[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 57 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1699-H1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1345
FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL REFORM ACT
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call
up 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 671, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3340
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Financial Stability
Oversight Council Reform Act''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Section 155 of the Financial Stability Act
of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5345) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``be immediately
available to the Office'' and inserting ``be available to the
Office, as provided for in appropriation Acts'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(2) in subsection (d), by amending the heading to read as
follows: ``Assessment Schedule.--''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2016.
SEC. 3. QUARTERLY REPORTING.
Section 153 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12
U.S.C. 5343) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Quarterly Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
each quarter, the Office shall submit reports on the Office's
activities to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
``(2) Contents.--The reports required under paragraph (1)
shall include--
``(A) the obligations made during the previous quarter by
object class, office, and activity;
``(B) the estimated obligations for the remainder of the
fiscal year by object class, office, and activity;
``(C) the number of full-time equivalents within the Office
during the previous quarter;
``(D) the estimated number of full-time equivalents within
each office for the remainder of the fiscal year; and
``(E) actions taken to achieve the goals, objectives, and
performance measures of the Office.
``(3) Testimony.--At the request of any committee specified
under paragraph (1), the Office shall make officials
available to testify on the contents of the reports required
under paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIOD.
Section 153(c) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12
U.S.C. 5343(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Public notice and comment period.--The Office shall
provide for a public notice and comment period of not less
than 90 days before issuing any proposed report, rule, or
regulation.
``(4) Additional report requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (3),
the requirements under section 553 of title 5, United States
Code, shall apply to a proposed report of the Office to the
same extent as such requirements apply to a proposed rule of
the Office.
``(B) Exception for certain reports.--This paragraph and
paragraph (3) shall not apply to a report required under
subsection (g)(1) or section 154(d)(1).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order
to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House Report
114-489, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall
be considered read and shall be separately debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3340, the Financial
Stability Oversight Council Reform Act, and I would like to thank our
colleague who authored this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Emmer). He is certainly one of the hardest working and most
thoughtful freshmen that we have on the House Financial Services
Committee.
As the American people know all too well, Mr. Speaker, over years--
not years, decades, in fact--Congress has ceded far too much power to
unaccountable bureaucrats, Article I ceding power to Article II. At the
same time, it has provided many unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats
with access to money with no accountability for how that money is
spent.
The Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, as it is known by
its acronym, typifies this misguided yielding of power to the
unaccountable and unelected.
Last month there was, however, a small victory for those who are
alarmed by this ever-encroaching Federal Government and the shadow
financial regulatory system that FSOC is a part of and that operates
with little transparency or accountability to the American people. I
speak of the recent judicial ruling that struck down FSOC's designation
of MetLife as a too-big-to-fail financial institution. FSOC's decision
was found to be ``unreasonable'' and the result of a ``fatally flawed
process.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people can achieve yet another
victory today, another step in restoring the rule of law in checks and
balances, by reining in an administrative state run amok, by passing
the important bill that is in front of us now. FSOC is clearly one of
the most powerful Federal entities to ever exist and, unfortunately,
also one of the least transparent and least accountable.
First, the Council's power is concentrated in the hands of one
political party, the one that happens to control the White House. All
but one of FSOC's members is the Presidentially appointed head of a
Federal agency, but, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the agencies
themselves are not members, thus denying bipartisan representation. The
structure clearly injects partisan politics into the regulatory
process; it erodes agency independence; and it undermines
accountability.
Furthermore, FSOC's budget is not subject to congressional approval,
removing yet another vital check and balance of its immense power over
our economy and over our people.
FSOC has earned bipartisan condemnation for its lack of transparency.
Two-thirds of its proceedings are conducted in private. Minutes of
those meetings are devoid of any useful, substantive information on
what was discussed.
Even Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of the left-leaning Better Markets, has
said ``FSOC's proceedings make the Politburo look open by comparison.
At the few open meetings they have, they snap their fingers, and it's
over, and it is all scripted. They treat their information as if it
were state secrets.''
FSOC typifies not only the shadow regulatory system but, also, the
unfair Washington system that Americans have come to fear and loathe:
powerful government administrators, secretive government meetings,
arbitrary rules, and unchecked power to punish and reward. Thus,
oversight and reform are paramount, and that is why the gentleman from
Minnesota drafted H.R. 3340.
The legislation before us would bring much-needed accountability and
transparency to two very powerful agencies birthed by the Dodd-Frank
Act: the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of
Financial Research.
Currently, these two agencies are funded by assessments on financial
institutions, money that ultimately comes out of the pockets of their
customers. These funds flow directly from financial institutions into
the Office of
[[Page H1700]]
Financial Research coffers and are available immediately to be spent by
both the Office of Financial Research and the Financial Stability
Oversight Council.
H.R. 3340 is a very simple, commonsense bill. Instead of allowing
unaccountable bureaucrats to set their own budgets, the bill places
these two agencies on the budget review viewed by the United States
Congress, the elected representatives of we, the people. It says the
Council and the Office should be funded through the normal, transparent
congressional appropriations process to ensure accountability and
transparency.
Is it too much to ask that these two powerful government agencies
actually be subject to congressional oversight and budget approval?
This should be the rule for a growing number of Federal bureaucracies
that are tossed into the alphabet soup of Washington regulators who
have more power than ever over the financial decisions and the American
Dream of our hardworking fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, I have to pose this question often to my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle: How much more congressional authority do
we wish to outsource to regulatory agencies? Why did people run for
Congress if they didn't want to legislate? Why did they run for
Congress if they didn't want to engage in oversight?
Oversight is a fundamental congressional responsibility, and that
includes budget oversight--most importantly, it includes budget
oversight.
Mr. Speaker, sooner or later the shoe is going to be on the other
foot. Sooner or later the White House will be in different hands.
Sooner or later Congress will be in different hands, so this should not
be a partisan issue. This is about Article I of the Constitution. All
Members on both sides of the aisle should care passionately about this
issue, to hold agencies accountable for their spending, because we are
not just writing legislation for one Congress or one administration.
The bare minimum level of accountability to the elected
representatives of we, the people, is to have Congress control the
power of the purse. It is part of our quintessential and essential
oversight responsibilities, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office
or who resides in the Speaker's chair. If we are going to do our job,
that means Congress must exercise its Article I responsibilities, and
H.R. 3340 will help us do just that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 3340, which would impede the important
work of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, commonly referred to
as FSOC, and the Office of Financial Research, referred to as OFR, by
subjecting their funding to the congressional appropriations process.
This bill would also hamstring the OFR's ability to conduct impartial
research by requiring the Office to solicit public comment before
issuing any report, rule, or regulation.
Just in case people don't understand who FSOC is, it includes the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union
Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and independent members with
insurance expertise, chaired by the Treasury Secretary.
What you have is every representation from all of these oversight and
regulatory agencies coming together, working together in the best
interests of this country, identifying risk and where that risk is and
what to do about it. But the changes that are now being suggested or
being made in this bill will have serious adverse effects on financial
stability in the United States.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act created FSOC to oversee and
prevent threats to our financial markets, and the OFR was established
to support FSOC's critical work with analytical research. Dodd-Frank
specifically empowered both agencies with independent budgets, the same
way our other banking regulators, like the Federal Reserve, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, operate. The FSOC and OFR are funded outside of
appropriations, through fees on large financial institutions. They were
meant to be funded by the institutions they oversee and be shielded
from congressional politics.
Republicans say they want accountability by overseeing regulators'
budgets, but what they really want is control, so they can eliminate
funding for these agencies altogether. This bill would prevent efforts
to properly mitigate systemic risk, to the detriment of the entire
economy; and in this Congress, it would subject the agencies to the
uncertainty caused by the dysfunctional, failed Republican budget
process.
All we have to do is look at the struggles facing the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They
continue to be underfunded, despite dramatic changes in the markets. It
is a struggle every year to secure adequate resources to supervise
complex institutions to the benefit of industries, but at dramatic cost
to our economy.
Understandably, the administration opposes this bill, and the
President's senior advisers would recommend a veto. The administration
specifically says that subjecting these bodies to congressional
appropriations would hinder their independence and would limit their
ability to monitor and address threats to financial stability.
In addition, this bill would interfere with OFR's work.
Republicans also say they want transparency and cost-benefit analysis
with regard to OFR's activities, but what they really want is to give
industry a leg up on our regulators. In addition, by requiring the OFR
to tell the industry what it is studying, the bill would corrupt OFR's
findings and could have a chilling effect on its important work.
For similar reasons, I also will be urging my colleagues to oppose an
amendment by Mr. Royce that we will consider later on today that
requires detailed disclosure of the OFR's research agenda and
practices. This is not the norm of any research organization and would
severely limit OFR's ability to conduct rigorous, impartial analyses.
Our regulators need to act with certainty, impartiality, and position
resources to conduct robust oversight of our financial markets so that
we can properly detect and deter systemic risk. Unfortunately, this
bill will be a step back in that effort, not forward, and it is further
evidence that Republicans seek to dismantle Dodd-Frank and the
improvements we have made in our financial markets, one bill at a time.
I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the sponsor of H.R. 3340.
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. I thank my colleague from Texas, Chairman
Hensarling.
Mr. Speaker, I am a believer in a transparent and accountable
government; and if a Federal institution is failing to meet these
fundamental criteria, Congress needs to act.
Unfortunately, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, more
commonly known in Washingtonspeak as the FSOC, and the Office of
Financial Research, more commonly called the OFR, currently operate in
the shadows, outside of congressional oversight and the democratic
process.
{time} 1400
This has led to nonsensical and heavy-handed abuse by the government
of numerous financial companies that had absolutely nothing to do with
causing the 2008 financial crisis.
While I strongly believe that those who created the crisis must be
punished, I can't stand by while businesses that had nothing to do with
the crisis are being unjustly burdened with new regulations that force
American consumers to pay higher prices for essential financial
products like home mortgages and student, auto, and business loans.
That is why I have introduced the Financial Stability Oversight
Council Reform Act. Not only will the bill reduce mandatory spending by
$1.3 billion over the next 10 years, it will
[[Page H1701]]
make the FSOC and OFR accountable to the American people through their
elected representatives.
Over the years, Congress has given much of its power to unelected
bureaucrats. This legislation returns the constitutional power of the
purse back to Congress by subjecting FSOC and the OFR to the
appropriations process.
As you know, FSOC is authorized to identify risks to the financial
stability of the United States. This authority allows the FSOC to
designate nonbank institutions as systemically important financial
institutions, or SIFIs, which, in turn, increases supervision and
regulation of these firms by the Federal Government.
The Office of Financial Research was created to provide the research
and analysis necessary for the FSOC to carry out this statutory
mandate.
In a classic Washington fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario, the FSOC
and OFR are currently funded through taxes or assessments, as we prefer
to call them, that they collect from the very SIFIs they designate.
These unelected bureaucrats then set their own budgets without any
oversight or approval by Congress. Is it any surprise that the FSOC
budget is already five times larger today than it was in 2010.
Senator Dodd and Representative Frank both have acknowledged that
they never intended that insurance companies be designated as nonbank
SIFIs.
Despite the stated intent by the authors of the Wall Street Reform
Act, FSOC has already designated three insurance companies as nonbank
SIFIs.
Unfortunately, further complicating the problem, FSOC has failed to
create a viable off-ramp for designated companies and has not shared
with Congress how they make these designations in the first place.
OFR has received its fair share of criticism, too. In 2013, their
asset manager report wasn't only condemned by the industry, but the
Federal Government Securities and Exchange Commission also expressed
concerns.
According to a Reuters report, the SEC was concerned that the people
who conducted the study at OFR ``lacked a fundamental understanding of
the fund industry itself'' and ``the Treasury's research arm failed to
take a number of the SEC's critical feedback into account.'' Thus, the
SEC created its own comment period for the report.
Better Markets, a group that regularly advocates for increased
government regulation, actually criticized the OFR for the inexplicably
and indefensibly poor quality of the work presented in the report.
Despite all of this and the fact that Congressman Frank has also
condemned the idea of designating asset managers, many fear the FSOC
will move next with an asset manager SIFI designation.
For these reasons, I believe it is absolutely critical that we pass
the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
It is crucial for the FSOC and OFR to be more transparent and
accountable to the American people. Subjecting these entities to the
congressional oversight process, enhancing OFR quarterly reporting
requirements and allowing Americans to weigh in on OFR rules and
regulations gives Congress the tools it needs to provide the proper
oversight of FSOC and OFR.
Now, some may argue that Congress should just trust these
bureaucracies. But our Constitution makes it abundantly clear that
Congress and Congress alone has the power of the purse. And like one of
our great leaders once reminded us: ``Trust, but verify.''
I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership on this issue.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Financial Stability
Oversight Council Reform Act.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS from California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters.
Mr. Speaker, this is a strange day. I almost feel like we are
existing in parallel universes. On the one hand, today--today--is the
deadline for the Rules Committee to meet to structure debate on a
budget resolution. But it is clear by now that there will be no floor
consideration of a resolution today or tomorrow or the day after or
very possibly ever.
Instead, the headlines in Capitol Hill news publication after
publication are all about how the appropriations process has descended
into ``chaos.'' ``Chaos.'' So we have that on the one hand.
Then on the other hand we have a bill on the floor that subjects the
Financial Stability Oversight Council to that very same chaotic
appropriations process.
On the one hand, the appropriations process is in chaos. On the other
hand, this bill moves valuable, critical, and important economic
regulators into that same chaotic appropriations process. Have you ever
heard the expression: Does the left hand know what the right hand is
doing?
When the majority talks about putting agencies in the appropriations
process, I hear a lot of high-minded talk and rhetoric--and
appropriately so--about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
How would Alexander Hamilton have funded the FSOC? Frankly, I think
it is great to ask those questions. I ask myself those questions every
day.
Everyone who takes the oath of office and has the privilege to stand
here ought to keep grasping for the answers to those questions. And how
appropriate this week.
Yesterday was Thomas Jefferson's birthday. So I was going back and
rereading something about him, his philosophies and contributions.
Absolutely. We should all do that.
But we also have a responsibility to stay anchored in reality, to lay
down laws for the country and the Congress we have--the Congress we
have--not the country and Congress we all wish we had.
We live in an era of huge, complex financial markets, and we have
learned again and again and again that those markets fail, sometimes
wiping out $13 trillion in net worth in this country in a month. That
is devastating. Somebody has to be looking at the whole system and
working to shore up its weaknesses.
We live in an era of a broken appropriations process. It is chaotic.
Today's Congress is not Madison's perfect vision.
Regardless of the ideals of article I of the Constitution, the
reality today is that moving an agency into a chaotic appropriations
process is to subject that agency to that very same chaos, to uncertain
funding, to the risk of shutdown and backroom deals.
So let's find a budget resolution, fix the appropriations process,
and then maybe, just maybe, we can talk about moving agencies into the
appropriations process.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman
an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up quickly. I thank
the ranking member for the time.
But, for now, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, FSOC is too
important. The risk of financial crisis is too great. Have we not
learned that lesson, what happens?
To subject the only crisis prevention regulator to the dangers of a
chaotic appropriations process--and that is what we have, it cannot be
denied--is the last thing we can do.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is chairman of our Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3340, the
Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act introduced by my good
friend, Representative Tom Emmer, from Minnesota.
This is an important part. When I go back home and people hear about
a bill that has been passed or new regulations that come out and they
have a question about that--and particularly, I guess, under this
administration, we have heard a lot of people say: What are you all
going to do about that new rule that the administration pulled up? You
all have the power of the purse. Why don't you do something about that?
The Founders were very clear about having different branches of
government. One of the things that creates a
[[Page H1702]]
lot of consternation for a lot of people is that they see some of these
agencies created in Dodd-Frank, like the Financial Stability Oversight
Council, FSOC, which has no accountability to anybody.
They operate in an unaccountable and not very transparent way, and
they have a huge amount of impact on markets. In fact, when they
determined that MetLife was systemically important, a Federal judge the
other day said that they reached that conclusion inappropriately, that
they weren't transparent, they weren't open, and that they didn't
actually follow their own rules in determining this entity being
systemically important.
So why in the world would we not want them to be accountable to the
taxpayers? Because, ultimately, all of this money, Mr. Speaker, belongs
to the American taxpayers and they are expecting this Congress to
review the actions of many of these agencies.
I am amused at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They
kept talking about how important many of these entities are and what a
great job they are doing, yet they are not willing to allow them to be
accountable and to come forth and make a case why they should be
spending the money they are spending or why they are taking the actions
that they are taking.
Talking about Mr. Jefferson, this is not the government that our
Founders intended. In fact, they were really reluctant to form a
Federal Government, to give a centralized government any power.
But they did ultimately determine that there would be some good about
that, primarily for the common defense. I don't think they intended to
create agencies that had no accountability.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, how soon we forget. If the movie ``The Big Short'' made
you mad--and I hope you have seen that movie--then what the Republican
House leadership is proposing today should make you furious.
After the financial crash in 2009, we acted. The Congress acted. We
understood that we didn't have a wholistic picture of the risk across
the financial markets before the crash.
So we made a decision to create the Financial Stability Oversight
Council, FSOC, as they call it, to police these too-big-to-fail
companies and to rein in the risks in our largest financial
institutions.
Now some of the biggest banks want the oversight to stop so they can
bring back their risky, anything-goes casino banking practices, the
exact practices that tanked the housing market and destroyed retirement
savings for millions of Americans in the 2008 Wall Street collapse.
This bill, H.R. 3340, pushed by Republicans and their big bank
patrons, will neuter this important oversight body, blindfolding our
government again and making another economic meltdown more likely.
I feel as though every couple of weeks the Republicans here in the
House are giving us another memory test. They bring a bill up that
tests whether we remember that just 7 years ago our financial markets
crashed because of risky behavior on Wall Street.
I remember that that happened. Democrats remember that that happened.
The American people remember that that happened. Apparently, the
Republicans in Congress do not remember that.
But we are going to keep passing this memory test and pushing back
against these kinds of efforts to water down the Dodd-Frank reforms.
Let me ask this, Mr. Speaker: How many of your constituents--I know
none of mine--have asked to gut the Financial Stability Oversight
Council, to strip critical oversight of our Nation's largest financial
institutions, and to make another financial crash likely? Nobody is
asking for that.
Americans deserve better. They see day in and day out a Congress out
of step with their priorities, and they want change. In fact, right now
thousands of Americans are engaging in direct action on the Capitol
Grounds asking for campaign finance reform and restoration of voting
rights. Instead of voting once again to support the big banks and Wall
Street, we should be listening to them and taking action to restore
their voice in politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to push back against congressional
amnesia and to oppose this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of our Capital
Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time. I want
to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) for putting forth a
piece of legislation that will shine the light of day on some of Dodd-
Frank's most secretive creations.
We often hear our friends from the other side of the aisle and
regulators talking about their concerns over the so-called shadow
banking system.
The FSOC and its members have used this sinister term on multiple
occasions to strike fear in the hearts of the public in order to
advance, basically, their growth-strangling regulatory regime.
But the real threat is not from shadow banking. The real threat comes
from the shadow regulatory system that basically operates outside of
our system of checks and balances with absolutely no accountability to
the public and with little or no input from the Congress to conduct our
proper oversight. You see, the FSOC and the OFR are the embodiment of
this shadow system.
For years now, the FSOC has continuously denied our committee's
simple request for some information about how it operates and about its
proceedings. Really, all we know about these meetings are a few
sentences that it drops into their press releases.
Meanwhile, even though the OFR embarrassed itself with its asset
manager report that was issued back in 2013, that office basically
still operates largely outside of the public eye.
So it is time to shine the light of day on both of these bodies, Mr.
Speaker, particularly in light of the recent invalidation of MetLife's
too-big-to-fail designation by FSOC.
{time} 1415
The underlying legislation would restore Congress' Article I
authority by putting Congress back in charge of funding both FSOC and
OFR, by requiring OFR to submit regular reports to Congress that the
American public can see.
It is time to stop letting bureaucrats in this town run wild, let's
put Congress back in charge, and let's put back the checks and balances
for these troubling agencies.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and
I thank her for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3340, a bill that would cause
severe damage to the integrity of the Financial Stability Oversight
Council and the Office of Financial Research. It is through these
entities that the Dodd-Frank Act identifies risks in our financial
systems and guards against another financial crisis.
FSOC and OFR have been intentionally placed outside political
pressure. They make our financial system safer and protect the American
people from a future financial crisis. However, the bill we are
debating today would cripple FSOC and OFR by subjecting them to
unnecessary political influence, putting our financial system at risk.
My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that FSOC and
OFR have free rein to set and approve their own budgets, and are,
therefore, agencies that have run amok. FSOC's budget is approved by a
majority vote of its members. FSOC does not have unchecked budget
authority. FSOC's budget is similar to, and modeled after, the FDIC's
budget mode.
The FDIC also sets its own budget. It has time and time again acted
to protect the American people from financial collapse while setting a
reasonable and prudent budget.
No one is calling on Congress to rein in the FDIC. The bill is
nothing more
[[Page H1703]]
than an attempt by the majority to undo the progress made by Dodd-Frank
and to eliminate the ability of FSOC to act on behalf of the American
people by cutting its funding.
As I listened to my colleague from Maryland a few minutes ago talk
about the folks who are right outside this Capitol, complaining about
Citizens United, people want to know that they have power. These people
are very upset. They want to know that their democracy is not being
taken away from them.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and against all bills
that seek to roll back our progress in making the financial system
safer.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3340, the
Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support the creation of FSOC and OFR and do not
think that 10 unelected agency heads should be able to have such
influence over the U.S. financial system. But H.R. 3340 doesn't even
curtail any of FSOC's or OFR's powers. It simply provides greater
accountability by making their budget subject to the annual
Congressional appropriations process.
Strengthening congressional oversight would force FSOC and OFR to
address questions and concerns from both sides of the aisle. Requiring
OFR to report quarterly to Congress and provide the standard public
notice and comment period before issuing any report or regulation is
just common sense. In fact, it would ultimately serve the public
interest to provide transparency and diverse perspectives on issues
affecting the financial services industry.
The FSOC has the authority to declare large companies as
``systematically important financial institutions'' and then subject
them to a new, costly regulatory regime that is designed for banks. I
have serious concerns about their power, but this bill wouldn't even
change that. It would only provide desperately needed transparency and
accountability to the SIFI designation process, which was recently
described by a Federal judge as ``fatally flawed'' and ``arbitrary and
capricious.''
2008 demonstrated that we need effective regulation of our financial
system, but regulators need to be held accountable for their decisions,
especially given the impact they have on the competitiveness of U.S.
companies.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Emmer for his legislation.
I strongly urge the adoption and passage of this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
My friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about
accountability and what Congress' responsibility is and what the
Constitution says we should do. But I find it very interesting, while
they are claiming that OFR and FSOC should be given more oversight,
they don't seem to really want to exercise the responsibility to do
that.
Republicans claim that only when OFR and FSOC are subject to the
annual appropriations process, will these two entities be accountable
to Congress.
However, how many times has the Financial Services Committee
requested the director of the Office of Financial Research to testify?
Only one time.
Section 153 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the OFR director
testify before our committee annually, and yet, OFR Director Berner has
only been invited to testify once in the last 4 years--the only time
being in March of 2013. That means for more than 3 years, our
committee, under Republican leadership, has shirked its duties to
oversee the OFR. Any Member who has met Director Berner can attest that
he has always stated his eagerness to update Congress on what OFR is
doing.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not some valiant attempt to hold FSOC and
OFR accountable, no. This bill is yet another attack on a Dodd-Frank
financial reform by Republicans, who never supported financial reform
in the very first place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 3340, the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform
Act.
This bill represents another example of death by a thousand cuts from
our friends on the other side of the aisle. It is another Republican
attack on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.
After the catastrophe of the financial crisis and the near collapse
of our banking system, Republicans are, once again, jeopardizing the
stability of our financial system.
How many times will Republicans waste taxpayer dollars with these
partisan and dangerous attacks on the independence of our financial
regulators?
Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the
Office of Financial Research to bring independent regulators together
to monitor risk across our banking system and address threats to the
American economy. Prior to the creation of FSOC, no single entity was
accountable for monitoring our Nation's financial stability--none. It
was a mish-mash, disparate mess. Dodd-Frank filled that void.
Similarly, OFR works to support consumers by conducting critical
research on our financial system and whether our regulatory systems
are, in fact, working.
Of course, if we don't invite the person who is the head of the
Office to actually testify in front of the Financial Services
Committee, how would we know?
Dodd-Frank ensured that important regulators like FSOC and OFR have
the independence they need to protect consumers outside of the
political turmoil of Congress. My House Democratic colleagues are
serious about reining in our Nation's largest financial institutions,
while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing
political games at the expense of American consumers.
I refuse to stand idly by and allow Dodd-Frank to be gutted and
weakened. If this terrible bill got to his desk, President Obama
wouldn't sign it. He would never allow it to become law. Nevertheless,
congressional Republicans continue to waste taxpayers' time and money
with this legislation that would peel back Dodd-Frank and hurt American
consumers.
House Republicans need to instead focus on our Nation's most pressing
problems: public health crises like the Zika virus, which has ravaged
my home State of Florida; the ongoing debt situation in Puerto Rico;
and keeping Speaker Ryan's promises to the American people that this
body would pass a budget.
Our Nation's working families are keeping their fiscal houses in
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman
from Florida an additional 1 minute.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We need to make sure that we hold Speaker
Ryan's feet to the fire and make sure that he keeps his promise to the
American people that this body will pass a budget, which we have yet to
do.
Our Nation's working families are working hard to keep their fiscal
house in order. It is long past time for the House Republicans to do
the same, while also making sure that we protect American consumers.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we got into the worst economic
crisis and nearly crashed the banking system in the first place. If we
leave policymaking to the Republicans who are in the majority here,
they would take us back to a time when we had a Wild West of regulation
that left consumers twisting in the wind and banks to be able to make
any decision they wanted and run over consumers all across America. We
saw how well that worked out in 2008.
Now we have come through the worst economic crisis we have ever had
since the Great Depression--73 straight months of job growth in the
private sector. We need to continue that progress, not go backward.
[[Page H1704]]
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this
very important issue to the House floor.
I am pleased to stand up in support of H.R. 3340, the Financial
Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
I want to congratulate Congressman Tom Emmer of Minnesota for his
tireless work on this bill to come up with a commonsense piece of
regulation that helps create jobs in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to set the Record straight. There are some folks
in this Chamber who continue to blame the economic problems we have had
over these past years specifically on the financial services industry.
Well, let's be honest here. There were D.C. regulators here in this
town who put tremendous pressure on the banks to lend money at zero
percent down and zero percent interest to folks who they knew could not
afford these loans. When they were unable to repay these loans, the
real estate market collapsed and brought the economy with it.
Mr. Speaker, every business in America, every industry, should be
fairly and predictably regulated. However, when the regulations are so
intense and so complicated and so smothering that it kills jobs, then
it is our responsibility to make sure that we give our small businesses
in this country relief.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a little over a year and I realize
there is a fourth branch of government. Now, we all know what the
Constitution says. It is that Congress, the legislative branch, creates
the laws. The administrative branch, the White House, implements the
laws that we create. If there is a question, then we get the referee
involved, the courts. However, there is a fourth branch of government
that is unconstitutional. It is called the professional regulator.
Now, what has happened over the course of these past years is that
the administrative branch wants to send directions to their regulators
to put more and more pressure on our business community that creates
jobs and gives our families opportunities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maine an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. POLIQUIN. One of those agencies is the Financial Stability
Oversight Council. Mr. Speaker, this organization has tremendous power
on our economy to regulate financial institutions that pose no risk to
the economy, like credit unions in northern Maine and small community
banks in northern Maine that did not cause the problems that we have
had over these past years.
However, all I am asking and all this bill does is make sure that the
Financial Stability Oversight Council's operations are funded by the
people's representatives. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have the
opportunity to fund that operation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maine an
additional 10 seconds.
{time} 1430
Mr. POLIQUIN. We only want to make sure that there is enough time for
public comment. I ask everybody to support this bill. It is a great
bill, and it keeps money flowing through the economy for our small
businesses and job creators.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the chairman.
I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Representative Emmer, for
offering this piece of legislation that is under consideration today.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act
places the FSOC and the Office of Financial Research under the regular
appropriations process and will require the Office of Financial
Research to submit activity reports to Congress. Bringing FSOC under
the appropriations process ensures greater accountability for a council
that has continuously failed to fully disclose its SIFI designation
methodology and that has yet to provide concrete guidelines for
designated entities to lose their SIFI status.
Most importantly, this legislation will bring much-needed
transparency to the Council. FSOC is intended to be a forum for
discussion and analysis of financial regulator issues, but,
unfortunately, the Council has continually failed to address the
consolidation and failure of our Main Street banks. On its own, a
single community bank failure will not pose a systemic risk to the
financial system. However, losing these small banks at an accelerating
pace is a clear warning signal that the financial system is not
healthy, and losing community banks as a whole certainly qualifies as
systemically risky.
Instead of closed-door deliberations, the Council, which is made up
of financial regulators who have been acknowledging this exact problem,
should be working to address this pressing issue in a transparent
manner before it is too late. This legislation is a logical next step
in reforming the Financial Stability Oversight Council to ensure that
it actually addresses threats to our financial system.
I am happy to lend my support to this bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his efforts on this
legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks with just a clarification
of the argument of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Their
argument is essentially this: that Federal regulators--banking
regulators--cannot do their jobs if their funding is somehow held
accountable to the American people. This argument ignores some
important facts.
While Dodd-Frank may well have been intended to protect consumers and
end Big Government bailouts, FSOC's authority to arbitrarily designate
nonbank financial institutions as systemically important undermines the
original intent of the law. In fact, just last month, a U.S. court
rescinded MetLife's SIFI designation. The opinion called FSOC's
determination process ``fatally flawed,'' and it called the insurer's
designation ``capricious and arbitrary.'' Again, those are not my
words, those are a Federal judge's words. In effect, the judge
confirmed what House Republicans have been saying for years--that the
FSOC is out of control and requires additional congressional oversight.
That is why I support this commonsense and, frankly, modest
legislation, which subjects FSOC and the Office of Financial Research
to the annual appropriations process and common practice reporting
requirements.
We all want to hold financial providers accountable to their
customers. It is also Congress' responsibility to hold our government
accountable to the American people. This bill helps make that happen,
and we should all be able to agree to that.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I would like to take a moment and talk about why we created the FSOC
and the OFR in the very first place since my Republican colleagues seem
to think that more regulatory cooperation and the overseeing of our
financial system is such a bad thing.
Simply put, we created FSOC to look across regulatory silos and
detect, prevent, and mitigate systemic risk in the U.S. financial
system so that we would never again be caught off guard when major
financial firms, like AIG, fail.
Recall that AIG created an entire business model that was designed to
avoid regulation, which sent its major operations and risky credit
default swaps to the London-based unit, AIG Financial Products, which,
in turn, was guaranteed by the U.S. parent company. What is more, AIG
was allowed to select as a regulator the Office of Thrift Supervision,
OTS.
According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is the
FCIC,
[[Page H1705]]
the OTS failed to effectively exercise its authority over AIG and its
affiliates. It lacked the capability to supervise an institution of the
size and complexity of AIG's. It did not recognize the risk inherent in
AIG's sales of credit default swaps, and it did not understand its
responsibility to oversee the entire company, including AIG Financial
Products.
As we all know, this regulatory arbitrage ultimately spelled failure
for AIG because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made
without putting up initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves,
or hedging its exposure--a profound failure in corporate governance,
particularly in its risk management practices.
In having just witnessed the takeover of Merrill Lynch by Bank of
America and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers a mere 24 hours before,
the U.S. Government stepped in and committed more than $180 billion to
ensure that AIG's collapse didn't bring down the rest of the financial
system to which it was so interconnected. From there, the Bush
administration requested the authority to bail out the big banks.
When the dust began to settle, Democrats in Congress worked to come
up with a solution to eliminate this regulatory arbitrage and encourage
our financial regulators to communicate with one another. Of course,
the commonsense solution was to create a council on which each of our
financial regulators had a voice and could meet to consider gaps
between the agencies' interconnectedness within the financial sector.
This council would also hold each regulator accountable to how the
regulators as a whole were mitigating systemic risk to our economy.
To help inform and support the council, we created the Office of
Financial Research to research and report on potential systemic risk to
our economy. Dodd-Frank ensured that the council of the OFR and that
Congress would all be focused on emerging threats to our economy and
would never be caught unawares by another AIG. H.R. 3340, however,
undermines these reforms, and it should be opposed.
Mr. Speaker and Members, many of the Members on the opposite side of
the aisle are talking about our oversight responsibility, but they
don't even exercise oversight responsibility or get the regulators in
and have a real discussion with them about how it all works. AIG was
complicated. None of the Members of Congress really understood how it
operated, how it was formed, how it was set up, and what it was doing.
We have learned our lesson from AIG, and I hope that the Members of
this Congress will not forget it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Trott).
Mr. TROTT. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak in
support of the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is just one more step in our continued
effort to rein in out-of-control regulatory bodies that are products of
the Dodd-Frank Act. FSOC and the Office of Financial Research, which
are both products of Dodd-Frank, have the power to obtain sensitive
information and are tasked with the mission of monitoring the financial
stability of the United States.
With such a broad mandate and vast authority, it is appalling that
these bodies are not subject to the congressional appropriations
process and must satisfy only minimal reporting requirements. OFR
states that its job is to shine light in the dark corners of the
financial system, but it operates in the dark corners, itself, as it
spends funds that have been obtained from fees on an ever-expanding
workforce and budget, all outside of the appropriations process and all
outside of the eyes of our citizens.
The people of this great Nation deserve a transparent Federal
Government that answers to them. Some here today have suggested that,
in this bill, we want to put a blindfold on--stop oversight and ignore
a future financial crisis. We have a blindfold on now. We are all in
the dark. We don't want to stop oversight. We just want to exercise our
responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution.
Some here today have suggested that Congress is no longer capable of
exercising its Article I powers and that, therefore, FSOC must be
independent of the appropriations process. To them, I ask: Why should
Washington bureaucrats have more power over the financial decisions of
the American people than their elected Representatives?
This legislation is a commonsense solution, and I urge its passage.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Under Democratic leadership, our country has made tremendous strides
in creating jobs, in growing the economy, and in stabilizing the
housing market since the depths of the 2008 recession. This was despite
significant headwinds from both overseas crises and Republican
intransigence. Instrumental to our achievements is the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which has bolstered our
Nation's financial stability and has brought accountability to the
entire system.
Among its many accomplishments, such as protecting consumers from
predatory practices, Dodd-Frank sought to address the excessive risk
taking by the largest and most complex financial institutions by
creating the Financial Stability Oversight Council--that is FSOC--and
the Office of Financial Research, OFR. These two agencies were charged
with looking at the big picture and identifying cracks in the system
that could cause a breakdown in our economy. They oversee all aspects
of the financial system and our largest institutions that can cause
systemic risk.
FSOC works to identify and to address systemic risk posed by large,
complex companies and activities before they threaten the stability of
the economy. It provides for the cooperation and information sharing
between agencies in order to research and correct threats before they
become crises. OFR helps to provide the necessary tools to FSOC by
collecting and analyzing data on the health of our financial markets
and by conducting research on potential sources of financial
instability. It flags emerging threats and shares that information with
other regulators so that they can intervene before a crisis occurs.
Together, these two agencies have addressed the devastating,
widespread failures in supervision and regulation that brought our
economy to its knees in 2008. They fill the regulatory gaps to make
sure that no institution, however powerful, can circumvent our rules
and regulations.
This crucial work is supported by a majority of Americans--
Republicans and Democrats--who favor Dodd-Frank and the reforms it has
implemented. Yet, instead of recognizing the importance of these
institutions and the interests of the American public, House
Republicans are undermining our regulators' efforts to the benefit of
the industries that are lining their own pockets. I am troubled by the
amnesia that plagues my colleagues about the causes of the 2008
financial crisis and why Wall Street reform was so critical.
We created FSOC and OFR because our fractured regulatory system
allowed firms to skirt the rules of the road. This behavior left
millions homeless and unemployed, and it plunged us into the worst
recession since the Great Depression. What is worse is that hundreds of
communities across the country are still struggling to recover.
{time} 1445
By cutting off FSOC and OFR's independent funding streams, H.R. 3340
will subject the agencies to the volatility of the congressional
appropriations process and the same funding uncertainty faced by the
SEC and the FCFTC.
Make no mistake. The bill before us today is part of a concerted
effort by House Republicans to impede the progress of financial reform.
Yesterday Republicans passed a bill in committee to repeal the only
mechanism to unwind a megabank without destabilizing the economy as
well as a bill to eliminate funding for the bureau tasked with
protecting consumers from predatory loans.
Earlier today and for much of this month, committee Republicans will
depose public servants at the CFPB, Treasury, and FSOC, despite
agencies providing thousands of pages of documents at the Republicans'
request. Soon I expect my chairman to bring up bills repealing the rest
of our reform.
[[Page H1706]]
Democrats in the House are all too familiar with these attacks. Are
we not? Republicans have proposed $6 trillion in cuts to initiatives
like Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. They have prevented us from
debating America's sacred right to vote. Most Republicans voted against
upholding the full faith and credit of our Nation's debt. I could go on
and on and on.
So, to my colleagues, we have pulled the cover off of them, and we
are pointing out to you in no uncertain terms how they are singularly
focused on killing Dodd-Frank reforms.
They are not exercising their oversight responsibility. They are
determined that they are going to have their way, and they have it
under the banner of overregulation.
Well, that old argument is tired, ladies and gentlemen.
Overregulation every time they want to do something for the big banks,
et cetera.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this coordinated attack and vote
``no'' on this harmful bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It has been a fascinating debate on a very, very simple bill. H.R.
3340 from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) does one very simple
thing.
It says two Federal agencies--the Office of Financial Research and
the Financial Stability Oversight Council--have to go through the
budgeted appropriations process. It says nothing more. It says nothing
less.
Right now these agencies write their own budget. They can write a
budget for $100 million. They can write a budget for $500 million. They
can write a budget for $10 billion.
Legally, they can write a budget for trillions of dollars. They can
take money away from we, the people, and there is absolutely nothing
Congress can do.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress who has come here has raised
their hand and, in their oath of office, they solemnly swear to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States. I wonder how many
Members reflect upon that solemn oath.
Because Article I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution says:
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law . . .''
Yet, theoretically, what has happened here is this power of the
purse, a critical power of Article I of the Constitution, has been
outsourced to Article II.
It is fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure there is a more solemn
responsibility of the Federal Government than to provide for the common
defense.
Yet, we don't allow the Pentagon to write their own budget. It has to
go through the elected representatives of we, the people.
The Justice Department: We don't allow them to write their own
budget. It has to go through the elected representatives of we, the
people.
Even the Office of the President: The President is not allowed to
write his own budget. It has to go through the appropriations process
of the elected representatives of we, the people.
So we have two incredibly important and powerful Federal agencies
that get to write their own budget. They get to take money away from
hardworking Americans to essentially do what they please. This is not
Article I of the Constitution.
Madison, in Federalist 47--I may not have the quote down perfectly--
essentially said that the common notion of legislative, executive, and
judicial power in one hand is the absolute definition of tyranny.
So we have in a Federal agency the FSOC, part of this shadow
regulatory system that the American people have come to loathe, that
has the ability to designate financial firms too big to fail and then
allow them to be bailed out with taxpayer funds, to be functionally
micromanaged by Federal agencies, essentially, a Federal takeover of
the banking system so there can be a political allocation of credit,
which is what led to the economic crisis in the first place:
politicizing credit, mandating, forcing, suggesting, cajoling financial
institutions to loan money to people to buy homes they couldn't afford
to keep. Think Fannie. Think Freddie.
So we believe on this side of the aisle, regardless of which party is
in power in Congress, regardless of which party is in power in the
White House, that Federal agencies ought to be funded through Article I
of the Constitution and be accountable to we, the people. It is that
simple.
So the ranking member says: Well, we can't hold them to the
volatility and uncertainty of this congressional appropriations
process. Funny, the Pentagon is. Funny, the President is. Funny, the
FBI is.
You know, if you don't like democracy, maybe it is the worst form of
government, save every other form of government, but it is our form of
government. And our Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom and our
prosperity, and these out-of-control agencies ought to be accountable
and they ought to be transparent to we, the people.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), H.R. 3340, and bring accountability and
transparency and fidelity to the Constitution back to this institution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
RESEARCH.
Section 153 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5343), as amended by
section 3, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Additional Duties.--
``(1) Annual work plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall, after a period of 60
days for public notice and comment, annually publish a
detailed work plan concerning the priorities of the Office
for the upcoming fiscal year.
``(B) Requirements.--The work plan shall include the
following:
``(i) A unique alphanumeric identifier and detailed
description of any report, study, working paper, grant,
guidance, data collection, or request for information that is
expected to be in progress during, or scheduled to begin in,
the upcoming fiscal year.
``(ii) For each item listed under clause (i), a target date
for any significant actions related to such item, including
the target date--
``(I) for the release of a report, study, or working paper;
``(II) for, and topics of, a meeting of a working paper
group and each solicitation of applications for grants; and
``(III) for the issuance of guidance, data collections, or
requests for information.
``(iii) A list of all technical and professional advisory
committees that is expected to be convened in the upcoming
fiscal year pursuant to section 152(h).
``(iv) The name and professional affiliations of each
individual who served during the previous fiscal year as an
academic or professional fellow pursuant to section 152(i).
``(v) A detailed description of the progress made by
primary financial regulatory agencies in adopting a unique
alphanumeric system to identify legally distinct entities
that engage in financial transactions (commonly known as a
`Legal Entity Identifier'), including a list of regulations
requiring the use of such a system and actions taken to
ensure the adoption of such a system by primary financial
regulatory agencies.
``(2) Public reports.--
``(A) Consultation.--In preparing any public report with
respect to a specified entity, class of entities, or
financial product or service, the Director shall consult with
any Federal department or agency with expertise in regulating
the entity, class of entities, or financial product or
service.
``(B) Report requirements.--A public report described in
subparagraph (A) shall include--
``(i) an explanation of any changes made as a result of a
consultation under this subparagraph and, with respect to any
changes suggested in such consultation that were not made,
the reasons that the Director did not incorporate such
changes; and
``(ii) information on the date, time, and nature of such
consultation.
``(C) Notice and comment.--Before issuing any public report
described in subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide a
period of 90 days for public notice and comment on the
report.
``(3) Cybersecurity plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Office shall develop and implement a
cybersecurity plan that uses appropriate safeguards that are
adequate to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the
data in the possession of the Office.
[[Page H1707]]
``(B) GAO review.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall annually audit the cybersecurity plan and its
implementation described in subparagraph (A).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 671, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment to
the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act, which mirrors
bipartisan legislation I have authored, the Office of Financial
Research Accountability Act.
A more open, collaborative, and cyber-secure Office of Financial
Research would be better positioned to achieve its stated mission of
promoting financial stability. So, basically, this amendment gets the
Office of Financial Research on track with a few simple, reasonable
reforms. There are three of them.
First, it requires the OFR to submit an annual work plan that details
the Office's upcoming work while making it available for public notice
and comment.
Second, it requires the Office to coordinate with financial
regulators and agencies that have subject matter experience as it
prepares public reports.
Third, it also tasks the Office, which handles immense amounts of
sensitive financial data, with formulating a cybersecurity plan.
So this amendment strengthens the Office of Financial Research's
ability to ensure a transparent, efficient, and stable financial system
for the American people, the core objective of the Office.
I thank Mr. Emmer of Minnesota for his work on this important issue.
I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support both my
amendment and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Royce amendment, which the
Financial Services Committee considered last November as H.R. 3738. The
amendment is yet further evidence of the Republican plan to kill Dodd-
Frank with a thousand cuts.
If adopted, the Office of Financial Research would have to disclose
its research agenda at the beginning of each year, potentially alarming
markets, just as the underlying bill, the Royce amendment, would mean
that any study of the OFR would become corrupted.
Our market actors would see that the OFR, an office that makes
recommendations to the Financial Stability Oversight Council about
systemic risks, was concerned about a particular topic.
In response, those actors would begin to change their behavior even
if the OFR might later conclude that there was never any risks to our
economy.
In addition, this amendment would require OFR to go into great detail
when disclosing what it plans to study, something that is not done by
any other research organization.
Finally, I am troubled by the amendment's provisions requiring the
OFR to disclose its consultations. Internal consultations and
deliberations are explicitly excluded by the Freedom of Information Act
and for good reason. Individuals would not likely participate in OFR
studies if their offline, candid remarks were made part of the public
record.
Will this prevent industry lobbyists and trade associations from
commenting? Of course not. They will continue earning their keep, and
the amendment gives them even more opportunities.
Why would independent researchers, academics, and scientists want to
weigh in on a public fight? This amendment, the underlying bill, and
many of the other Republican initiatives we have seen this year all
share the same goal. They are aimed at undoing all of the progress the
Obama administration and Democrats have made in the last 8 years.
How many times are we going to find ways to kill financial reform?
How many times are we going to vote to kill job-creating agencies, like
the Export-Import Bank? How many times are we going to vote to get rid
of ObamaCare and the health insurance of millions of Americans?
There is important work to be done, passing a budget, for one, ending
homelessness in America, funding the administration's requests to help
combat the Zika virus, helping Puerto Rico to restructure their
crippling debt so that the island can grow and prosper and create jobs.
When are Republicans going to hear the cries of everyday Americans?
I encourage Members to support their constituents by continuing to
fight for these issues and oppose Republican attempts like this to
simply roll back Democrat reform.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Royce amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my good friend from California.
The Office of Financial Research, the OFR, is an important entity,
but its work so far has been very, very disappointing.
It is so disappointing that a landmark study by OFR on asset
management has been publicly criticized by a member of FSOC, the SEC,
who took the unusual step of opening its own comment period on the
report.
We must make sure that OFR's research is done in the right way with a
strategic plan and that OFR consults with experts and gives proper
public notice and involvement.
We don't want the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the FSOC,
one of the most critical and sensitive creations in Dodd-Frank, relying
on offhand work criticized publicly by institutions across this city
and country.
Further, their data collection requirements and responsibilities
bring concern to all of our citizens. As we have seen with the IRS, the
OPM, the CFPB, and now the OFR, rising concern over the importance of
cybersecurity and data protection are noted in this act and are an
important part of Mr. Royce's amendment.
{time} 1500
Many of our Federal agencies are the root cause of cyber breach and
loss of privacy, and we don't want to see that extended here.
I support the amendment and the bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague from California, chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Congressman Ed Royce, for offering his amendment to the FSOC
Reform Act.
As we have seen time and time again, our government needs to improve
security procedures in order to protect the privacy of the American
people and integrity for business. The burden, Mr. Speaker, is on the
Federal Government to provide a plan and to be transparent about what
it does with the information it collects.
This amendment accomplishes both of these goals at the Office of
Financial Research. By mandating OFR to submit an annual work plan and
allow for public notice and comment, the American people will have a
greater voice in shaping the objectives of OFR. Perhaps most
importantly, requiring Federal regulators to collaborate on data
security will make the personal and financial information of all
Americans more secure.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Royce for offering this amendment. I
urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what this proposal does
and does not do. Nothing in this amendment says that the Office of
Financial Research must amend their work product because of public
comments provided to them. The amendment here simply ensures that the
public gets a chance to comment.
I have asked eight--eight--FSOC members about their potential
opposition to this idea. Not a single one has raised an objection to
this. As to any
[[Page H1708]]
rhetoric in opposition to this amendment, a lot of it has centered on
the potential of opening up the Office of Financial Research to
inappropriate influence. Nothing could be further from reality.
Inappropriate influence is what happens when you labor long with
little or no transparency, not when you provides more sunlight. What
this amendment does is provides that transparency. It provides that
sunlight by opening that up.
There has been considerable, warranted criticism from those across
the ideological spectrum about the quality of the OFR's research. We
are taking a step today to improve the Office of Financial Research's
research practices, something integral to FSOC reform as the Council
makes designation decisions founded on the Office's work.
Regulators making decisions on financial stability should do so with
their eyes wide open. A more transparent, collaborative, and cyber
secure Office of Financial Research accomplishes that end. For that
reason, I urge Members from both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Moore moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3340 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
Sec. __ Upon enactment of this Act it shall be in order to
consider in the House of Representatives the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2018 through 2026. All points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to
adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
Ms. MOORE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Clerk dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
Mr. HENSARLING. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today is April 14, and, by law, Congress must
enact a budget resolution by tomorrow, April 15. I repeat, Mr. Speaker:
by law, Congress must enact a budget resolution by April 15. That is
tomorrow.
After months and months and months of the majority promising regular
order, the Republican House leadership has failed to meet this most
basic measure of responsibility of bringing a budget to the floor. So
today, Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit will help out my Republican
colleagues with their responsibilities to this body.
In my motion to recommit, I am offering up the Republican budget that
was passed out of committee last month to allow my colleagues the
ability to vote on their own budget and also to allow us to offer our
alternatives.
To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, the GOP budget resolution ends
the Medicare guarantee, makes $6.5 trillion in drastic cuts, increases
poverty, and erodes the economic security of all Americans.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as awful as Democrats think that this budget is,
the Tea Party faction of the House GOP is demanding that we make even
more draconian cuts and even deeper cuts, and they ought to have the
right, as well, to offer their alternative on the floor.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I don't support this Republican budget,
but I am offering this motion to recommit because, again, we cannot
offer our alternative unless this budget is processed on this floor.
The Republicans are abandoning their promise to restore regular order
because they can't agree on a worse product, but hardworking families
deserve a Congress that invests in their future, protects their safety,
and creates a level playing field for them and their children to
succeed.
You know what they always say, Mr. Speaker: the majority gets its
way, and the minority gets its say. Let's get to the ``have its say''
part.
We are going to continue as Democrats to press for a budget that
creates jobs, opportunities, and raises paychecks for the American
people while reducing the deficit in a balanced and responsible way,
Mr. Speaker.
But, again, since the Republicans can't seem to get their act
together by bringing their budget to the floor, my motion to recommit
would bring that product to the floor. So that is why I am offering
this motion to recommit today, and I would urge my colleagues to
support it.
Point of Order
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order because
the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to
which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule XVI,
which requires an amendment to be germane to the measure being amended.
Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I am
afraid I must insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would just mention that I think it is
germane because tomorrow is April 15.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no other Member wishing to be
heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the instructions
proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin are not germane.
Clause 7 of rule XVI--the germaneness rule--provides that no
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment.
One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an
amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction of a
committee not represented in the pending measure.
The bill, H.R. 3340, as amended, addresses funding and other matters
relating to the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of
Financial Research, which are matters within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Financial Services.
The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment
consisting of a special order of business of the House, which is a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
As the Chair ruled in similar proceedings on October 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, and 14, 2013, the instructions in the motion to recommit are
not germane because they are not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Financial Services.
Accordingly, the motion to recommit is not germane. The point of
order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
[[Page H1709]]
Motion to Table
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, and the order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the
motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of the
bill, if arising without further proceedings in recommittal; adoption
of amendment No. 1 to H.R. 3791; the motion to recommit H.R. 3791, if
ordered; and passage of H.R. 3791, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 176, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
YEAS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--176
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Allen
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Delaney
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Fattah
Lieu, Ted
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Nadler
Payne
Poe (TX)
Sewell (AL)
Simpson
Tonko
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
{time} 1532
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. RANGEL, LARSEN of
Washington, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I was unavoidably
detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 179, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
YEAS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
[[Page H1710]]
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Delaney
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Fattah
Lieu, Ted
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
McMorris Rodgers
Nadler
Payne
Poe (TX)
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Tonko
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1539
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146, I was
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 146, the vote on final
passage of H.R. 3340, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________