[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1648-H1652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3340, FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT
COUNCIL REFORM ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3791,
RAISING CONSOLIDATED ASSETS THRESHOLD UNDER SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY
POLICY STATEMENT
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 671
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the
[[Page H1649]]
House the bill (H.R. 3340) to place the Financial Stability
Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research under
the regular appropriations process, to provide for certain
quarterly reporting and public notice and comment
requirements for the Office of Financial Research, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services; (2) the further amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3791) to raise
the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank
holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division
of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for H.R. 3340, the FSOC Reform Act, and for H.R. 3791,
the Raising Consolidated Assets Threshold Under Small Bank Holding
Company Policy Statement. House Resolution 671 provides structured
rules for both bills. The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of
debate that is equally divided between the chair and the ranking member
of the Financial Services Committee. Additionally, the resolution
provides for the consideration of one amendment to each bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and the underlying
legislation.
The Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council,
which is dedicated to identifying threats to the stability of the
American financial system. The FSOC is supported in this mission by the
Office of Financial Research, which was also created by Dodd-Frank.
The OFR is armed with subpoena power to compel vast amounts of
nonpublic, sensitive information from institutions across the financial
system. The OFR feeds this data to the FSOC, which is empowered to
designate banks, as well as nonbank institutions, as ``systemically
important financial institutions,'' or SIFIs. This designation
significantly increases the regulatory burdens that are faced by these
institutions, and they have far-reaching effects on the entire
financial system. The impact of excessive regulation trickles down to
customers, resulting in higher borrowing costs that may stop Americans
from realizing their dreams of homeownership, of purchasing cars, of
pursuing higher education, or other goals.
Despite the vast power that the FSOC and OFR have, neither
organization is subject to the annual appropriations process. The OFR
is funded through assessments on banks, and it pays for the FSOC
through these funds. As such, the FSOC is insulated from the
transparency and accountability that Congress would give to normal
organizations by virtue of this self-funding mechanism. This has,
effectively, shielded the FSOC from any congressional oversight.
The FSOC Reform Act would, simply, fix those problems. It does not
reduce the FSOC's budget or the OFR's, but it would require that they
be under annual appropriations. It would also require occasional
reports to Congress on their expenses, objectives, and performance
measures. Congressional approval of FSOC's budget would encourage
transparency with regard to FSOC's methodology for designating SIFIs.
It would also make it clear what their objectives are and what they see
as concerns for our financial system. I believe this bill will actually
increase the transparency of the process, and it will make sure that we
look out for the financial security of the American financial system.
The bill also requires the FSOC to engage in a public notice and
comment period before issuing any new rules and regulations. These
changes will put the FSOC in line with other agencies that have to
engage in public notice and comment periods before they provide new
rules and regulations.
I thank the sponsor of H.R. 3340, Representative Tom Emmer of
Minnesota, for introducing this important legislation that will
increase the oversight and transparency to ensure we have a safe and
competitive financial market in the United States.
The other measure for consideration under the rule is H.R. 3791,
which is a bill sponsored by Representative Mia Love of Utah.
Last year, Congress passed and the President signed legislation
providing relief to community banks by increasing the Federal Reserve's
Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement threshold to include small
bank holding companies with up to $1 billion of consolidated assets.
This was in response to the small banks' difficulty in accessing
capital as a result of significant changes in the regulatory landscape.
This bill provides further relief by expanding the Fed's policy
statement to include small bank and savings and loan holding companies
with up to $5 billion of consolidated assets. This will provide needed
relief for about 400 small bank and thrift holding companies. The $5
billion level matches the threshold that was offered in the last
Congress by the current ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, my fellow Ohioan, Democratic
Senator Sherrod Brown. He did that in S. 798, so this should not be
controversial. It is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans have been
for this.
Since the second quarter of 2010, around the time that the Dodd-Frank
Act was passed by Congress, the community banks' share of U.S.
commercial banking assets has declined at a rate that is almost double
that experienced between 2006 and 2010. What is happening in our
financial system is that the big are getting bigger, and the small are
disappearing. That is why it is important to give regulatory relief to
some smaller community banks that are caught in the middle. According
to the FDIC, there were more than 18,000 banks in the 1980s as compared
to just 6,400 in the first quarter of 2015, and we are currently losing
community banks at a rate of one every day.
Increasing the eligibility threshold to $5 billion will ensure that
small bank and savings and loan holding companies will be able to issue
debt and raise capital so that the community banks can continue to
provide financial services to the customers they serve and increase
their involvement in promoting economic growth in their local
communities.
It is important to note that this bill maintains the requirements
that these
[[Page H1650]]
holding companies meet regulations related to nonbanking activities,
off-balance sheet activities, and publicly registered debt equity. The
legislation also maintains a safeguard that allows the Federal Reserve
to deny an increased debt level to any bank holding company it deems at
risk of failure.
Together, these bills will help ensure that powerful regulators act
in a transparent manner and are accountable to Congress, and they will
provide needed relief for community banks that are attempting to
survive in a difficult environment.
I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues, and I urge
support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule that is providing for the
consideration of both H.R. 3340, the Financial Stability Oversight
Council Reform Act, and H.R. 3791, the Raising Consolidated Assets
Threshold Under Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, and for
other purposes.
These partisan financial services bills, in my opinion, would weaken
and politicize the institutions that were created after the financial
crisis to identify and guard against systemic risk in our financial
system; and they will allow even larger bank holding companies to
leverage themselves with debt when financing the purchase of other
banks.
In reviewing this legislation, I have to ask myself: Are the memories
of my Republican friends really so short that they do not remember the
pain that our Nation went through only a few short years ago?
The financial crisis of 2008, by everybody's statement, was the worst
economic downturn that this great Nation has faced since the Great
Depression. It left millions out of work and millions out of their
homes. Yet, instead of supporting efforts to ensure that a collapse of
this magnitude never happens again, the majority has chosen to weaken
the very protections that are designed to prevent such a crisis. This
is even more appalling when you consider that we are still dealing with
the fallout from the crisis. Just this week, Goldman Sachs agreed to
pay $5 billion to settle claims that it misled mortgage bond investors
during the financial crisis. I was pleased to see that a portion of its
repayment is going to go to low-income and moderate-income housing.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we really shouldn't be surprised by the actions
of my friends in the majority. With the kinds of bills that have come
to the floor under this Republican Congress, whether they be to roll
back environmental protections, 60-plus repeals of the Affordable Care
Act, or to deny access to women's health care, I guess it is not a
surprise that now my Republican friends are bringing up legislation to
help the big banks and strip away the protections to prevent another
financial crisis.
I am also left wondering: Why are we debating a rule for these bills
today at all? I would like to remind the majority--and I will now and
twice again before I yield back my time--that, by law, this body must
produce a budget resolution by Friday of this week. Despite this
requirement, we still have no budget or a clear path to one. I ask the
question: Where is the budget?
I pause here to yield to my friend from Ohio if I could get his
attention just for a moment. I know the gentleman is on the Committee
on Financial Services. We serve together on Rules, but I am not in the
majority and am not privy to what may happen this Friday. I am just
curious: Since the gentleman is in the majority, what is the gentleman
hearing, if anything, regarding our having a budget by this Friday?
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
{time} 1300
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding.
I am hearing that negotiations are ongoing, and I am hopeful that we
can have a budget by this Friday. There is a bit of disagreement, even
inside our Conference, about how to move forward on the budget as far
as the numbers. But there are a lot of discussions ongoing, and I am
hopeful.
I support passing a budget. I have voted for a budget since I have
been here. We have passed budgets every year since I have been here. We
have not passed the deadline yet for this budget. I am hopeful that we
can get it done, but it is an ongoing negotiation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's response.
I urged that yesterday in the Rules Committee. Aside from your
subcommittee holding a hearing this Thursday at 3, we were advised by
the chair that there would be no further business of the Rules
Committee.
So I assumed, if that is the case, that we won't be going back to the
Rules Committee. And I am sure that the budget, if it were to be here
by Friday, would require a rule.
Despite all of these things, I empiricize the fact that it doesn't
appear that we will have a budget by Friday.
Mr. Speaker, here is how we got to this point: last fall Republicans
and Democrats came together to pass a bipartisan budget agreement. Now,
however, Republicans are refusing to support their party's own budget
proposal.
Now, I understand what my friend said about negotiations going on,
and that is good. It would be helpful if those negotiations were going
on with Democrats in the room as well.
I was very optimistic, as I am sure all of us were and, to a relative
degree, still are, when Speaker Ryan promised to end Republican
obstructionism and return to regular order. I felt very optimistic
about that.
It seemed that the now-dubbed do-nothing Congress is back and, with
it, total dysfunction on the Republican side of the aisle. The
dysfunction is so bad that Republicans cannot even agree to a budget
number that they have already agreed to.
Now, Democrats don't want to weaken the financial protections keeping
our economy stable and strong. Instead, Democrats are ready to pass a
budget that creates and helps create jobs and grow the paychecks of
hardworking Americans.
We would like to work in a bipartisan way, and we would assuredly
like to work in a way that would bring us to the work that is needed to
be done in a positive manner.
If only the Republican Conference could stand up to the extreme
faction in their own party to work with us, then we could get this
business done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no more
speakers. If the gentleman from Florida wants to close, I will reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
These financial services bills are not what the American people want.
These are bills that big banks want.
Instead of debating and passing a budget, which we are required to do
by law by the end of this week, as I have said, the majority has
decided that we should spend what precious legislative time we have
left debating bills that would roll back vital protections to the
systemic health of our financial system.
So now not only is the dysfunction in the Republican Conference
putting one of this institution's most basic functions in jeopardy,
which is passing a budget to fund the government, but, to add insult to
injury, the majority has decided now is the best time to debate putting
our entire financial system in jeopardy by rolling back measures
designed to protect it.
I might add that there is an appellate decision that is not on this
measure, but on another that we dealt with earlier. I don't understand
why we are going forward on these measures when we know, in fact, that
they aren't going to go anywhere in the other body.
Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, the American people deserve better.
So since Congress is required to pass a budget by Friday of this week
and there is absolutely little sign that the Republican majority
intends to fulfill that responsibility, well, Mr. Speaker, I want to
give my friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to end
the obstructionism and meet their and our obligation to pass a budget.
[[Page H1651]]
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the Republican budget resolution and
allow for the consideration of alternative budget proposals under the
same process we use every year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Huizenga of Michigan). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule and the
underlying bills.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I can assure him we are
working hard on a budget resolution. Although we cannot notify the
committee of any upcoming meeting because we don't know when it will be
because we don't know when the negotiations will be, I am hopeful that
that will happen and we will actually end up having a budget that will
be passed before the deadline.
So, again, I am hopeful, but none of us can control that ourselves.
The negotiations are ongoing.
I would just say that these two bills and the rule don't do anything
to undermine our financial stability. The first bill puts the FSOC and
the OFR on budget. It requires that they have appropriations every
year.
You might be familiar with the appropriations clause of the U.S.
Constitution: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .''
So we just want the normal constitutional checks and balances that
exist in every other agency to exist here, to increase the transparency
and accountability for what these agencies do.
So the first bill puts FSOC and OFR on budget. It requires
appropriations to be passed. It also requires periodic reports on what
their goals and objectives are and how their meeting goes. That is kind
of a no-brainer.
Again, Senator Sherrod Brown, the Democrat minority ranking member on
the Senate Banking Committee, has a bill that--I'm sorry. It is the
second bill. I apologize.
It makes sense to do this, to put them on appropriations.
The second bill is a bill that raises the limit for small financial
institutions, community banks, up to $5 billion. We are talking about
400 banks. It is not the biggest banks.
In fact, the biggest banks in America are almost a trillion dollars.
We are talking about $5 billion in consolidated assets in banks and
savings and loans.
These are community-based financial institutions. There are about 400
of them. They are struggling right now. We are losing a community bank
a day in this country. We need to make sure that we do everything that
we can to help those community banks continue.
I know that is a bipartisan effort to do that. This may not be the
exact way that the other side of the aisle wants to move forward on
that.
I offered to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee
yesterday in the Rules Committee that I would be happy to work with her
on some other method.
If she thinks she wants to use an activity test, if she wants to
require some kind of loans to assets, if she wants to require some kind
of capital in this, I would be happy to work with her because we have
to help our community banks. I know that is a bipartisan feeling.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida that I know
that the other side of the aisle feels the same way. We may have a
tactical disagreement, but we all feel that way. So I would love to
work on that.
In the meantime, I hope my colleagues will support both these bills
and the underlying rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and
the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 671 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2018 through 2026. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with
three hours of general debate confined to the congressional
budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and
one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals
and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative
Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York
or their respective designees. After general debate the
concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except
amendments in the nature of a substitute. Each such amendment
shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI
(germaneness). If more than one such amendment is adopted,
then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative
votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of
a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only
the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative
votes shall be considered as finally adopted. After the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall
not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent
resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been
finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto
to adoption without intervening motion except amendments
offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget pursuant
to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent
resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question of its adoption.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee
[[Page H1652]]
on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________