and as always articulate words. we are now going to debate finally the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance program. senator crapo and i have opening statements. but senator tester, who has

added an extremely important amendment to this legislation, has a markup shortly, so we're going to accede and let him speak about his amendment first, and then we'll get on to our opening statements. and i want to thank senator tester for his hard work on this issue as well as his ability to compromise to get something done. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i want to call up amendment number 3552 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, proposes an amendment numbered 3552. mr. tester: i'd also ask that senators klobuchar and pryor be added as exprors. the presiding exprors. -- cosponsors. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i want to thank chairman johnson and ranking member crapo for their hard work on the tria bill and for helping me on this amendment as well as

senators schumer and -- [inaudible] for their hard work. i also want to give a special thank you to senator johanns who is a cosponsor of this amendment, somebody i've worked very closely with to get this amendment to the point it is today. the tester-johanns amendment is a national association of registered agents and brokers act otherwise known as narab, introduced last year. it was reported out of the banking committee on a voice vote. our amendment creates a nonprofit association to provide one-stop licensing for insurance agents and brokers operating outside their home state. this arrangement would fully preserve the authority of state insurance regulators to supervise these markets. currently an insurance agent or broker seeking to operate in multiple states must meet

different state-specific licensing requirements and seek approval from each state insurance commissioner. this process is time-consuming, it's costly, it's redundant, sometimes contradictory without providing any greater consumer protection. and it is a big disincentive for smaller agents and brokers to grow their businesses. this is not a new issue for the insurance industry. congress recognized the need for a form -- to reform the insurance licensing system way back in 1999 when it incorporated the national association of registered agents and brokered subtitle into the graham-leech-riley act, it did not achieve the level of ross prosty and uniformity congress expected and these efforts to streamline insurance licensing never took hold. and that is why it is important that this amendment is before

the senate today. senator johanns and my amendment would provide insurance agents and brokers with the option of becoming a member of the narab providing that they meet professional standards set by the association and that they undergo a criminal background check. the narab will streamline the licensing process for agents and brokers enabling them to be licensed under one single, strong national licensing standard rather than following different state standards, thereby saving time and money. in addition to setting rigorous professional standards, the association will let agents and brokers renew their licenses all at once and fully preserve the ability of regulators to protect consumers and supervise and discipline agents and brokers. currently on average, insurance agents sell their products in eight states with many serving even more. a one-stop licensing compliance mechanism will benefit all

agents and brokers but particularly the smaller folks who must spend time and money dealing with different standards in different states. the one-stop shop for insurance licensing will help smaller players compete against the bigger competitors. it's good for business. it's good for consumers. narab represents a decades' worth of efforts and i believe we'll finally achieve the goals laid out in gramm-leach-bliley. some would argue it would diminish states rights, but in this case i believe they're wrong. let me take a minute and talk about how this amendment protects states rights. under this amendment, states would retain all authority to license their own resident agents and brokers. the association would be required to notify states when agents and brokers apply for membership, letting the states notify narab of any reason that

membership should not be granted to a producer. states will also have significant control over narab. the nonprofit association would be governed by a board of directors dominated by state insurance regulators and chaired by a state insurance regulator. and most importantly, narab deals only with marketplace entry and would not impact the day-to-day regulation of insurance. states will maintain exclusive controlling over the regulation of the marketplace activities, the civil protection requirements, unfair trade practices and other important areas. under this bill, under this amendment it will preserve the authority of states to supervise insurance producers. any agent or broker who obtains the authority to operate in a jurisdiction through narab is still subject to the full regulatory authority of that state and must comply with all marketplace requirements. and under our amendment, states will continue to receive insurance licensing fees which would be collected by narab and

remitted to the states. this legislation is supported by the national association of insurance and financial advisors, the council of insurance agents and brokers, the independent insurance agents and brokers of america. it is also supported by the national association of state insurance commissioners and has expressed its full support for this bill and the final tria bill. i'd ask my colleagues to support the tester-johanns amendment. it is a commonsense amendment that helps not only the industry but also the consumers. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. i want to start out today and just acknowledge the good work of the senator from montana. this bill has been around a long time, and it is our hope that we're getting to a point today where we can say that finally

we've solved the problems. now i would say this, the senator from montana has done an excellent job of plague out what this bill is all -- of laying out what this bill is all about and what it's not about. and i don't feel a need today to repeat the things that he has said. but let but let me just make a couple of points, if you will. first of all, the partnership that we had in working on this bill was excellent, and that's why it's this far along. it was a bipartisan effort. this legislation is long overdue, and it does benefit consumers and businesses all across this great country. it's exactly what we look for. it reduces red tape. it encourages competition. it protects state law. and it promotes consumer choice. for these reasons, it is my hope that the entire united states senate unanimously supports the

amendment. i might mention that we passed this legislation out of the banking committee about a year ago. that was after working on this for about ten years. and the house passed this bill last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 397-6. so i'm pleased that we can advance this legislation today as a part of the terrorism risk insurance bill, which i also support and will vote yes on. frankly, i would say this also -- it's refreshing to finally be allowed to vote amendments -- to vote on amendments on the senate floor. i hope this is a sign of things to come. i thank senator schumer and senator crapo for their work in bringing us to this point. without their work, tria would not be consider it's at today. so with that, mr. president, i

urge the adoption of the amendment. i hope we can move the legislation to the president's desk as soon as possible. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, and i want to thank both my colleagues from montana and nebraska for their hard work on not only this legislation but their very important amendment, long overdue. i certainly want to thank senators johnson and crapo without whose leadership we couldn't be here and pass this bill and my cosponsors, original cosponsors, senator kirk who is here from illinois, senator jack reed, senator heller, senator murphy, senator johanns, your warner, senator -- senator warner, senator blunt and senator menendez, all of whom recognize the importance of having this incredibly important program reauthorized. as author of the original legislation, i have watched its evolution closely. i could not be more convinced of the necessity to reauthorize the program for the long haul. mr. president, i remember the

dark days right after 9/11. i was there. and the worst thing was the loss of life. people we have all known. i knew people who were lost, i played basketball with in high school and a businessman who helped me on the way up, a firefighter i did blood drives with. but there was also the economic worry. people thought that southern manhattan would not come back. people thought that businesses would flee new york, that new york's greatest days were behind us. and of course the people of new york with their resiliency backed up by everyone in this country, including president bush, very strongly, did come back. but the uncertainty that we faced in the immediate aftermath was there would be no building in southern manhattan or in manhattan at all. and we have some history here. one of the things that greatly stood in the way was the private sector did not offer any sufficient coverage to protect against the threat of terrorism. no one knew when there might be

another terrorist incident. insurance companies, knowing how large the losses were, figured it was better not to underwrite insurance than write it for such an astronomical sum that the building would not be even economically feasible. and so we have some colleagues who say this should be a private sector endeavor. well, we have history. the private sector was unable, because of the potential economic losses, if god forbid there was another terrorist attack, whether it be conventional, nuclear or chemical, to provide terrorism insurance. when that occurred, banks would not finance buildings, knowing there was no insurance backup, and we would have been in huge trouble. and that's why we deviced the terrorism insurance bill. for those who say let the private sector do it, we have an experiment. we have what the scientists would call a controlled experiment. when there was no terrorism

insurance after 9/11, the private sector would not offer insurance. and we even find to this day, as the existing bill expires, fewer people underwrite terrorism insurance and fewer buildings are financed. so we can do one of two things. we can sit back and let the market handle this on its own and lose millions, literally millions of jobs, lose economic stability, safety, prosperity and growth, or we can renew this legislation. we can come up with smart, responsible risk-sharing system where the private sector is paying up front but if god forbid there is another serious incident beyond the capability of the private sector to shoulder, the federal government can step in and provide a back stop. well, that is what we've done. the tria program is a shining example of the government partnering with the private sector to solve problems that neither can solve on its own. let me underline first the

importance to my city of new york the redevelopment of downtown manhattan. it's booming now. people are flocking to live there and work there. it's the hot area in new york again, not just with financial services but with law and advertising and high tech. and it serves a reminder of the role that the federal government can and should play in helping facilitate the stability and growth of cities across the country. this bill will not lessen the impact of terrorist attack but will help ensure that our city and cities throughout the country are less vulnerable to the economic devastation that would follow such a horrific event. but this bill is hardly just focused on new york city. it not only affects every large city, it affects my good friend from nebraska's folk. it affects the football stadium and any renovations that might occur there in lincoln. i have been there for a nebraska-oklahoma game. it was an amazing experience. it affects any city that has

large gatherings of people and buildings, shopping centers, athletic facilities, colleges. and so it affects almost every state, and that's one of the reasons we have come together and gotten such broad bipartisan support. we must make sure that every reauthorization of the program provides the certainty lenders and developers need to make the kind of long-term investment that our country and that large projects need to stimulate job growth and economic growth, and this bill does just that. that's why it was passed out of the banking committee unanimously. and again, i thank my colleagues particularly on the other side of the aisle. as senator johanns said, maybe this bill -- we say it on each bill where there is some bipartisan support. this one has overwhelming support. can be a model that at least on many issues we can work

together. so, madam president -- mr. president, time is of the essence. insurance policies for 2015 are already being written. each day that goes by without a tria program causes great uncertainty in the market and hold back the potential for more development, more construction, more jobs, more economic growth. so i will talk about the amendments later, but i want to urge my colleagues both here in the senate and in the house to move as quickly as possible because our economy is greatly affected by it. it's one of those quiet -- it runs quiet, it runs deep. it's a quiet policy but a policy that greatly affects lots of things that go on. and again, i want to thank my colleague, senator crapo, for his good and hard work on this, as well as senator johnson and my cosponsors, and i yield the floor to him. mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate senator schumer and the work we have been able to do together to move this legislation forward. i rise today to speak in favor of s. 2244, the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization act or tria. as a cosponsor of this bill, i recognize senator schumer, senator kirk, senator heller and others for helping to put this bipartisan piece of legislation together. chairman johnson and his staff also deserve a great amount of thanks for their strong efforts in moving this bill forward. working together, we developed a balanced bipartisan product that was literally unanimously supported in the banking committee 22-0. this bill that we have put together allows the private insurance industry to absorb and cover the losses of all but the largest acts of terror, ones in which the federal government would likely be forced to step in in any event if the program were not there.

taxpayer protections have been increased in this reauthorization by moving more of the responsibility for losses onto private insurers. for those who are not familiar with the program, tria was initially passed as a response to the unavailability of terrorism insurance in the wake of 9/11. the private market had already retreated in response to those terrorist attacks. it was then thought that a temporary program would allow the market time to develop products that will allow policyholders to protect themselves from terrorism losses more than a decade after the tragic events of 9/11, the temporary inability to insure against terrorism has evaded and private capital is better positioned to take on more exposure to terrorism. when the banking committee held its first hearing on tria's reauthorization last year, we discussed the ability of the private insurance market to step in to provide terrorism

insurance if the tria program expired. in that hearing and in subsequent meetings with providers, policyholders and stakeholders, we recognized on a bipartisan basis that the continued difficulties associated with providing terrorism insurance required that we look again at extending the act. terrorism is difficult to predict. therefore, the ability to develop products to insure against terrorism is very difficult to do. the size, severity and frequency of attacks are hard to model. also, attacks may be highly correlated, making it difficult for private insurers to diversify their risk. having tria in place was determined to be important, but if the market is too heavily reliant on federal support, we may deter private companies from coming up with cost-effective solutions. that's why instead of a straight reauthorization, i and others pushed for reforms to maintain

the program and increase protections for taxpayers. in order to do that, we examined each of the policy levers in the program. the bill marked up by the banking committee would increase the insurance industry's aggregate retention level and the company coinsurance levels. as the program stands today, the federal government would recoup any tria payments that it makes up to $27.5 billion through post-event payments. this industry retention level allows the taxpayer to recover tria payments through an industrywide assessment on property casualty policies. this was the last -- this aspect of the bill was last changed in the 2005 reauthorization. the bill before us today increases that recoupment level by $2 billion a year to an overall level of $37.5 billion, an additional $10 billion. this is a significant reduction

in the potential exposure and cost to taxpayers. in addition, the bill increases the company coinsurance level from 15% to 20% over five years. this means that before the back stop is reached, each company will take on a greater portion of the losses above their deductible. in order to get more private capital in the marketplace, senator flake has an amendment to create an advisory committee to promote the creation and development of private sector risk-sharing mechanisms. i support the addition of the flake amendment and believe the advisory committee will find private sector solutions that will allow us to further decrease the program in future reauthorizations. before i conclude, mr. president, i would also like to note that i have a handful of letters in my possession here from groups across this country strongly supporting and encouraging that we adopt this

legislation. the united states chamber of commerce has listed this as a key vote. the coalition to insure against terrorism which represents dozens and dozens of the financial sector interests across this country recommend and encourage that we support this legislation. the mortgage bankers association. the national association of insurance companies. the property casualty insurers. the national apartment association. the national multifamily housing council. and the american -- excuse me. the american builders conference. mr. chairman -- mr. president, these are just a sampling of those letters that we have received from interests across the nation who support this legislation, and i would ask unanimous consent at this time that these letters be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, getting terrorism risk insurance right is important north to protect taxpayers and to limit economic and physical impacts of any future terrorist attacks 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. again, i thank chairman johnson and senators schumer, and others for bringing this bill forward and encouraging its adoption. thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i haven't spoken that much in this chamber since i suffered that stroke. i so strongly believe in the legislation to make it happen. behind me is a representation of the world's tallest buildings. of the 10 tallest buildings in the world, none are in the

u.s.a. look over at that tallest one. that kind of still pises me up, that burj khalifa, which is right now is the tallest building in the world. i believe that as the senator representing chicagoland, the city that invented the skyscraper, that chicagoland citizens have a right to grow up in the -- in the shadow of the world's tallest building. and unless we quantify the risk from building one of these buildings through the tria legislation, we will return skyscrapers to the country that invented skyscrapers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: senator crapo listed some letters and asked they be put in the record for -- from some groups supporting our legislation. we have a very long list.

and i'd ask unanimous consent that that list be added to the record of supporters of the legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, i'd like to just discuss the amendment process, to preview it for my colleagues a little bit. first -- and i would also ask consent, mr. president, that quorum calls be counted equally against both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, as was mentioned, i believe, by some of my colleagues, the give-and-take on this bill was ideally how things should work. first, a bipartisan group of senators got together and crafted the legislation. as senator crapo noted, there was some push and pull, what should be the balance between government and private sector, and we did move a little bit more in giving greater responsibility to the private sector. people should note that at the end of the day, the private sector will pay back all the money the government would lay out if god, forbid, there's a

terrorist incident but it would be over a period of time, of course. but we had democrats and republicans come together and we came up with a bill. the chairman and ranking member agreed that the bill was a good idea, held hearings and then we moved forward with the legislation. then always comes the even greater morass. we do get some bills passed out of this place with bipartisan support and many of them are significant bills. but then you go to the floor and you wonder, well, what's going to happen now? and we have the age-old dispute approximate hoabout how many amt type of amendments, should they be relevant? in this case, we simply asked our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who would want amendments. the amendments that came back were reasonable. most, not all, were related to terrorism insurance. those that weren't, such as by senator tester and senator vitter, were in the jurisdiction of the banking committee so they were -- at least had some relationship. we did not get a flurry of

amendments from all over the place on issues that naturally divide the parties. and then we had to do some negotiating. but we allowed senato -- senatoo and senator johnson allowed every amendment that wanted to, any author who wanted to author an amendment could. now, we worked out some compromises on the tester amendment. senator coburn had objections and a compromise was worked out there. on some -- some were withdrawn. but at the end of the day, anyone who wanted an amendment got it. both sides showed restraint and i think that's what brought us to this position. and so the good news for my colleagues, we have a very limited number of amendments and we intend to dispose of the entire bill before lunch this morning. let me just briefly go over the amendments. senator coburn will offer an amendment on recoupment timing of the coburn amendment would give the -- timing. the coburn amendment would give

the treasury secretary the ability to extend the recoupment period up to 10 years. the problem is, the way senator coburn has drafted his amendment, it would create a significant score. he offered in the banking committee -- he offered it in the banking committee. it failed on a bipartisan vote, with the majority of both parties voting against it, but he wanted to offer it on the floor and so he will. there is a point of order, a paygo point of order that will be raised against the coburn amendment and i will raise that because it does break the budget. doesn't have a pay-for in exchange for it. and so chairman johnson and i and i believe the sponsors of the legislation recommend a "no" vote on waiving paygo against the coburn amendment. the tester amendment, as modified by senator coburn, i believe will be voice voted. senator tester and senator johanns described that adequately but it's something long overdue that would create a national association of

registered agents and brokers and make the whole brokerage business work more smoothly. it has very broad support in this body. senator vitter will offer an amendment that would require the president to nominate at least one individual with primary experience working in or supervising community banks on the federal reserve board of governors. i'm sure he'll be down here to explain his amendment. we expect that this amendment, which we will all agree to, will be approved by voice vote and chairman johnson has recommended a voice vote for the members on our side. and finally, there's a flake amendment that would create an advisory committee on risk-sharing mechanisms. again, i think senator flake will come down at some point and explain his amendment. there will be a recorded vote on this, at least as planned now, and i will be supportive and i know chairman johnson again has recommended a "yes" vote on the flake amendment. so with that, mr. president, i

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment -- oh. i ask unanimous consent to rescind the quorum call that we're in. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment 3551, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. flake, proposes an amendment numbered 3551. mr. flake: mr. president, i'm pleased to have the opportunity to offer this amendment. i thank my colleagues, the ranking member of the banking

committee, and the senior senator from new york for working with my office to make this possible. the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization act before us today extends for seven years the federal loss sharing programs in response to the market disruption as that were caused by 9/11. created in 200, 2 th 2002, the m risk insurance program was intended to be a three-year program. this bill was extended twice and the bill before us today would extend its life through december 31 of 2021. given the longevity of the program, i think it would be prudent of us to focus -- for us to focus some attention on the growing private market reinsurance capability and capacity. my amendment simply establishes an advisory committee composed of members of the insurance industry to provide recommendations to accelerate the creation and development of

private nongovernmental risk-sharing mechanisms for terrorism losses. i urge my colleagues to join me in taking this modest step toward developing a functioning private market for terrorism risk insurance and thereby reducing dependency on the federal government in this regard. that's all i have on this, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, while we have a moment here, i'd

like to take this opportunity to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. crapo: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to take this opportunity to make comments on the amendments that have been or will be presented to the bill, first, with regard to the amendment by senator flake. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, i support this amendment. one of the trade-offs, one of the issues we deal with with the reauthorization of tria each time we face it is the correct balance between what level of government protection and support needs to be in place to help the market deal with major catastrophic terrorism events in the united states and what levels of requirement will we insist there be, that the private sector step in and deal with these risks on an insurance -- on an insured basis rather than requiring the

taxpayers to be the ultimate back stop. ultimately our objective should be and must be that the taxpayer be relieved of this kind of burden and that the private sector step in and cover the risks through our private-sector insurance markets. we, i think, have a pretty broad consensus that we're not at the level yet where we can get there. but each time we have reauthorized tria, we have moved it closer to that objective. and this legislation itself moves it closer. as i said in my introductory remarks, we have increased the retention level. in other words, the amount of money that the private sector must pay back to the treasury if the treasury -- if the taxpayer is required ultimately to step in and back stop a catastrophic terrorist attack. and in this legislation, we are increasing that by another $10 billion, from $27.5 billion to

$37.5 billion. we also are increasing the amount of money which the private sector insurance industry must put up front before the government steps in and provides a back stop. and we're increasing that from a 15% co-pay to a 20% co-pay. so in this legislation itself, we are taking significant steps, again, further toward that ultimate objective of having the private sector fully handle the insurance of risk from catastrophic terrorist attacks. senator flake has provided an amendment which i support that would help us to create an advisory committee that will focus on this specific issue and help us to find private-sector solutions to allow us to further decrease the program in future reauthorizations. i think this is an incredibly important amendment, and i believe there is strong

bipartisan support for it. it allows us to have advice and support from this advisory committee that would be created under his amendment to take further and more important steps toward achieving the ultimate objective of having to be able to eliminate the need for a taxpayer involvement in dealing with catastrophic events like these terrorist attacks. and so, i strongly support the addition of the flake amendment. i believe the advisory committee he proposes will find private-sector solutions that will allow us to further decrease and ultimately eliminate the program in future reauthorizations. another amendment that has already been discussed on the floor today by senator tester of montana and senator johanns of nebraska is the narab amendment, which is the amendment to add to this legislation another important piece of legislation that the banking committee has previously put out called the national association of

registered agents and brokers, or narab. again, a bipartisan piece of legislation that has strong support across the united states in the various industries to try to allow our registered agents and brokers to have a more efficient and effective system in which to obtain necessary authorization to conduct their business nationwide. i'm an original cosponsor of this language because it simplifies the process of agent licensing across state lines while preserving the authority of state insurance regulators. this bill has broad support from the insurance community, including the national association of insurance commissioners, the independent insurance agents and brokers of america, the national association of insurance and financial advisors and the council of insurance agents and brokers. the creation of narab will allow agents and brokers to focus on their responsibilities to their clients and spend less time

dealing with red tape. by reducing costs and increasing competition among insurance producers, we will generate lower costs and better service for consumers. importantly, narab ii deals specifically with marketplace entry and would not interact the state's jurisdiction over day-to-day authority in the insurance marketplace. this is a very critical point because i think probably the biggest issue relating to this legislation is preserving and protecting state rights and state jurisdiction with regard to regulation of the insurance marketplace. insurance commissioners of the states will be able to better catch bad actors who after losing a license in one state move quickly to enter into another state. state regulators will serve on the board of narab with the same objectives they have as an insurance commissioner to, protect the public interest by promoting the fair and equitable treatment of insurance

consumers. the idea for narab is now 14 years old. we've been working on it literally for that long, and i'm hoping that in this legislation today we can get it across the finish line. mr. president, these are two important amendments that will come forward today with regard to the tria legislation. there are several more. but i'm hopeful that as we move forward today, we will make the kind of progress on these important and critical issues that will enable us to not only pass this legislation, but to do so with a strong vote here in the senate and then get us into a conference with the house where we can then put to the president's desk important legislation like this that has been developed on a bipartisan basis. far too often, we are seeing gridlock in these chambers. this is a piece of legislation -- actually two pieces of legislation where we have gotten bipartisan agreement and bipartisan support, and i think it's a good day for the senate to see this kind of

legislation moving forward. with that, mr. chairman, i note the absence of a quorum. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. let me join my friend, senator crapo, in congratulating the leadership on both the republican and democratic side, the leadership on the banking committee for bringing this bill before us this morning. it is unfortunately all too rare when we can bring a piece of legislation that has been worked on by both sides of the aisle, has broad agreement on both sides of the aisle, and of course as the senator knows, there's nothing partisan about the effects of gnat reauthorizing tria. this is going to affect every -- of not reauthorizing tria. this is going to affect every part of the country, republican and democrat, liberal and

conservative will all be paying a lot more, losing a lot more because of our failure to get this bill done. so let me again thank senator crapo and senator johnson for all the work that they have done. i was one of the original cointroducers of this bill, along with senator schumer, senator reed, menendez, warner, kirk, heller, johanns and blunt. ultimately, we are educated by what happens in the weeks and months following september 11. in that period of time, the real estate market in large parts of this country, certainly in my part of the country surrounding new york city collapsed. $15 billion of projects stalled overnight. we lost about 300,000 construction jobs that were planned to come online, all because the insurance industry

decided with justification that they could no longer insure for the risk of terrorism. prior to september 11, you got coverage for terrorism essentially at no cost, but after september 11, again for good reason, for good cause, insurers, without knowing what their exposure was going to be should there be another attack, decided they could no longer insure for that risk. and so in a sense it logically fell to the federal government to provide that assurance, to provide that assurance that no matter where you were, whether you were in idaho or nebraska or connecticut or new jersey, that if you were building a project and you were the subject of terrorism, that you would get a back stop, a protection for those losses. some people said at the time, well, why don't we treat insurance when it comes to protecting for terrorism like we protect against other disasters, and of course we see these

threats as fundamentally different. you can make a decision as to whether you want to live in a part of the country that may be subject to greater risk from, say, flood or hurricane, and so we have grown to accept the fact that you are going to pay a little bit more if you're going to have a house or a business right on the water. and we have a program here by which we mitigate that risk so that it's not extraordinarily different, understanding that there is still good reason why people have to congregate in those spaces. but a terrorist attack, frankly whether it happens in new york city right on the precipice of connecticut or los angeles or in a rural environment in the midwest, that's an attack on the united states of america. that's an attack on all of us, no matter what specific geography it happens to be located in.

and so that's why we have made the decision as a nation to help back stop those localities that may feel the initial burden of having to reconstruct after a terrorism attack because we believe that it's a national responsibility. and so for the practical reason that there was no longer an ability for the insurance industry to calculate how on earth they would assess a premium based on the enormous potential loss of a terrorist event and because of the fact that as americans we felt like we should come together and insure against this risk, we passed tria initially. over time, we have come together as republicans and democrats to reauthorize it. now, as time has gone on, we have had a conversation about how to best share this between the public sector and the private sector, because we expect that private insurers still should, as is their business, pick up some of this

cost, and so this version of the bill continues along the line of transferring some of this responsibility from the federal government and federal taxpayers to private insurers. so for instance the underlying legislation continues to have a 20% deductible, but after that 20% deductible is met, under the previous version of the bill, the insurer was responsible for picking up 15% of the cost. under this bill, they are going to pick up 20% of the cost. so a little more responsibility for the cost of paying out claims after a terrorist attack picked up by insurers. there is a provision of the bill that says that the federal treasury will recoup the costs from insurers of any claims that it pays out. they can do that over a long period of time. previously, it was mandatory to recoup all of that money for

claims under $27 billion. now that number is $37 billion, so we have a mandatory return to the treasury of any claims under $37 billion. an additional protection for taxpayers, an additional responsibility for insurers now, because we will collect from insurers for losses up to a higher amount than under the previous law, and i think all of this is pretty reasonable. so i wish there were more days like this and weeks like this. maybe tria isn't infused with the same kind of politics that other issues like immigration and energy reform and criminal justice reform can be, but this was made possible by some really hard work by a number of people who knew that this was the right thing to do for the country. as speaking -- speaking as a senator from a state that has a big stake in the reauthorization of tria, i want to say thank you to all the people who made this possible and give an advance

shoutout to the house of representatives who we hope will pass this bipartisan bill in an expeditious manner. connecticut cares about this because we were on the -- as i said the edge of the attack on september 11. we lost dozens and dozens of connecticut residents in that attack. our economy was effectively shut down because of the inability to assess this risk throughout the real estate sector surrounding new york city, but we also are home to some of the biggest and frankly the most responsible property and casualty insurers. the hartford and travelers in particular have been a big part of trying to figure out a public-private partnership to solve this problem, and this certainly helps them be able to provide more of a very important product to the rest of the country. so again, my thanks to all of

those who made this piece of legislation possible. my hope is that we get a big vote later today across the aisle, spending a message down to the house that they can take this bipartisan piece of legislation, pass it, get it to the president's desk so that we can once again give some sense of surety to our insurance markets and our real estate market that the united states of america is once again going to step up and decide that terrorism, no matter where it happens, in new york city or in topeka, is going to get this country's back. i yield the floor. and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enthe quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: and, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that i may call up my amendment number 3550, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. mr. vitter: mr. president -- the clerk: the senator from louisiana proposes amendment numbered 3550.

mr. vitter: i ask unanimous consent to waived the reading of the whole. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, i rise to address my amendment which i look forward to being adopted on this importance terrorism risk insurance reauthorization bill. it's a commonsense amendment. it's about the federal reserve board. and it says at least one member of that important board should have significant experience as a community banker or a community bank supervisor. now, mr. president, this used to be commonplace because community banks, smaller institutions were and are an important part of our financial system. in fact, these days it's really one part of our financial system that sets us apart from many others, like canada and europe, which are far more dominated by mega institutions. of course, the united states has some really big institutions and they serve an important role and they have an important place,

but smaller institutions, so-called community banks, serve a vital role as well and particularly in smaller communities and in more rural areas. they serve those communities in a way that megabanks simply do not. i've been looking at this trend on the federal reserve and unfortunately there is an unmistakable trend away from having adequate representation from folks with community bank experience. and that same trend has been toward having the federal reserve board completely dominated by academics and folks with megabank and academic economist experience. this chart shows that trend. from 1936 until the present, it goes decade by decade. it's a little busy and we have this color coding here, but basically you can see this huge

growth in the domination of this red category, of folks with pure academic/economic experience. and folks with community bank experience, which used to actually dominate the federal reserve board several decades ago, is now very, very limited. now look, there's nothing wrong with folks with academic experience but it shouldn't be so dominant on the federal reserve and we should have regular representation from community banks or community bank supervisors because that is a vital, vital part of our banking system. my amendment is, therefore, very simple. it would mandate that at least one member of the federal reserve board have that experience, have direct community bank experience or have direct experience as a community bank supervisor.

and specifically we're talking about institutions with less than $10 billion in total assets. this bill follows a letter several of my colleagues joined me in sending to president obama and we were asking him to nominate an individual with that sort of experience, and i want to thank the cosigners on that letter, senators tester, moran, merkley, coburn, and johanns, on the committee, and noncommittee members hirono, king, frank in, baldwin, begich, landrieu, heinrich and udall. we seem to be making progress in that regard. there's widespread recording that the white house is considering a list of candidates for the federal reserve with community banking experience, but this specific mandate, just one member, very modest mandate, would help ensure that that happens and would help ensure

that that regularly happens into the future, to reverse this trend, to get more balance on the federal reserve board. and this is very important in the context of the too-big-to-fail debate. too-big-to-fail helped lead to the crisis several years ago in the banking industry. it helped lead to the massive bailouts of mega institutions. and unfortunately, i am one who believes -- and there are many, many others -- that too-big-to-fail is alive and well today. that in some ways dodd-frank institutionalized too-big-to-fail. it did not end too-big-to-fail in any way. we need to do a number of things to even the playing field, to make it fair for smaller institutions, community banks that serve our smaller communities and rural areas, particularly on the federal reserve board, which is such a

significant governing and supervisory board in our banking industry. and i specifically want to thank the ranking member of the committee, ranking member crapo, for his support of this concept, his support in negotiations of this amendment and his very active involvement in getting this amendment accepted on to the tria bill. thank you, mr. chairman. i think the ranking member may have a few words about this and other things but i'll relinquish the floor. mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i'll just take a moment to speak about senator vitter's amendment, which i strongly support. during dr. yellen's nomination hearing, i noted the need to fill additional vacancies at the federal reserve board with individuals bringing balanced viewpoints. the president should nominate someone with community bank experience to the board to fill

at least one of the remaining vacancies. community banks play an important role in their local economies and face a disproportionate burden from our existing regulations. we should ensure that the perspective of these banks is represented in policy making. that's why this -- what this amendment does, and i encourage my colleagues to support it. thank you, mr. president. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: just one final wrap-up issue, i'd like unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter of support for this amendment from icba, the independent community bankers of america. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and my amendment number 3549 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will reportmenthe cle.

the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 3549. on page 4 -- mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: we have before us a bill that unfortunately we don't believe in markets and we're told that markets won't work so we have a terrorism risk insurance bill that means the federal government is going to be the insurer of last resort. and there have been some improvements over what we have put forward in the past and i agree with those improvements if, in fact, we have to do this. i'm not convinced that we have to do it but we -- we're going to do it and i understand that. and i think the work of the committee, of which i'm a memb member, has been very good. but there's one real problem with this bill and it's about smoke and mirrors, it's about not being honest with the american people. this bill was designed so it would have no score. it wasn't designed to do the best that we can for americans

should we have a tragedy, and it wasn't designed to create the flexibility that will be necessary if we do have a tragedy. now, let me outline for you the way this bill is set up. we could have a significant tragedy, god forbid, in this country from a terrorist attack and the bill will mandate spikes in casualty and property insurance far above what will need to happen because we passed the bill to pass a c.b.o. score. and so what could happen is we would have to collect billions of dollars over a 19-month period through premium increases on everybody in the country -- not just where we had the problem -- everybody in the country because we've designed a bill that will, in fact, mandate that. or at least could mandate that. and i have been around this

place 10 years. i know exactly what's going to happen if that comes about through this tria bill. the first thing that will happen is the senate and the house will pass an elimination of this requirement. and so what will happen is the american taxpayer will get stuck with all this. and they all know that. everybody agrees they designed the bill to meet c.b.o. so what i put in was an amendment that would give flexibility to the treasury so that we didn't, after one tragedy, create another tragedy with markedly elevated casualty and property rights. you still recou recoup the monet you do it over a longer period of time if it's necessary. and you give the secretary of the treasury the ability to do that. now, my friend from new york says there's a budget point of order lies against. it does, according to c.b.o. i agree. it does.

but the difference between this and most budget points of order is this will not create -- increase the deficit one penny, my amendment. not one penny. and i'd also note that my colleague from new york has voted to override budget points of order every time this year they've been offered. so it's going to be curious to me that all of a sudden we have a budget point of order raised by someone who has voted to override the budget point of orders every time it's been offered in the senate this session. and it goes to why you should not pass this bill without common sense in terms of how we collect the recoupment. and i understand the constraints of c.b.o., but i also understand common sense. so we're going to play the game on the constraints and we're ultimately going to pass on rather than recoup, we're ultimately going to pass it on to the american taxpayer, which

hollows out the whole purpose of the bill. so this has a billion-dollar score, which we're going to have a point of order, which i'm sure i will lose, but when you vote for this bill know that you're not voting for what the bill says it's going to do because it's going to do something completely different twhan it says if we were -- different than what it says if we were to have one of these catastrophes. and the political pressure to not have these massive increases in property and casualty insurance, this place will fall and so will the house and we will change this and we'll have the score then. we'll have the score then. and ultimately your children will pay for the cost of this terrorism risk insurance. not the people that are owning the property today. not the insurance company. we'll just kick the can down the road, just like we have everything else. so it would seem to me that we

would want to do something that works along the parameters of this bill and we ought to build in flexibility to this bill so -- you know, it may be 10 years that we get on one of these because the bill is divided up to meet the score. so it doesn't score in any one period. so we could have -- over an 18-month period, we could have to recoup it all and people couldn't tolerate those kind of rate increases in their businesses or their homes. they wouldn't be able to tolerate it. and we would change it. just like i'm asking for us to change it now and be hon west the american -- honest with the american people. we're going to change it if that happens. we will change this and we will delay the onset of the collection of this recoupment. everybody knows that will happen. so why not be honest about it and put it into the bill now and waive the budget point of order because it doesn't change the deficit one penny?

it changes when we collect it but we still collect it. against the risk of not collecting it at all. that's what i asked my colleagues. i don't expect to win the amendment. but it's another confirmation for the american people that we're not about truth, we're not about doing commonsense things, we're about playing games. and we're about satisfying the demands of the industry over which this applies. nobody knows what could happen in this country in terms of terrorism. but everybody knows i'm right about this issue. and so all i'm saying is fess up. be honest, colleagues. let's build the flexibility in this so we don't have to address it and the treasury secretary no matter whether it's a democrat or republican administration can use common sense to guide about how fast this recoupment will

come. otherwise you haven't done anything to improve this bill. if, in fact, this is not accepted. and so i'll be leaving here at the end of the year and hopefully we never see another terrorism event in this country. but if we do, it will be a sweet irony when you all say oop, time-out, we're not going to do what we said we would do because the country can't take it. you will put one tragic event on top of another and you won't do that. what will happen? you'll change this bill, get that score, call it an emergency and you'll do it anyway. all i'm asking is be honest about what's going to ultimately happen on this should we have an event and it fall within one of these close programs pram terse based on what we said in the bill because we're running the bill according to what c.b.o. says, not what common sense says. so i look forward to having a

vote on this amendment. i understand my likelihood of being successful, but i also understand the lack of honesty in dealing with the american people if don't want accept this amendment and i yiex yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i rise today to

support s. 2244, the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization act. congress first enacted tria into law in 2002 after the commercial property sector saw major disruptions in the ability to obtain financing and terrorism risk insurance following the september 11 terrorist attacks. tria stabilize the market and provided a government backstop to this unique market allowing commercial property development and real estate lending to continue for everything from hotels, stadiums, malls, and attractions across the country. experts and stakeholders testified at several banking committee hearings that there remains a clear and long-standing need for the kind of government backthat tria

provides. we also learned that the private insurance market for terrorism risks exists because of tria, not in spite of it. the long-term seven-year extension this bipartisan bill provides will promote national security, economic growth and market certainty. while many members in this chamber would be fine with extending tria in its current form, this tough compromise has two additional changes that will further protect taxpayers, gradually raising both the insurer co-payment from 15% to 20% and the military recoupment threshold from $27.5 billion to $37.5 billion.

we were careful, however, in reaching this compromise not to raise the trigger, which would drive smaller insurers out of the market and reduce the availability and affordability of coverage for businesses nationwide. this bipartisan bill also does not pick what modes of terrorism attacks should get preferential treatment over the other forms of attacks. the entire senate banking committee voted to report the bill to the floor by unanimous and bipartisan 22-0 vote. and stakeholders across the board strongly support the senate's bipartisan approach to extending tria, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, american hotel and lodging association, national association of mutual insurance companies, and the real estate

roundtable, to name just a few. let me commend senators schumer, crapo, kirk, reed, heller and others from both sides of the aisle for their leadership on this issue. i want to thank them as well as their staff for working with ranking member crapo and me and our staff to craft this bipartisan compromise to extend tria for another seven years. we would not be here today without all of their efforts. tria must be renewed soon, given the program expires at the end of the year and policyholders have increasingly reported challenges in renewing contracts for 2015. to that end, i urge my colleagues to support s. 2244. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you,

mr. president. i rise to speak on senate bill 2244, the terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization act. this is a bill i've worked on closely with my colleagues, senator schumer and kirk and senator reed from rhode island. i want to thank rab ranking member crapo and without their leadership we wouldn't be here today. mr. president, the terrorist attacks on september 11 caused a sudden and dramatic shock in the domestic market for terrorism insurance. there was uncertainty. insurers withdrew from the market and new threat to our economy emerged. in response, congress passed tria to provide a federal insurance backstop for terrorism coverage. since the passage in 2002, tria has helped insure the widespread

availability of affordable insurance against terrorism. this helps spur new development and protect existing real estate throughout our country. tria was reauthorized in 2007 and then reauthorized -- in 2005 and reauthorized again in 2007 and is set to expire at the end of this year unless congress fails to act. unfortunately, the tragic bombing in boston last year has showed that even years after september 11, that even after those years the threat of terrorism still exists. and we must continue our efforts to prevent, respond and recover from any possible attacks in the future. i would like to remind my colleagues that terrorism is not only an issue for big cities in new jersey and on the east coast, midwest, chicago, terrorism is a real threat in both rural and urban areas,

north, south, east, and west. that's why i've been so involved in trying to get tria extended. in my home state in las vegas it's considered one of the leading international business and troorism destination cities in the world. southern nevada welcomes almost 40 million terrorists -- tourists annually and has a population of nearly 2 until people. we have 35 major hotels along the las vegas strip. many of them have could have up to 15,000 occupants at any given time. and according to the las vegas metro chamber of commerce, in 2013, the impact of tourism was $45.2 billion, supporting 47% of the region's gross product and 383,000 jobs, nearly half of the total work force in southern nevada. my point in citing these statistics is if a terrorist

attack were to occur in las vegas our entire state economy would be devastated without tria. it's not just about las vegas. no in northern nevada our tourism and gaming industry is the largest private employer in wash you a county which -- washau county which includes reno. unless they have coverage, they will have difficulty starting new projects and creating new jobs. you'll find similar stories across our nation in every state. currently there is no evidence that the terrorism risk health insurance market is prepared to provide coverage without tria. without tria, commercial development would halt because businesses would not be able to access and afford the necessary insurance that is often required to secure a loan. trie has helped many -- tria has helped many hotels, hospitals, office complexes, shopping centers, colleges and universities have access to

terrorism health insurance coverage. the bill before us today is truly a bipartisan bill. it received a unanimous 22-0 vote in the banking committee. such a strong vote only reinforces the bipartisan work that went into crafting this legislation. i, along with may colleagues on the banking committee, agree to several key reforms that would increase the aggregate retention level and coinsurance levels, which will significantly reduce the potential costs to taxpayers. it's my hope that we can easily pass this important legislation with a strong bipartisan vote and send this bill to the house as soon as possible. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and let's not wait until the end of the year to extend this critical program. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you. as we come up to votes on this

bill, i wanted to take one more opportunity to speak in favor of the tria reauthorization legislation. again, i want to thank senators schumer, heller, kirk, and their staffs and senator reid for their hard work in bringing forward this legislation. also chairman johnson and his staff for moving forward with us so quickly and aggressively on it legislation. together we were able to put together a bill that allows the program to continue to function while increasing the movement toward ultimate taxpayer protection. as i mentioned before, we were able to approve this bill out of committee with a 22-0 unanimous vote. the agreement by all of the members of the baipging committee that we should move this bill forward speaks to the importance of this critical legislation. and to the level of the added taxpayer protections that we were able to build moo it. -- into it. our bill increases the level of losses that the private sector will absorb before reaching the federal backstop. we do that by increasing the coinsurance level of any company

participating in tria so that each company will shoulder a greater percentage of the losses. we also increase by $10 billion the level of mandatory post-event recoupment to $37.5 billion, which means that the taxpayer will ultimately recover all tria losses except in the most extreme events. this bill will continue a program that reduces our economic vulnerability to terrorism, and i encourage my colleagues to support it, and just one last time i would again like to thank senators johnson and senator schumer for their strong support and for our ability to work together and break the mold, if you will, by having a bipartisan movement forward on this important and critical legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: well, let me once again thank the chair and ranking member of the banking committee, tim johnson, mike crapo, for their great work

here. let me tell my colleagues that, again, this is a very good example of much cooperation, bipartisan cooperation, democrat and republican, a 22-0 unanimous vote out of the committee. it is also cooperation between private industry and the government, industry, insurance, and others knew they had to shoulder a greater share of the load as we move on after 9/11. but that only government could be the backstop at the end of the day. again, this is an economic development issue, above anything else. it is not out of whose pocket what money comes. if the greatest problem america faces is good-paying jobs, well, if we were not to renew terrorism insurance, we would lose many good-paying jobs. this amendment will allow those jobs to continue and grow. people will not build major he had physicals, major -- edifices, major complexes, whether they be sk skyscrapers n chicago and new york, whether

they be football stadiums in idaho or major shopping centers in south dakotas, unless they know that there is a backstop, because insurers will not insure if they think terrorism could just totally wipe them out, and that means we wouldn't get financing for these projects. so it's an outstanding piece of legislation. my hope, in conclusion, is that the house would pass our bill. we know that there's some concerns there in the house, but there's a bipartisan coalition of democrats and republicans that really favor the approach we've taken. i know there are some in the house who don't believe government should be involved here, but that's if i, in all due respect, a purist view. we have cut back on some of government's obstacles here. mike crapo and many of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle made that happen. but at the same time, without the government backstop we would do real harm to our commitment of s-- to oureconomy.

if we get a vote here in the senate, it would importune the house to pass our legislation. with that, mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be prescriptived in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i guess we're waiting for senator coburn. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i would just like to make a couple of points on the -- the presiding officer: the senator is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent, excuse me, the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i'd just like to make a couple of points on the coburn legislation -- amendment and then i will raise a point of order. the current bill, 2224, is budget neutral, as the past tria bills have been. on the other hand, c.b.o. has said coburn's amendment is not fully paid for, violating the senator's paygo rule. so basically the amendment, even though i know that the sponsor does not intend it that way, is