Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

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.

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 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.

Mr. CRAPO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum calls all time that elapses be allocated equally to both sides.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 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.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes or such time as he may consume to Senator Coats.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO. I yield 10 minutes or such time as he may consume to Senator Heller.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Mel Richardson, an Idaho leader with a legacy in public service and broadcasting, who passed away last week. Mel Richardson's radio broadcasting career thankfully brought him and his wife of 61 years, Dixie, to Idaho more than six decades ago. And we are better for it. Over the span of his 62-year radio and television broadcasting career, Mel hosted several sports and public affairs programs and was a sportscaster for professional, college and high school athletics. He also devoted considerable time to public service. During the Korean war, he served in the Active Army Reserves and later was the first elected mayor of the City of Ammon, where he led significant public works projects, paving the way for the town's future progress. I was honored to serve in the Idaho State Legislature with him. During my time in the Idaho State Senate, he served in the Idaho House of Representatives, and was elected to the Idaho State Senate seat I vacated when I was elected to Congress in 1992. For 16 years, he served in the Idaho State Senate, where he utilized his position to expand education opportunities for Idaho students by furthering the adoption of technology in Idaho schools. Mel served our community and Idaho with civility and excellence. In addition to his tenure in the legislature, he served in numerous other positions. These included serving as director of Idaho Association of Cities; co-chairman of the Idaho Centennial Commission; Bonneville County Recreation commissioner; chairman of the American Family Institute; and chairman of the United Way. His exemplary work was recognized through numerous awards and honors that included being named Legislator of the Year by the Idaho State Republican Party, Idaho Library Association, State Farm Bureau and Idaho School Administrators. He was also active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which he served in numerous leadership positions. Additionally, he supported the Boy Scouts of America through which he was the recipient of the Silver Beaver Award of Merit. Mel also recognized the life lessons afforded in sports and instilled these values through coaching youth athletic teams. Mel welcomed me as a regular guest on the radio program he hosted with his son, Mark, who continues to host the talk show. I greatly admired Mel's openness in taking all sides of an issue into account, and his kindness and consideration. Mel had one of the greatest qualities: As his son, Todd, recognized, ``He could disagree with you without being disagreeable.'' I could always count on an interesting, thoughtful discussion, and I looked forward each week to our conversations. But among all those accomplishments and public accolades, Mel's pride and strength was found in his family and home. He and Dixie raised five children, who have all gone on to contribute to their own communities. He loved the time that he spent with them; in fact, he passed up some interesting career opportunities to ensure that he would be able to spend time with them. Mel's enthusiasm and joy in life can also be found in his 25 grandchildren and 28 great-grandchildren. I extend my deep condolences to Dixie, their children and his many family members and friends. We are all better for having known him, and his legacy of thoughtfulness, inclusiveness and devotion to furthering opportunities for others and Idaho's future will not be forgotten.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation's 75th year as an organization. The Idaho Farm Bureau, which was started in 1939 in Murtaugh as an organization of farm and ranch families, has represented the interests of Idaho producers in addressing agriculture and natural resources issues. The organization is focused on ``formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity, and social advancement and thereby, to promote the national well-being.'' Idaho is home to more than 25,000 farms and ranches. Farm families support our communities and are central to our economy and our State's culture. The pressures on these hard-working producers meeting the food needs of a growing world population are increasing as the pressures on our natural resources increase. Consideration of how policy changes affect this bedrock is critical to long-term economic growth and the success of our State and Nation. From providing input on the farm bill, to transportation legislation and Federal regulation affecting the farm and ranch community, including Endangered Species Act concerns, the Idaho Farm Bureau has helped ensure that Idaho producers' voice is heard in a broad array of local and Federal policy discussions. I have greatly valued the input of farm bureau leadership, staff and members. I look forward to continuing to work with this seasoned Idaho organization in shaping agriculture and natural resources policy to ensure that it best meets the needs of Idaho producers. Congratulation to the Idaho Farm Bureau and its membership on this significant milestone. I wish you continued success.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 2014 recipients of the Idaho Hometown Hero medal in the fourth year of the presentation of this recognition. Drs. Fahim and Naeem Rahim established the Idaho Hometown Hero Award to recognize individuals who embody the spirit of philanthropy while showing remarkable commitment in both their personal and professional lives. This award helps encourage those working for the betterment of our communities. I congratulate the 2014 award recipients and commend the Rahim brothers, the award's committee members, the cosponsors, volunteers, and other organizations supporting this honor for partnering to cast light on good works. Nine extraordinary individuals are 2014 Hometown Hero Award recipients. Medical pioneer Dr. Lloyd Call helped establish the Washington Wyoming Alaska Montana Idaho Medical Education Program and the Idaho State University Family Practice Residency in Pocatello. Dedicated 11-year-old Alec Carlson assists his blind mother with their daily routines. Volunteer Lin Carlson helps seniors maintain healthy lifestyles. Sarah Anita Hibbert serves her community delivering toys and goodies to children in the hospital, and she collected over 4,500 pounds of shoes for orphanages through the national Shoes for Love drive. Sergeant Mathew J. Krumwiede served in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and does not let his injuries impede his achievements. Fifteen-year-old Adalaide ``Addy'' Mayer not only helps care for her father, who was injured serving our Nation in Iraq, but also serves as a volunteer athlete with the Special Olympics. George G. Nickel, who served our Nation in Operations Southern Watch in Iraq and Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, founded the Idaho Veterans Network to assist fellow veterans. Ann Toomey Walsh created Camp Magical Moments Cancer Camp for Kids to help improve the lives of children with cancer and their families. Helen Wayman Ward, who served as the music specialist for Malad Elementary School for more than 30 years, prevails over significant mental and physical health challenges in her family to give considerably of her time and talent to her community. These Hometown Hero medal recipients join other veterans, businessmen, authors, physicians, advocates, athletes, teachers, coaches, writers, innovators, public servants, and others who have been recognized through this award. I am honored to be among the 2011 recipients of this medal and to have the opportunity to assist in recognizing the good work of the Rahims and this year's award recipients. You are making a great difference in our communities, and your actions are inspiring others. You have demonstrated a commitment to hard work, self-improvement, and community service worthy of this esteemed award. I wish you all the best on many more years of positive actions to celebrate.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National POW/MIA Recognition Day. As we acknowledge the important role of American servicemembers and veterans, we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts and prayers the safe return of those who have gone missing in action or are prisoners of war. National POW/MIA Recognition Day, which is observed the third Friday of September, provides a time to honor prisoners of war, POW, and those who became missing in action, MIA. As the brave men and women who serve our Nation commit themselves to protecting America and our freedoms, our Nation must be resolute in bringing them home should they go missing or be taken prisoner when serving our Nation in a time of war. Standing by our servicemembers includes utilizing every reasonable means of bringing them home. POW/MIA families and veterans have remained committed to keeping the pursuit of facts at the forefront in the years since the Vietnam war. This effort and the perseverance of the POW/MIA families have been instrumental in accounting for missing military and civilian personnel from not only the Vietnam war but also World War II, the Korean war and the Cold War. Finding resolution for the families must remain a central focus as America has since engaged in subsequent wars to halt terrorism. On National POW/MIA Recognition Day, we honor those Americans who have thankfully returned home, the families and loved ones who stood by awaiting their return, and we remain committed to finding answers for the families who continue to await the return of their missing and unaccounted-for loved ones. Each day, as we see the reminder of those Americans and their families through the POW/MIA flags that are posted at many places across our Nation, including the Halls of Congress, military sites, war memorials, national cemeteries, and U.S. postal service offices, let us not lose sight of this enduring commitment to accounting for those missing. I look forward to the day when we can welcome all our servicemembers home. Thank you to the many servicemembers and their families for all they have done and continue to do for our country and to all those who work to ensure their return home.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Medal of Honor recipient Col. Bernard Fisher, known as Bernie. He passed away in August after a meaningful and inspiring life, and he leaves behind a legacy of heroic and steady service. Colonel Fisher, of Kuna, ID, earned the Medal of Honor for putting his life on the line to rescue a fellow pilot downed in enemy- controlled territory during the Vietnam war. According to an Air Force fact sheet, under enemy fire, he landed his airplane, pulled the pilot aboard, and escaped despite the airplane he piloted being hit with multiple rounds. He is known as an outstanding, steady pilot. In 1967 President Lyndon B. Johnson presented him with the award. His ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty'' was noted in his Medal of Honor citation. Bernard Fisher joined the U.S. Navy and attended Boise State Junior College and the University of Utah before receiving a commission in the U.S. Air Force and serving as a fighter pilot. He married his wife Realla in 1948, and they had six sons. He went on to have a distinguished military career before retiring in Kuna, ID, as an Air Force colonel. Three of his sons and one grandson carried on his legacy of service in the Air Force. In addition to his being known for his eminent military career, he is known as a loving husband, father, grandfather, generous friend, and committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After his retirement from the military, he and Realla grew a number of crops, raised livestock, looked after their family, and were active members of the community. He served as a Boy Scout leader and mentored airmen at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Bernie and Realla also served as missionaries for the church. Colonel Fisher truly lived the ideal of selfless service--risking his own life to save other lives. He inspired and encouraged others not only directly through his children, but also through the countless other servicemembers and Americans who have heard his story and have had the thought of dedicated service awakened in them. Bernie embodied great leadership. He led by example. I join his family, including his sons and their families, which include 33 grandchildren and many great- grandchildren, and his numerous friends in mourning his passing. His legacy will endure.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I wish to pay special tribute to the outstanding service of veterans living in the Magic Valley of Idaho and thank Heidi Walker and all the staff with Hospice Visions for the work they do on behalf of veterans in the Magic Valley. Hospice Visions has chosen to honor 12 veterans this year in a veterans recognition ceremony hosted by Genesis Healthcare at their Twin Falls Center. Veterans from the River Ridge, Twin Falls and Bennett Hills facilities are among those being recognized. This year's honorees are: Dennis Asmussen, who served in the Navy in Vietnam; Bill Benedict, who served in the Army during World War II; Jon Hindes, who served in the Army in Korea and Vietnam; Levi Hussey, who served in the Marines in World War II; Benjamin Le baron, who served in the Navy during World War II; Jay Richards, who served in the Army during the Cold War; Byron J. Rowland, who served in the Navy during World War II; Rex Shirts, who served in the Navy during World War II; Vernon Skeen, who served in the Army during World War II; Gary Winder, who served in the Army in Vietnam; Vern Winmill, who served in the Air Force in World War II; and Marion Wood, who served in the Army in World War II. These veterans are being honored for their service to our Nation. Joining in paying tribute to these extraordinary Americans is a honor. Occasions such as this remind us of the many veterans who are such important parts of our communities. Our freedoms are preserved because of their selfless service. They not only gave all for our country, but also they continue to uplift our communities and other generations of returning veterans and their families. Thank you also to the families of those who serve our country. You make sacrifices every day in supporting your loved ones who served in the Armed Forces. The ceremony also provides an opportunity to recognize the remarkable work of Heidi Walker and the staff and administrators of Hospice Visions for their dedication to assisting our Nation's heroes. I have the honor of presenting Heidi Walker and Hospice Visions with a Spirit of Idaho Award for going above and beyond in serving the Magic Valley's aging, ill, and homebound veterans. Your commitment to the men and women who have served and your work to ensure they receive recognition for their service are commendable. I understand Hospice Visions is a participant in the We Honor Veterans Program, a partnership between the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve veteran patients in hospice-like facilities. Heidi and Hospice Visions have given quality care to our Nation's veterans and have been a great support to their families. Thank you to the veterans of the Magic Valley for your service and to Heidi Walker and all those at Hospice Visions for your exemplary dedication to veterans and their families. We are blessed to have you as part of the community.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of former Idaho Governor John Victor Evans. Governor Evans will be missed, but his impact on Idaho and his legacy of dedicated service will endure. Governor Evans and his family were Idaho pioneers. He was born and raised in Malad, ID. He attended Idaho State University, and like so many of his generation, he went to serve as an infantryman in World War II. After returning from the war, he earned a degree in business and economics from Stanford University. John dedicated much of his life to public service. He served in the Idaho State Senate where he rose to the positions of majority leader and minority leader. He was mayor of Malad, the town he grew up in. In 1974, he was elected Lieutenant Governor before his terms as Idaho's 27th Governor from 1977 to 1987. He led Idaho through a number of challenging times: the historic settlement of water rights, the closure of the Bunker Hill Mine, and the difficult economic times much of the Nation saw in the 1980s. He also contributed to the national dialogue, having served in leadership positions in the Western Governors Association and National Governor's Association. He was dedicated to community service and supported numerous efforts and organizations. He was a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and the Rotary Club, and he was a Mason. He also held a number of leadership positions for the Independent Community Bankers Association. Following his retirement from public office in 1987, he became president of D.L. Evans Bank in Burley, ID. During his tenure, the bank grew from two banks to 21 banks, assisting thousands of Idaho residents and businesses. Idahoans benefited greatly from his steady leadership in public office and in business. He was known for his open-door policy, strong work ethic and always taking the time to meet with fellow Idahoans. I extend my condolences to his wife Lola, brother Don, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and many other family members and friends. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am appreciative of 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 Act, or TRIA, program. As a cosponsor of this bill, I recognize Senator Schumer, Senator Kirk, Senator Heller, Senator Reed, 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 to 0. This bill 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 on to 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 would 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 abated, 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 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 risks. 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 is 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 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 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 percent to 20 percent over 5 years. This means that before the backstop 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, I have a handful of letters in my possession here from groups across the country strongly supporting and encouraging that we adopt this legislation. The U.S. 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, recommends and encourages that we support this legislation, and 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 Builders Conference. These are just a sampling of letters we have received from interests across the Nation that support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, as we near the votes on this bill, I wish to take one more opportunity to speak in favor of the TRIA reauthorization legislation. Again, I thank Senators Schumer, Heller, and Kirk and their staffs and Senator Reed for all their hard work in bringing forward this legislation. I also thank Chairman Johnson and his staff for moving forward so quickly and aggressively on this 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-to-0 unanimous vote. The agreement of all the members of the banking 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 we were able to build 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 recoupments 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. One last time, I thank Senator 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, I yield the floor.