[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] EXAMINING CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES AND LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES IN THE DODD-FRANK ACT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 9, 2013 Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 113-37 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 82-859 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Chairman Member SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JOHN CAMPBELL, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota DAVID SCOTT, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California AL GREEN, Texas STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL POSEY, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota Pennsylvania ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri GARY C. PETERS, Michigan BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama ROBERT HURT, Virginia BILL FOSTER, Illinois MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina ANN WAGNER, Missouri ANDY BARR, Kentucky TOM COTTON, Arkansas KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PETER T. KING, New York KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida DENNY HECK, Washington ANN WAGNER, Missouri ANDY BARR, Kentucky C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: July 9, 2013................................................. 1 Appendix: July 9, 2013................................................. 27 WITNESSES Tuesday, July 9, 2013 Gray, Hon. C. Boyden, Boyden Gray and Associates................. 4 McTaggart, Timothy R., Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP.............. 7 Merrill, Thomas W., Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School............................................ 6 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Gray, Hon. C. Boyden......................................... 28 McTaggart, Timothy R......................................... 47 Merrill, Thomas W............................................ 66 EXAMINING CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES AND LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES IN THE DODD-FRANK ACT ---------- Tuesday, July 9, 2013 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick T. McHenry [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives McHenry, Fitzpatrick, Bachmann, Duffy, Grimm, Fincher, Hultgren, Wagner, Barr, Rothfus; Green, Cleaver, Maloney, Beatty, and Heck. Ex officio present: Representative Hensarling. Chairman McHenry. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee will come to order. Our hearing today is entitled, ``Examining the Constitutional Deficiencies and Legal Uncertainties in the Dodd-Frank Act.'' Without objection, members of the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of this subcommittee may sit on the dais and participate in today's hearing. And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. We will now proceed with opening statements. And without objection, we will limit it to 5 minutes per side. I will first recognize myself for 5 minutes. Following the most significant financial crisis since the Great Depression, Dodd-Frank was signed into law with a promise that never again will the taxpayers be forced to bail out Wall Street. Simply put, what we now know is that Dodd-Frank does not work. Over the past several months, this subcommittee has attempted to dissect section by section the parts of Dodd-Frank that pretend to rein in the large interconnected financial institutions which brought us to the brink 5 years ago. It also pretends to end ``too-big-to-fail,'' which is in fact not the case. What we have discovered is something to the contrary. In over 840 pages of law, Dodd-Frank granted an incredible amount of power and discretion to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). Almost 3 years later, as the law slowly works its way through the regulatory process, we discover that Dodd-Frank's designation and resolution processes protect ``too-big-to- fail'' banks, quite to the disadvantage of their small bank competition. This new economic reality is illustrated when two large credit rating agencies continue to single out the eight largest banks for a systemic ratings uplift by virtue of their size, interconnectedness, and difficulty to unwind, and furthermore their ripeness for taxpayer bailouts in times of trouble. As the markets quantify this newly designated safety net, these banks experience a lower cost of borrowing, which is the lifeblood of financial institutions. Likewise, they do say that cost of borrowing may not exist, and there is debate about that, but the World Bank says clearly that there is a cost-of- borrowing advantage. Not surprisingly, this impressive and unprecedented power, designed to protect the largest and most interconnected financial institutions, is also being criticized as being unconstitutional. Several States, including Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia have joined with the National Bank of Big Spring as plaintiffs in its suit against the Department of Treasury, the FSOC, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Their claim is that Dodd-Frank violates the Constitution's separation of powers and its protections afforded through due process. Legal scholars are analyzing similar constitutional claims as well. Our founders understood that government is imperfect and must be kept in check. As a co-equal branch of government, Congress has an obligation to interpret the Constitution and to act within the bounds of its interpretation when carrying out its oversight and legislative functions. As James Madison discussed Congress' rights to interpret the Constitution in relation to that of the Judicial Branch, he said, ``But the great objection is that the legislature itself has no right to expound the Constitution; that whenever its meaning is doubtful, you must leave it to take its course, until the Judiciary is called upon to declare its meaning.'' And ``The Constitution is the character of the people of the government. It specifies certain great powers as absolutely granted and marks out the departments to exercise them. If the constitutional boundary of either be brought into question, I do not see that any one of these departments has more right than another to declare their sentiments on that point.'' Today, we will be declaring our sentiments on that very point: the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, this hearing will examine why certain provisions in Title I and Title II of Dodd-Frank may be susceptible to constitutional challenge. We will also explore the manner and circumstances in which a party with legal interests affected by the Orderly Liquidation Authority could challenge the commencement of an--let's use it in quote marks, ``orderly liquidation''--and thereby delay or prevent the liquidation from functioning as intended in the Dodd-Frank Act. This panel before us today has an impressive background in constitutional law as well as a depth and understanding of the Dodd-Frank Act. I certainly appreciate the three gentleman here today, their willingness to be here. We will now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for appearing. And I thank the witnesses for the information that they have already provided us. I had an opportunity to peruse your written statements, and I am eager to ask a few questions about some of the statements that have been made. But I do think that each witness has provided us some thoughtful information. With reference to Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank provides a better way. Prior to Dodd-Frank, we had in essence two means by which we could deal with a systemic crisis, a crisis that involved exigent circumstances. These two ways were: one, bankruptcy, which works, but it did not work for Lehman; and two, bailouts. Bailouts are not the preferred choice because the public somehow thinks and, and I agree, that tax dollars ought not be utilized to bail out these large institutions. So, we have these two options: bailout; or bankruptcy. Dodd-Frank is a better way. And it is interesting to note that while we may look at some of the challenges to the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank, it is interesting to note that Dodd-Frank has not been declared unconstitutional. It is also interesting to note that you can challenge any legislation on constitutional grounds if you like. The question is, will you prevail with your challenge? Will you prevail with your challenge? Thus far, no court has declared Dodd-Frank to be unconstitutional. I will go on to add that if you are concerned about judicial review as it relates to Dodd-Frank, SIFI designation has the means by which judicial review can be perfected. The Orderly Liquidation Authority has a means by which judicial review can be perfected. Now, there may be some argument as to whether or not there is enough judicial review or the extent to which judicial review should take place, but Dodd-Frank has codified judicial review in it as it relates to the designation of an entity as an SIFI, as well as when orderly liquidation starts to take place. I believe that Dodd-Frank can be mended, I think there are means by which we can do so, and I would like to see some legislation that purports to amend it. I may very well support some amendments. But I don't think we should end it, and much of what I hear seems to be designed to end Dodd-Frank rather than amend Dodd-Frank. Technical corrections are always appropriate when we have sweeping legislation. Technical corrections are in order with Dodd-Frank, and I would support some of the technical adjustments that may be made. One of our witnesses today has gone so far as to say, in terms of the substance, that we may have some debate, but that there is a means by which technical corrections can be made to Dodd-Frank and it would meet what he perceives as the challenge associated with the constitutionality of a given section. My belief is that we must move forward with Dodd-Frank. We must bring the certainty to the market that it richly deserves, and I think that we can do so by having these hearings. But at some point, we have to move on. If there is no legislation, at some point we have to move on and allow Dodd-Frank to function as it should. I will now yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, the gentlelady to my right. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member. And thank you to our witnesses who are here today. I am happy to be here to further discuss and evaluate the constitutional basis for the authorities granted to Federal regulators under Titles I and II of Dodd-Frank. These two sections collectively compromise the enhanced supervision and orderly liquidation authorities within the law. In reviewing the submitted testimony from the witnesses today, the main concerns appear to be with Title I and Title II. There seems to be apprehension that the sections improperly restrict the checks and balances created by the Constitution and that certain due process rights are violated. I believe that these apprehensions are somewhat misguided. With respect to Title I, the designation process for enhanced supervision does not simply allow the Federal Reserve Board or the FDIC or the FSOC to arbitrarily pick and choose which firms to select for greater prudential regulation. Instead, I believe the law creates clearly identifiable processes for designation and also provides an opportunity to challenge such a determination. Thank you. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize our distinguished witnesses. Ambassador Boyden Gray is the founding partner of the law firm of Boyden Gray and Associates. He was previously Ambassador to the European Union and was White House Counsel to President George H.W. Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Professor Thomas Merrill is a law professor at Columbia University Law School. He was previously Deputy Solicitor General and Clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a Rhodes Scholar, and a graduate of Grinnell College, Oxford University, and the University of Chicago. Mr. Timothy McTaggart is a partner in the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP. He was previously a State banking commissioner and a lawyer for the Federal Reserve. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. I think some of you have gone to universities we have heard of. We certainly appreciate your willingness to be here. You all are familiar with the lighting system, but green means go; yellow, as in traffic, means hurry up; and red means stop. You will have 5 minutes to summarize your opening statements. And we will begin by recognizing Ambassador Gray. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE C. BOYDEN GRAY, BOYDEN GRAY AND ASSOCIATES Mr. Gray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss parts of this statute with you. It is true that nothing has yet been declared unconstitutional, but I would say we haven't really had our day in court yet. It may be months before we do, but we will, and then we will see what they say. If there is any message I want to distill from my written remarks, it is that unconstitutional aggregations of power, which this statute represents, at least parts of it on steroids, unconstitutional aggregations of government power that deny the checks and balances that are built into our Constitution invite and create equally pernicious aggregations of private power. They do this by imposing regulatory burdens on smaller entities that are less able to handle them than their bigger competitors, and the bigger competitors end up not necessarily gobbling them up, but watching the consolidation take place, and the mergers eventually do happen. The centralized institutions of government tend to encourage this because they want to find willing private parties to implement what they want, and what you end up with is a system of crony capitalism with no rule of law and greatly diminished opportunity for the little guy. And I think if you went back to Adam Smith who was conceded to be sort of the architect of our modern miracle of free markets, this was Adam Smith's ultimate nightmare, that the private sector would grab ahold of government entities for their own purpose. Now, I believe this problem is best illustrated by, as you suggested in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, the relationship of Dodd-Frank to ``too-big-to-fail'' and to the Orderly Liquidation Authority. Title II, as I understand it from what I have been able to sort of get from the participants, and it certainly is backed up by what it actually does, was modeled after the AIG bailout, the idea being perhaps oversimplified to give the government the discretion in a takeover situation to do virtually anything it wants without any check by Congress, by the Executive Branch, by even the Federal Reserve or the courts, and it is the court cutout that I think maybe bothers me the most, and that is possibly because I am a lawyer. As the Dallas Fed has pointed out, it entrenches ``too-big- to-fail.'' The whole situation is over before anyone has a chance to react. If there is an effort to leak to the public or to third parties that have an interest in the proceeding so that they might go into court to try to preempt something or get review before it is all over, there is a criminal penalty, maybe jail time for anyone who releases this information. The result is really a bad disadvantage for community banks that can't take the regulatory and the funding advantages that, Mr. Chairman, you talked about. So we are going to see a lot more community bank consolidation, fewer loans from community banks, and that means ultimately--I come from a small town that produced some pretty good banks, a town called Winston-Salem, and what happened there is you don't have any more character loans, which even the government acknowledges are far more reliable than cookie-cutter loans based on paper checkoffs. This situation can only be fixed by untangling this collapse, this separation of powers, by restoring proper judicial review. I do not want to live in a crony capitalist world. I will conclude by saying that it isn't just Titles I and II that create this problem. If you look at the CFPB, the power grab, the data power grab that they are now engaged in, which has certain resonance in other areas, look at the grab for power with respect to the auto dealers, and you will see this isn't just limited to Titles I and II; it pervades the entire Act. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. [The prepared statement of Ambassador Gray can be found on page 28 of the appendix.] Chairman McHenry. Thank you, Ambassador Gray. I would ask the rest of the panel to pull your microphones closer when you speak. They are directionally sensitive. Let's just say that they are not the newest and latest and greatest of technology, but they will do. Professor Merrill, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. MERRILL, CHARLES EVANS HUGHES PROFESSOR OF LAW, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL Mr. Merrill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the other committee members for inviting me today. The focus of my testimony will be on Title II of Dodd-Frank and the constitutional problems that section of the Act creates. I became interested in this about 18 months ago when I was invited to participate in an academic symposium on the administrative and constitutional problems presented by Dodd- Frank, and since then, I have continued to work on this issue. I have a draft article, which I have written with Margaret Merrill, and I have taken the liberty of attaching that to my statement in its current form. The central point that I want to make is that it is true that Dodd-Frank has not been declared unconstitutional, but the problem is that it contains very serious constitutional problems. And any individual or entity that is opposed to being subjected to an orderly liquidation would have a strong incentive to raise these constitutional issues as a way of trying to increase their leverage with the government in the event of an orderly liquidation or to perhaps derail it. Those constitutional issues will be very difficult to resolve given the procedures that the Act establishes for very minimal judicial review. So my concern is that the constitutional issues will in fact work against the purposes of Title II, that Title II will in fact be undermined by the raising of these constitutional issues at a time when it is least appropriate that they be brought to the fore. Most of the constitutional issues relate to the judicial review provisions or the lack of judicial review provisions in Title II. Conventional bank receiverships, which I think was the basic model for Title II, are commenced by an administrative appointment of a receiver, but persons aggrieved by that are then given the right to go to court within a short period of time, typically 30 days, and to seek to have the receivership set aside on any legal or factual basis that they wish to advance. This was in fact the way in which the House bill that preceded the enactment of Dodd-Frank structured the commencement of an orderly liquidation. The Senate had a different idea. The Senate decided that the judicial review process should be put before the appointment of the receiver rather than after the appointment of the receiver, and you could call this ex ante review as opposed to ex post review. The problem with the Senate's approach is that if in fact we are in the midst of what might be a financial crisis, or if the firm which is to be placed in receivership is systemically different, you can't have an ordinary judicial trial before you create the receivership. This would create adverse publicity and would give rise perhaps to a run on the bank or to the type of financial panic that Title II is designed to prevent. So the Senate in its desire to have ex ante review had a problem with how to structure this review in a way that wouldn't give rise to these concerns. So what does the bill, as Congress adopted, the Senate version, not the House version, unfortunately, what does the Senate bill do in order to prevent the type of adverse publicity and the panic that a full scale open judicial proceeding would entail? First, it provides that the judicial hearing will take place in complete secret. Second, it provides that most stakeholders, creditors, shareholders, bondholders, and most employees receive no notice of the pending liquidation. Third, it gives the District Court only 24 hours in which to rule on the petition by the Secretary of the Treasury to create a receivership and automatically deems the receivership approved within 24 hours if the District Court has not ruled by that time. Fourth, it provides that the District Court can only review two out of seven legal determinations that the Secretary of the Treasury has to make in order to conclude that a receivership is warranted. Fifth, it limits the review of these two issues to a highly differential arbitrary and capricious standard. Sixth, it provides for expedited appeal of these two issues only, but says there shall be no stay of the receivership pending appeal. Now, it is important to acknowledge that the Act does contain provisions for judicial review of creditors who have claims. If they are dissatisfied with the way in which the receiver or the FDIC has resolved the claim they can go to court and seek to have that set aside, but it does not contain any provision for judicial review for other stakeholders. Consider, for example, a pension fund that has a major investment in a systemically significant firm and is upset because it thinks reorganization would be more appropriate than liquidation. Such an entity gets no hearing and no notice, none administratively, none judicially, none before the receivership is commenced, none after the receivership is commenced. This creates, as I detailed in my article and statement, very serious due process, Article III problems, and First Amendment problems. You can go to jail if you disclose the pendency of one of these secret judicial proceedings. I think the solution is relatively simple: go back to the House version rather than the Senate version and have the review take place after the receivership commences, not before. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Merrill can be found on page 66 of the appendix.] Chairman McHenry. Thank you, Professor Merrill. Mr. McTaggart, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. McTAGGART, PARTNER, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Mr. McTaggart. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Timothy McTaggart. I thank you for the invitation to appear before the subcommittee and present testimony on this important topic. I am a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of the law firm Pepper Hamilton, where I head the firm's bank regulatory consumer finance group. I note that my testimony reflects my views alone and not those of Pepper Hamilton LLP or its clients, and of course, any errors are to be attributable solely to me. By way of background, I served as a supervisor functioning as the bank commissioner for the State of Delaware from 1994 to 1999. I served under then-Governor Tom Carper, who became the Governor of Delaware after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, including on what was then called the House Banking Committee. Additionally, I served as counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee prior to my service in Delaware. Earlier in my career, after graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Law School, I had joined the Legal Division at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C. The balance of my career has been in private practice in Washington. I am going to have to beg the mercy of the chairman. I have attached materials which apparently have not made it into the package. I have a copy. I am happy to submit it as part of the record. So, I have attached materials that I prepared with the assistance of Matthew Silver on many of the topics that were noticed for today. There is a 14-page document which was to be an appendix on the constitutionality analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act. Somehow, that got separated out. So I am happy to offer it and present it and ask that the summary be included in the record as part of my remarks. Chairman McHenry. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McTaggart. At this point, I would offer a few overarching comments pertinent to today's topic concerning the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions relating to the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). My written summary also contains references to similar issues regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but I am not going to focus on that in this testimony. First, the courts have routinely exercised judicial restraint in connection with determining whether congressionally enacted legislation is unconstitutional. In the summary that is provided, the most recent statistics that we are aware of show fewer than 170 actions being held to be unconstitutional from 1789 through 2002. It is possible that total undercounts more recent activity from the end of the Rehnquist court and during the Roberts court, but as a matter of historical record, starting with Marbury v. Madison, it shows the relatively rare overturning of congressional action through the Nation's history. Moreover, the record shows an absence of economic regulation and statutory frameworks being declared unconstitutional. The second point, there are undoubtedly major policy choices embedded and omitted in the Dodd-Frank Act. Of course, the difference in policy choices reflected in the enacted legislation does not make the legislation unconstitutional. There may be lingering important questions about the effectiveness of the Dodd-Frank Act, I have many myself, to address major policy challenges such as the ``too-big-to-fail'' issue. But the debate, of course, over the effectiveness of the Dodd-Frank Act does not go to the constitutionality of the Act. Third, the genius in our American system of government is the separation of powers among the three branches and the checks and balances among the branches. While we often focus on the executive's power to veto congressional legislation, for example, or the ability of Congress to check the executive power through appropriate oversight, we less frequently focus on the ability of Congress to check the Judiciary by enacting legislation which, for example, limits the jurisdiction of the courts or sets standards of review to be followed by the courts. Congress has the inherent authority to limit the time period available for judicial review and to set other requirements concerning the standard of review to be applied by the courts in reviewing administrative actions. So it seems to me the crux of the question being considered by the subcommittee is whether the prior Congress, which enacted Dodd-Frank, overstepped its bounds in order to do so. From my perspective, with respect to the limits on judicial review relating to timing and the scope of review in the OLA, I would conclude that Congress did indeed ensure and sought to ensure due process was afforded to the affected financial institutions. With respect to the structural choices made by Congress to create the FSOC, I would conclude that Congress did not impermissibly delegate away its authority. Now, there are a great many topics, including whether the Dodd-Frank Act ended ``too-big-to-fail'' or whether the OLA will be a viable alternative to existing Chapter 11 bankruptcy processes for bank holding companies, which previously were not included in the FDIC's resolution authority. The bank regulatory agencies perhaps would be experts to provide testimony. But I am prepared to answer questions, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify. [The prepared statement of Mr. McTaggart can be found on page 47 of the appendix.] Chairman McHenry. We thank the panel, and we will now recognize Members for questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and I will begin with you, Professor Merrill. What is required to establish a violation of the due process clause contained in the Constitution? Mr. Merrill. As the text of the Constitution suggests, there are three basic requirements: you have to show that you have life, liberty or property at stake; you have to show that the government is threatening to deprive you of those interests; and then you have to show that the government is threatening to do so in a way inconsistent with due process of law. Due process of law means all sorts of different things, but in this context, it means a notice that the government is going to act adversely against one of those interests and that you have not been given a fair opportunity to present your side of the story before the government takes final action. Chairman McHenry. So now we are looking at the Orderly Liquidation Authority contained within the Dodd-Frank Act. Do you think that a party who might be threatened with this resolution of the Orderly Liquidation Authority, a creditor, a shareholder, an officer, a director, do you believe that they would have a property interest? Mr. Merrill. Absolutely. Chairman McHenry. Okay, so that would be protected under due process? Mr. Merrill. Unsecured creditor claims are property, and the position of being president of the bank is property, so I think that covers the waterfront here. Chairman McHenry. Okay. So, in a resolution under the Orderly Liquidation Authority, would the State then be depriving the party of his or her property interests under this construct? Mr. Merrill. Arguably, with respect to a creditor, you might say that we would have to wait to see what happens until the receiver resolves the creditor's claim and the creditor has a right to go to court. But with respect to a number of stakeholders, let's take shareholders, for example. Suppose you have a mutual fund or suppose you have a State employee pension plan that has invested in one of these systemically significant companies and they strongly believe that liquidation is inappropriate, that the company is experiencing a short-term credit crunch, but they could be successfully reorganized. A shareholder like that is not given any notice under Dodd- Frank before a liquidation is commenced. They are not given any notice or a hearing after the liquidation is commenced. And the statute says this company has to be liquidated, and the shareholders have to take the first hit. So very likely a very substantial financial interest is going to be wiped out without any notice or any hearing, administratively, judicially or otherwise. Chairman McHenry. So, therefore, the Secretary and the FSOC's decision to send an institution through the Orderly Liquidation Authority denies those individuals of due process because it doesn't give them adequate notice and an opportunity to contest the decision? Mr. Merrill. That is my reading, unfortunately, of the way the statute is currently drafted. Chairman McHenry. Okay. Ambassador Gray, obviously, with the work that you are doing, you believe that institutions do have a property right and interest and their due process would be violated through the Orderly Liquidation Authority, is that correct? Mr. Gray. That is correct. Chairman McHenry. Okay. So do you believe the State would be depriving those parties of his or her property interests? Mr. Gray. I believe that is correct. I also believe that it is a cognizable injury to deprive one of the protections granted by the separation of powers. It is a slightly different argument. Chairman McHenry. Explain that argument. Mr. Gray. It is related, but it is not the same. And it is true that there are pieces of separation of powers denial throughout our U.S. Code, and especially in the banking industry, but there is nothing like this aggregation, the collapsing of all of these issues all in one place, due process and separation of powers and non-delegation and et cetera, et cetera. So I believe there is more than one ground for challenge, and I believe the courts will take notice of this when they have the opportunity. Chairman McHenry. Okay. Professor Merrill, to your point on inadequate notice, why might Dodd-Frank provide inadequate notice? Mr. Merrill. The administrative procession that leads up to a decision to commence a liquidation is done in secret, and that is the way bank receiverships are done, and that is the way Dodd-Frank is written for these systemically significant non-bank firms. The problem is that if you had an open administrative process, you would trigger the type of financial panic that people want to prevent, that people don't want to have creditors and counterparties cashing out and triggering a financial contagion. So there is no administrative notice. With respect to the stakeholders, other than the firm itself, the statute says that the judicial proceeding to appoint a receiver takes place in secret, and it makes it a Federal crime to recklessly disclose the fact that proceeding is taking place. That would include, of course, intentionally disclose. So there is no way that a shareholder or a creditor or a bondholder or any of these stakeholders will find out about this liquidation until it has been announced that the court has approved the appointment of a receiver, and the liquidation at that point under the statute has to take place. Chairman McHenry. My time has expired. We will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. The ranking member asked me to recognize Ms. Beatty instead. I will recognize Ms. Beatty for 5 minutes. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member. And thank you gentlemen. Mr. McTaggart, much has been said today, and in your documents, regarding the process by which designation occurs. Specifically, Mr. Gray's testimony states that it is no great surprise that big banks would seek to leverage their size, their interconnectedness, and other qualities to obtain favor from the government. The comments appear to suggest that the designation as an SIFI clearly confers strong benefits upon the largest institutions, and yet if this was the case, we would expect that all large and medium-sized financial institutions would be seeking to be designated as SIFIs. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite, that most of the borderline financial firms are making efforts to be excluded from the SIFI class of firms. So the question is, do you believe that SIFI designation is a way for big financial institutions to curry favor with the government, and if so, why is it that one of our larger insurance companies is challenging its non-bank SIFI designation? Mr. McTaggart. That is a fine and excellent question. With respect to the challenge, the Prudential Insurance Company is, as I understand it, acting within the requisite appeal period to challenge its SIFI designation. Importantly, it is not to challenge the constitutionality of the functioning of the statute, but the SIFI choice that was made and applied to it. So clearly, to the premise of your question, in that instance, they do not presumably find it beneficial to be designated as an SIFI. On the broader question of whether SIFI status conferred the special designation, or does it proliferate the ``too-big- to-fail'' question, my personal view is that it is a dramatic change with the enactment of the statute. I think it is pretty clear that institutions that previously were of concern 20 to 30 years ago as being systemically important--you think of Continental Bank in Illinois and so forth--are not likely to be the ones that would fall within the SIFI designation today. So, it has shifted. I think the one unspoken comment, but I think it is a critical one, from a policy standpoint, is that typically it is not just a single institution--and I am speaking as a former supervisor--that gets in trouble at once. It might be two or three because they are sort of in the same bad investments or other choices. So, that is really the challenge I see prospectively for the Fed and the Treasury in terms of how they manage and supervise the SIFI institutions once the next crisis, whatever it happens to be, occurs. I think that is the difficulty. And it is not clear that those institutions would be viewing the SIFI designation as a benefit. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman McHenry. The gentlelady yields back. We will now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I thank the chairman for calling the hearing, and certainly, we all appreciate the testimony of the witnesses here today. In his opening statement, Mr. Green noted correctly that Dodd-Frank has not been found unconstitutional, but I think two of you in your statements said that is as of yet, and it is still early in the game. Professor Merrill, you outlined in your testimony the ability of the courts to review the FSOC's decisions to subject a company to Federal Reserve supervision under Title I. Can you just go through again, if you would, the constitutional questions that you have in that regard? Mr. Merrill. No, my testimony is only devoted to Title II. I did not speak to Title I and the systemic designation under Title I. So I have no opinion on that. Mr. Fitzpatrick. With respect to--you talked about notice and the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Merrill. That is under Title II, yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Okay, Title II. I'm sorry. Mr. Merrill. In my view, the statute makes a fatal mistake in trying to push judicial review into this extremely truncated 24-hour period between the Executive Branch's decision to seek an orderly liquidation and the court's issuance of the order approving the orderly liquidation. So the court does not have enough time to consider this, the firm does not have enough time to prepare dissent, and as I mentioned, all of these other stakeholders are given no notice at all. In fact, it would be a crime to give them due process. So it is sort of like a super due process violation when your rights are vaporized and you have absolutely no way of getting any notice or an opportunity to have a hearing before that takes place. One of the issues the district court has to resolve in this 24-hour period is whether or not the company is in default or in danger of default, and the statute defines default or danger of default in probabilistic terms. It says, it is likely that the firm will not be able to meet its obligations; it is likely that its debts will exceed its assets and so forth. Can you imagine a company that is resisting orderly liquidation being able to mount a defense in 24 hours to show that it is not in danger of default, and the type of accounting and actuarial information they would have to develop? And can you imagine the court being able to digest that information in 24 hours and make a meaningful ruling? I can't. It seems to me what the statute does is it tries to conscript the courts and draw upon their prestige in legitimizing this process, which is essentially a total executive process, without allowing the courts to act in a meaningful way or giving parties due process. Mr. Fitzpatrick. So, professor, why is it then that Dodd- Frank might provide inadequate opportunity to challenge the Secretary's determination? Is it entirely that it can't be done within 24 hours, or are there additional reasons? Mr. Merrill. It is partly that it can't be done in 24 hours. It is partly that significant stakeholders are given no notice so they can't show up and participate in the hearing at all. I think the only way to really cure this, consistent with the need for confidentiality and speed, is to do what is done under bank receivership law, which is to give firms and other stakeholders a right to challenge it after a receiver is appointed. Receivership law allows you to go to court within 30 days. You can raise any issue you want. You can challenge the factual base of the receivership. Now, it is true that not many firms do take advantage of it. Once its receivership has been declared, it is difficult to persuade a court to undo it. But I think having that power is critically important because otherwise it is entirely left up to the discretion of the executive as to who they push into this liquidation process, and there really isn't a chance for the courts to act as check on that. And just the availability of judicial review, I think, would act as a significant check on potential executive abuse. We can't assume the executive will always be acting in perfectly good faith here. Mr. Fitzpatrick. And finally, professor, I think you testified that you preferred the Senate version-- Mr. Merrill. No, the House version. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The House version. That was review after receivership. Review after receivership? Mr. Merrill. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. So what Mr. Green said in his opening statement is that the bill could be amended, and there might be amendments which he would be consider which are important. So, in the 30 seconds I have left, if you or any of the witnesses could tell us, if you could propose one amendment which would be most effective and most important to Dodd-Frank, what would that amendment be? Mr. Merrill. Just go back and look at the House bill that was passed in late 2009 or early 2010 and look at the provisions for appointment of receiver and adopt that and take out the provisions that the Senate added in 2010. The Senate added this ex ante review with all of these constitutional problems. I think the House bill would pass constitutional muster. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I think my time has expired. Thank you. Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes. Mrs. Maloney. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing, and I also want to thank Ranking Member Green. In 2008, when a large financial company was on the verge of failure, regulators had two options in front of them. They could either let the company file for bankruptcy, which was what happened with Lehman, or they could bail the company out, which happened with AIG; and neither turned out to be a good alternative. Dodd-Frank gave regulators a third choice by creating an orderly liquidation process for large financial companies that is similar to the power that the FDIC has with commercial banks. By most accounts, the FDIC performed a vital role in stabilizing our economy during this period. Regulators were screaming for the same type of authority that would have helped them better manage AIG and Lehman Brothers than the two options that we had, which were: let it fail; or bail it out. They are both unacceptable. Neither one is a good alternative. Now, some of my colleagues say that they would simply let large companies file for bankruptcy. They can do that now. And I would like to point out that we have already tried bankruptcy. We tried that with Lehman, and the result was a massive financial crisis. And I don't consider this an acceptable solution. But a financial institution or their creditors can push them into bankruptcy now if they so choose. But Dodd-Frank tried to give another alternative to help confront a financial crisis. I believe someone called it ``executive abuse.'' It wasn't executive abuse. The financial system was crashing. Secretary Paulson was begging for some authority to help him better handle the crisis. So I guess my question to you is if this is about the constitutional authority that we have under Dodd-Frank, under Title II, it is really Title II, I would say--and I would like to begin with Mr. McTaggart and others if they would like to comment--Title II is really an extension of the FDIC commercial liquidation authority and powers that they have for commercial banks, and this was already challenged in court and the court upheld the authority under the FDIC to manage in a crisis situation. I would say in most of the--we were in a crisis situation that cost this country $12 trillion; some economists say it is $16 trillion. We are still suffering from it. I for one don't want to go back to it. But most economists and most books that have been written about the crisis, to tell you the truth I can't stand to read them because living through it once was enough, but if you do read them, most of them really laud the FDIC and the role that they played in trying to stabilize the economy. So, your comments on the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank, Mr. McTaggart, please? Mr. McTaggart. Sure. Those are wonderful observations. It is clearly the case that a large part of the Dodd-Frank resolution process is derived from the history and the experience that the FDIC has had. I would point out that the bankruptcy process is still available and the Orderly Liquidation Authority is an alternative that is to be utilized essentially if there are decisions made that the bankruptcy process is not going to be satisfactory by the appropriate regulators. One point that I would like to just, I guess, correct the record on in terms of the orderly liquidation timing, and I have great respect for the courts, including, of course, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, they have issued a local civil rule to deal with orderly liquidation, and it is not a 24-hour period. At least 48 hours prior to the filing of a petition under the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has to provide notice under seal to the clerk of the court that the petition will likely be filed with the court. Additionally, a petition under the Act by the Secretary of the Treasury must contain all relevant findings and recommendations. The petition is assigned to the chief judge or the acting chief judge, thus the petitions will be directed to someone who has fully reviewed the Act, the related precedent, and has experience on matters under the Act. The financial company named in the petition may file an opposition to the petition under seal, may appear at the hearing to oppose the petition. Each petition in opposition shall be accompanied by a proposed order, thus making a response by the judge in a 24-hour period somewhat easier. So, again, I am not suggesting that it completely changes the timeframe, but it is more than 24 hours. Chairman McHenry. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will now recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, for 5 minutes. Mrs. Bachmann. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you also for holding this hearing and for inviting these witnesses. This has been an excellent hearing. I think my first question will be to Mr. Merrill. I have appreciated your testimony. Again, I would like if you could go back--you made comments--to this issue of dealing with how Title II would violate constitutional principles when we are dealing with uniform bankruptcy law and we are dealing with vesting substantial discretion in the executive to invoke the Orderly Liquidation Authority? Could you give us a summation of that again? I think this is a very important point, that we need to understand the constitutional vulnerability. Mr. Merrill. All right. I would be happy to respond to that and also respond to a couple of points that were just made by Mr. McTaggart. It is true that most of Title II was borrowed from FDIC receivership law and that the courts have upheld the FDIC's receivership process, whereby there is an administrative appointment of a receiver and then the process unfolds after that. The big difference between the FDIC law and Title II is that under FDIC receivership law, an aggrieved party can go to court and ask the court to set aside the receivership and can raise any issue that they want to raise. Under Title II, there is no review after the receiver is appointed. That is the end of the game as far as stakeholders are concerned, other than ordinary creditors, who may get some relief from the FDIC as receivers. So the shareholders, the directors, the officers of the company, who all have to be mandatorily fired under Dodd-Frank, have no way to protect their interests because there is no judicial review before or after, under Title II. There is under the FDIC Act. There is not under Title II. Second, this local D.C. rule that has been mentioned, the D.C. court was clearly uncomfortable when it looked at this statute. It asked the Secretary of the Treasury to please notify it 48 hours in advance so that they could try to get a judge lined up and so forth. But that local rule can't change the basic skeletal provisions of the statute, which make it a crime to inform most stakeholders that there is going to be a liquidation, no notice whatsoever, which gives the judge only 24 hours between the time he sees the government's petition and the time he has to rule and which gives the company whatever is left of the 24 hours to try to respond and address the issues that the government raises in its petition for liquidation. So I think the local rule helps a little bit at the margins, perhaps, but it does not address the fundamental flaws, due process, Article III and so forth that this statute creates. Mrs. Bachmann. And, Mr. Merrill, based upon the latter part of your answer, would you classify that as a potential vulnerability under First Amendment grounds? Mr. Merrill. Yes. The statute says, you can go to jail for 5 years for telling the world that the government is trying to liquidate your firm. That is unprecedented. I know of no analogy that would sustain that, and I think the court in a proper case where a firm thinks that it is improper to be putting it through liquidation, that there is some kind of abuse, I am not suggesting there was abuse in the past, but in the future there might be, a firm that thinks the government is trying to put it through liquidation inappropriately, they can't leak this to The New York Times or the Washington Post without having the officers of the firm be trucked off to jail for 5 years. That is an extraordinary incursion on the First Amendment, in my view, and I think the courts would be very uncomfortable with that. Mrs. Bachmann. Mr. Merrill, have you ever seen anything like this before in your history, in your academic life and in your practical work that you have done? Have you seen any kind of restrictions and constitutional problems in this vein before? Mr. Merrill. No. I think this is completely unprecedented. I think you had some interesting models with which you could work. You had the bankruptcy code. You had the FDIC receivership law, and for whatever reason, at the last minute, the Senate came up with this novel hybrid, which essentially dragoons the court into rubber stamping the executive in this highly expeditious fashion with no notice, no hearing opportunity that is meaningful, and with the stakes being so enormously huge. We are talking about all kinds of people having huge financial interests at stake here. I don't think there is anything remotely like it in U.S. law. In fact, you can't--in looking at the Article III issue, I couldn't really find any precedents where the courts had been told that they had to rule within 24 hours on highly complicated issues that are very difficult for anybody to figure out in a matter of months. Mrs. Bachmann. Then, you really do have a denial of due process? Mr. Merrill. Yes. Potentially. Again, when the process is ever used, I think there will be due process violations. And all sorts of stakeholders will have a strategic incentive to raise those constitutional concerns, which will very likely cause the whole process to go off the rails and become chaotic. Mrs. Bachmann. I thank you for your observations because I think they are stunning. And I think in fact you have even underscored for this committee how important that is. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McHenry. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will now recognize Mr. Heck for 5 minutes. Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I pass. Chairman McHenry. Okay. We will now recognize Ms. Wagner for 5 minutes. Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses for being here with us this afternoon. I would like to especially welcome one of my former colleagues from the diplomatic team, Ambassador Boyden Gray. Welcome. And I will start with you, Ambassador Gray. Once the Treasury Secretary invokes the Orderly Liquidation Authority for a troubled firm under Dodd-Frank, the district court can only review two, I believe, of the seven determinations made by the Secretary. Is that correct? Mr. Gray. That is correct. It can only review whether the firm is a financial firm and whether it is in trouble. Mrs. Wagner. So the other five factors of determination are in a way exempt from the court review and the company has no right to challenge them? Is that correct, sir? Mr. Gray. That is correct. When this issue first surfaced in something I wrote, I don't know how long ago now, the Treasury's letter to the Washington Post said, there is a huge check in all of this, which is that we must find that this entity poses a threat to the stability of the United States. That finding is specifically excluded from court review. Mrs. Wagner. So if they are unable to challenge those other five factors, what types of concerns does this give you over due process? Mr. Gray. It is a denial of due process not to give someone his or her day in court. And it isn't just that. The Congress is basically cut out. You are basically cut out because what finances this is not required of you. You have no way of monitoring it because the orderly liquidation, or the Treasury has its own internal taxing power effectively to finance all this without any oversight by you. So there are multiple problems here. And I think--and you may have another question, but I want to emphasize that problems are accumulating right now. This isn't just a difficulty that is going to arise when and if this kind of a takeover occurs. We are seeing the results of this now as larger institutions get funding advantages based on the implicit bailout of what this provision authorizes, and smaller banks, community banks that really do service local communities like yours, these local smaller banks are having a hard time competing and dealing with the regulations. Mrs. Wagner. And in fact, it codified ``too-big-to-fail,'' is what is happening. Mr. Gray. Right. It codifies ``too-big-to-fail.'' And it perpetuates it. So, this is happening today. There is a bigger problem at some point, but right now, we have a problem and it needs to be corrected. Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Ambassador Gray. If I could move on, Professor Merrill, what standard can the court use to review the Secretary's decision that the company is a financial company and that it is in default or in danger of default? Mr. Merrill. The statute is quite explicit in saying that the court can only ask whether or not both of those determinations are arbitrary and capricious. Mrs. Wagner. How would an arbitrary and capricious review of the Treasury Secretary's decision differ from a de novo review? Mr. Merrill. It is hard to say. The arbitrary and capricious language, I think is borrowed from the Administrative Procedures Act, which refers to arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. And so ordinarily when that standard is invoked, the courts have authority to decide questions of law. It is not clear that Dodd-Frank authorizes the courts to review questions of law. If that is the case, I think it is quite clearly unconstitutional, for that reason among all the other reasons that we discussed. Under bank receivership law, and under the House bill that was rejected by the conference committee, the court would have de novo review powers, which means the court would make the record, the parties would submit evidence to the court that they think is relevant, and the court would hear witnesses, and the court would decide all the legal questions independently of what the agency decided. Mrs. Wagner. And the determination, I assume, is based on the merits of its argument? Mr. Merrill. Yes. The huge difference between de novo review and arbitrary and capricious, whatever that means without ``not in accordance'' with law being added. Mrs. Wagner. Very quickly, Professor Merrill, how is the court's ability to review the Treasury Secretary's decision to invoke the OLA different from its ability to review the FDIC's decision to resolve a failed bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for instance? Mr. Merrill. Under the FDIC Act, the court has the power, at the behest of any affected person, to set aside the receivership for any and all reasons, and to develop a record, and to decide questions independently. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the court is restricted to reviewing these two issues out of seven and only under this arbitrary and capricious standard, which we don't know quite what that means, but it sounds very deferential. Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Professor. I believe my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's start with the first option available, which is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is not precluded by Dodd-Frank. And I think all of our scholars will agree that bankruptcy is still available. But for fear that I may be mistaken, if you agree that bankruptcy is still available, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? This is sort of like voir dire. Okay. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all of the members of the panel have indicated that bankruptcy is still available. In fact, there has to be a determination of the entity, the company, the large company I might add, there has to be a determination that it is either in default or in danger of default. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Merrill? Mr. Merrill. That is an accurate statement, yes. Mr. Green. Okay. Default or in danger of default. There also has to be, before we get to that determination, involvement of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and then you have to confer with the President of the United States. So we are talking about a time of exigent circumstances when we have perhaps what we had in 2008, when banks would not lend to each other, when you could not have other businesses that could go through the bankruptcy process--go to the bankruptcy process and assist a business that was in fact in bankruptcy. We do have these extreme circumstances where bankruptcy does not prove to be an option. Only after we have justified that there is an extreme circumstance do we then go to OLA. Now Mr. Merrill, do you agree with that, that there is this justification process? I know your point is that it is all a part of the executive. And I will get to that in just a moment. But that is your point, correct? Mr. Merrill. That is right. And I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization-- Mr. Green. Okay. Let me continue. So once we do get to the district court, we have rule 85 to contend with. Now, for those who are concerned about secrecy, rule 85 indicates that if the petition of the Treasury Secretary is granted, then the Secretary has to show cause why the veil of secrecy should not be lifted. Do you agree that rule 85 does this? Mr. McTaggart. I am familiar with the rule. Perhaps the other panelists are not. But that is correct. Mr. Green. So rule 85, which applies to the district court that the case must be filed in, this is a court of venue and of jurisdiction, so you have to go to this court, this local rule has already been promulgated to address the very question of secrecy that has been raised. Next point before I get to you, Mr. Gray. We will try to get to you in just a moment, but there is one other thing that I have to do. The ruling of the district court is not the final word. In fact, you can appeal from the district court to the next level, which would be the appeals court, circuit court, and you can appeal from there to the Supreme Court. So the district court ruling is not the final word. This can go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the Supreme Court has supreme authority. Supreme Courts make rulings that we don't always like, but hopefully we will continue to respect them. Now, with reference to the process itself of appeal, and of filing the petition, do you agree that in major questions of any type, you have constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue? It is not unusual to have constitutional scholars on both sides of an issue. We just had several cases before the Supreme Court recently, with constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue. Do you agree, Mr. Merrill, that you have constitutional scholars on both sides of issues? Mr. Merrill. On many issues, you do. I am not sure that there are going to be two constitutional scholars on either side of the question of whether there is no hearing or opportunity. Mr. Green. We already have--you do not consider your friend sitting next to you a scholar? Is that what you are saying? Mr. Merrill. I haven't heard him speak specifically to the issue. Mr. Green. I will let you decide who is a constitutional scholar or not. Let us just say for our purposes that we have people who hold themselves out as experts who will testify on both sides of this issue. That will happen. It is happening right now. And until a court rules, we don't have an issue that has been declared unconstitutional. We don't have any aspect of this law that has been declared unconstitutional. So I appreciate your taking it to court, those of you who are litigating. I have no quarrel with your taking it to court. I will respect the decision of the courts. But I do think that we can't conclude now that it is unconstitutional. What we have are opinions. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McHenry. Spoken like a well-informed former judge. We will now recognize Mr. Rothfus of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Gray and Professor Merrill, in addition to arguing that certain provisions of Dodd-Frank may be susceptible to constitutional challenge, you both suggested that basically it is bad policy and may fail to achieve the purpose of ending taxpayer-funded bailouts of large complex financial companies. Professor Merrill, why might Title II preserve a version of taxpayer funded socialization of losses? Mr. Merrill. I think when you read the fine print of Title II, you will find that there is authority for the Treasury Department to provide funding to facilitate an orderly liquidation. And the statute says that the Treasury has to be reimbursed. The taxpayers are not going to be paying for this up front. But in reimbursing the Secretary of the Treasury, you start with the shareholders and then the unsecured creditors, and then you file lawsuits against the officers and directors, who might have been responsible to claw back their compensation. But if there is still a shortfall, then the statute authorizes special assessments to be imposed on major financial companies to pay back the Treasury for the funding that it advanced to this liquidation. Those special assessments are really a tax by any other name. Those assessments would be passed on to consumers in part, or would be taken from shareholders of bank corporations that have to pay these assessments. And so, that is a kind of socialization of losses of the sort that the bailout regime represented. I think it is a perpetuation of that in a different guise. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you. And Ambassador Gray, despite the passage of Dodd-Frank, do larger firms, in your opinion, enjoy an unfair funding advantage relative to smaller firms? Mr. Gray. There are, I think, nearly a half dozen studies which make that point. There is one from Bloomberg that says the advantage is $80 billion-plus a year in terms of profits. I believe the Dallas Fed has gone into some detail about this, identifying somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 basis points advantage. And so I don't think there is any question that there is an advantage. One very high ranking official at one of the big Wall Street institutions said to me, ``We are not interested in an all-out attack on these provisions of Dodd- Frank because if our regulators knew we weren't going to be bailed out, they would raise our capital requirements.'' So I think there is a general understanding that this is a form of bailout. There are, I think as a result perhaps of the questions that you are raising here in this hearing and the questions that have been raised by the lawsuits, some efforts now to actually raise capital requirements to soften the ``too- big-to-fail,'' to cut into the ``too-big-to-fail'' problem. But that in itself is a recognition that there is a ``too-big-to- fail'' entrenchment problem that is perpetuated, if not deepened, by Dodd-Frank. Mr. Rothfus. Professor Merrill, would you consider the truncated notice window at play with Title II to be extraordinary? Mr. Merrill. Yes. Mr. Rothfus. Would it be fair to call this maybe even a sudden death determination? Is that what happens in this truncated process? Mr. Merrill. I am sorry, could you repeat that? Mr. Rothfus. Can you make an argument that this is almost like a sudden death provision? You have 24 hours, or 48 hours basically to respond to the government that is basically going to order the winding up of a business. Mr. Merrill. Yes. If there is any kind of contested issue at all with respect to danger of default or default, I think it is just completely unrealistic to imagine that the firm has any way to muster a defense and present it to the court in an orderly fashion and have a meaningful decision on that. I think this is all a charade. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. McTaggart, can you identify any other law that allows such a truncated notice window before a company is going to be ordered to be wound up? Mr. McTaggart. I am not sure that I can, but I would note that based upon the supervisory process, institutions are not ordinarily deteriorating within a 24-hour period. So typically there is going to be a matter of perhaps weeks, perhaps a month prior to this final decision. I respect your point of view of course with regard to the shortness of it. And to respond specifically to your question, I can't reference another framework. Mr. Rothfus. And Professor Merrill again, if we can take just a reminder of some of the stakeholders here, employees of these companies? Mr. Merrill. They get no notice, other than the very top officers. Mr. Rothfus. Pension funds. Mr. Merrill. No notice. Mr. Rothfus. And ultimately the taxpayers who may have to be responsible for any kind of pension liability. Mr. Merrill. Obviously not. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize Mr. Barr of Kentucky for 5 minutes. Mr. Barr. Mr. Gray, Mr. McTaggart testified that there was a local rule that provided for a notice that the OLA process was to be invoked. Do you agree with Mr. McTaggart's testimony, and can a local rule cure an unconstitutional statute? Mr. Gray. I don't believe so. I have never heard of that being the case. I think the local rule is useful because it is a blueprint for what is wrong with the statute. But I don't think it overrules the statute or can overrule the statute. There will not be 48 hours or 72 hours notice, or a length of time for a district court to react, let alone 48 hours. There will be 24 hours. That is what the statute says. And any notice that goes out to potentially interested parties would violate the statute and subject anyone at the court who did this to criminal penalty, jail, and financial. So the rule is, as I say, useful for the problems it identifies, but I do not think it can solve them. Mr. Barr. To Ambassador Gray and to Professor Merrill, could the government in litigation over the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank law, could the government conceivably defend the constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that--or by invoking either the exceptions clause in article three or by invoking article three, section one language conferring to Congress the power to create inferior courts and, by extension, define the contours of the jurisdiction of those inferior courts? Mr. Merrill. I hadn't thought about that. It would be an interesting argument. The statute doesn't purport to affect the jurisdiction in the sense you are referring to it, of the courts. It confers jurisdiction on the district court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. And it doesn't say that it is limiting their jurisdiction or it is regulating the appeals process. It just simply drastically limits the issues that they can consider. I would add in this regard that there is a real question as to what sort of relief these courts can grant. The statute, as I read it, suggests that the only thing the district court can do other than approve the petition is to send the case back to the Secretary of the Treasury for more findings to support his determination. And then when you appeal to the appeals court and the Supreme Court, there is no stay pending appeal. So what can the appeals court and what can the Supreme Court do? I am not sure they can do anything other than send the case back to the Treasury Secretary for more findings. Meanwhile, liquidation is proceeding apace. So it is not clear that this statute gives these courts any authority to overturn the receivership process. Mr. Gray. Could I make one additional point? Mr. Barr. Yes. Mr. Gray. Just to respond to something that was said earlier, the restrictions on what the district court can look at, only two of the five factors--two of the seven, excuse me, that they cannot look at five of the factors, that restriction carries on to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. So the appellate courts are as restricted as the district court in that regard. Mr. Barr. Mr. Gray, you have opined that you have concerns about Dodd-Frank potentially violating the separation of powers doctrine, and in particular, you have cited the nondelegation doctrine. Can you amplify for the committee your concerns with respect to the nondelegation doctrine? Mr. Gray. I think the nondelegation doctrine is violated here, but I don't think that if that were the only problem I would be here, or at least I would have been involved in filing a lawsuit. That is a real problem. But what aggravates it so terribly is the addition of the restrictions on court review. To look at it from a different angle, courts have, since the Schechter Poultry case, the so-called ``sick chicken case,'' the courts have never really thrown out a statute like the National Recovery Act wholesale in response to a nondelegation argument, which is that Congress granted too much unguided authority to the Executive Branch. What they have done is engaged in a doctrine known as the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, where they construe the statute more narrowly so as to avoid the constitutional issues. Now, if someone came along and did this, if someone came along for example and said--some judge that we might be before said, there really is a Tucker right available to go in and claim not just liquidation value but everything you have lost in one of these takeovers, and that is a fully available remedy in the court of claims, I don't think that is what the statute means, but if a court tried to construe it that way, I would view it is a partial victory. But I don't think that is what is available. I think the drafters of this statute were extremely careful in making sure that no avenue was available to raise these issues before they were basically foreclosed in a secret proceeding. Mr. Barr. My time has expired, but Mr. Chairman, if I could ask just one quick follow-up question to Mr. Gray on that. The reason why I ask about the nondelegation doctrine is that I wanted you to maybe comment on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure as being particularly unaccountable to the Congress in that it receives its appropriations from the Federal Reserve instead of Congress, and yet Congress has delegated a great deal of rulemaking authority, quasi-legislative power to this agency that is otherwise very unaccountable to the Congress. Mr. Gray. That is correct. It has granted huge authority to the CFPB. It has said to the House and Senate, you are out of it, the funding will come from the Fed, which itself is precluded from interfering. You are instructed, not you personally, but the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are actually prohibited from holding hearings on the budget. I don't think the Sergeant at Arms is going to come and arrest anybody, but that is what the statute says. And then it goes on, and this is where, again, separation of powers comes in, it instructs the courts to grant deference to the CFPB as though it were the only agency in town that had anything to do with financial services. That is a very unusual provision as far as I am concerned. I will defer to Professor Merrill if he wants to comment about such a codification of Chevron. But it is a peculiar formulation, and it really does tie the hands of the courts incredibly in trying to unravel all of this. And of course, as I repeat, you have nothing to say. Now, there is a parallel, of course, in the Orderly Liquidation Authority in the way the courts are specifically precluded from reviewing five of the seven factors, et cetera, given 24 hours, all in secret. And again, you are cut out because the funding authority is actually a tax, I agree with that, is tucked into the bill in the form of an assessment. So you have parallels in both. Chairman McHenry. The gentleman's time has expired. We will now move to Mr. Cleaver, who is batting cleanup today. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. And I thank the witnesses for being here. I appreciate this hearing, because any time we have a distinguished panel, it provides us with an opportunity to learn something that we didn't know or to consider something that we might not have considered. And I have had very positive contact with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We had a rule on the definition of ``rural'' that a number of people were concerned about in the rural areas of Missouri. We communicated with them for a long period of time, and then finally they responded in a positive and affirmative way. But I am somewhat concerned about, and I think with members of the judicial intelligentsia here, I can get an answer, but I am not sure that our committee is the right jurisdiction to handle constitutional deficiencies. I am sitting next to a judge, a former judge, and I am not sure, I think the Chair may be an attorney as well. So I am probably the only one in here who is not. But it would seem to me that this would be a matter for the Judiciary Committee. This committee did write the Dodd- Frank Act. I was here at all those meetings, but I am struggling with how we fit in. Can somebody help me? Mr. Gray. Let me take a quick stab at that. I think the constitutional problems that have been identified here are problems that must be cured before you can get a cure for the substance abuse of this legislation. You don't need the constitutional analysis to conclude that this legislation has entrenched or perpetuated or aggravated ``too-big-to-fail.'' And the consequences of that are not necessarily constitutional, they are economic, and they are personal, and they are community-related. And they deprive families in the district of the National Bank of Big Springs, Texas, of access to services that the firm is no longer going to be able to provide. Those are economic harms that fall directly on real people. And that is not a constitutional description; that is a description of adversity. Mr. Cleaver. I think you are agreeing with me. We have had several hearings on ``too-big-to-fail.'' And by the way, I happen to agree with you, I am very, very concerned about the status of ``too-big-to-fail.'' I think they have gotten bigger. And the fallout would be greater if something happened, we had another economic crisis. But I am just questioning the jurisdiction of the hearing because I don't think-- Mr. Merrill. If I could respond, Congressman Green made the point that on practically any constitutional issue, you can find somebody to testify on one side and somebody to testify on the other side. And I would agree with you; I don't think it is this committee's job to sort of keep score as to whether you think this is constitutional or not. The problem that I am trying to emphasize is that if and when this orderly liquidation process is invoked, there is a very substantial risk that significant stakeholders are going to raise these constitutional objections, and they are going to raise it in a very complicated, difficult, convoluted procedural way, which runs the risk that the whole process is going to be undermined by having those constitutional questions out there. So my suggestion would be to fix the statute to the extent you can to eliminate those constitutional problems and increase the chance of this statute working. Mr. McTaggart. Congressman, I would add a few points. I guess, obviously, there are policy choices that are embedded within the Act. The classic legislative process of two differing views synthesizing and becoming law is the classic legislative process that the courts recognize and defer to and give a huge presumption of constitutionality as a result of the deliberative process of the Congress. I guess I differ with the professor in a couple of respects on the policy. With respect to the Orderly Liquidation Authority, from an advocacy standpoint, I would rather have the opportunity to make my case at that point within the judicial process as contrasted to the point that was made under the FDIC resolution authority, which is 10 days after the receivership has been appointed and within 30 days and so forth. That is like trying to unscramble the eggs after the fact. And very few of those lead to any kind of meaningful review, in my opinion. So I think actually the OLA is a better option in terms of if there is a real challenge available from an advocacy standpoint, that is when you want to make it in terms of the timing. Chairman McHenry. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McHenry. Thank you. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. I would like to thank our distinguished panel for being here today to discuss the constitutional deficiencies and legal uncertainties in the Dodd-Frank Act. You certainly have helped illuminate this debate. And we thank you for that. And without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X July 9, 2013 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]