[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 176 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7313-H7324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPARENT INSURANCE STANDARDS ACT OF 2016
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 944, I call
up the bill (H.R. 5143) to provide greater transparency and
congressional oversight of international insurance standards setting
processes, 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 944, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the
[[Page H7314]]
text of Rules Committee Print 114-68, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5143
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 ``Transparent Insurance
Standards Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The State-based system for insurance regulation in the
United States has served American consumers well for more
than 150 years and has fostered an open and competitive
marketplace with a diversity of insurance products to the
benefit of policyholders and consumers.
(2) Protecting policyholders by regulating to ensure an
insurer's ability to pay claims has been the hallmark of the
successful United States system and should be the paramount
objective of domestic prudential regulation and emerging
international standards.
(3) United States officials participating in discussions or
negotiations regarding international insurance standards
shall support standards designed for the protection of
policyholders.
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall seek advice and
recommendations from a diverse group of outside experts in
performing the duties and authorities of the Secretary to
coordinate Federal efforts and develop Federal policy on
prudential aspects of international insurance matters.
(5) The draft of the Higher Loss Absorbency capital
standard adopted in 2015 by the International Association of
Insurance Supervisors, notwithstanding the concerns of U.S.
parties to the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors, unequally affects insurance products offered in
the United States, an issue that must be addressed.
(6) Any international standard agreed to at the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors is not
self-executing in the United States for any insurer until
implemented through the required Federal or State legislative
or regulatory process.
SEC. 3. OBJECTIVES FOR INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE STANDARDS.
The objectives of the United States regarding international
insurance standards are as follows:
(1) To ensure standards that maintain strong protection of
policy holders, as reflected in the United States solvency
regime.
(2) To ensure, pursuant to enactment of the Insurance
Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-
279), standards that are appropriate for insurers and are not
bank-centric in nature.
(3) To promote a principles-based approach to insurance
supervision, in which capital adequacy is assessed using
risk-based capital requirements for insurance combined with
qualitative risk assessment and management tools.
(4) To consider the most efficient and least disruptive
approaches to enhancing regulatory assessment of the capital
adequacy of insurance groups, including tools that are
already in place.
(5) To ensure that any international insurance standard
recognizes prudential measures used within the United States
as satisfying standards finalized by international standard-
setting organizations.
(6) To support increasing transparency at any global
insurance or international standard-setting organization in
which the United States participates, including advocating
for greater stakeholder public observer access to working
groups and committee meetings of the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors.
(7) To ensure that there is a sufficient period for public
consultation and comment regarding any proposed international
insurance standard before it takes effect.
(8) To ensure that the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System achieve
consensus positions with State insurance commissioners when
the Secretary and the Board are United States participants in
discussions on insurance issues before the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors, Financial Stability
Board, or any other international forum of financial
regulators or supervisors that considers such issues.
(9) To consider the impact of any such standard on the
availability and cost of products to consumers.
(10) To avoid measures that could limit the availability
and accessibility of risk protection and retirement security
products that are essential to meeting the needs of aging
populations.
(11) To ensure that the merits of existing State-based
capital standards are recognized and incorporated in any
domestic or global insurance capital standard.
(12) To advocate for insurance regulatory standards that
are based on the nature, scale, and complexity of the risks
posed by the regulated insurance group and entity or
activity.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSENT TO ADOPT INTERNATIONAL
INSURANCE STANDARDS.
(a) Publication of Standards; Adoption of Capital and
Prudential Standards.--The United States may not agree to,
accept, establish, enter into, or consent to the adoption of
a final international insurance standard with an
international standard-setting organization or a foreign
government, authority, or regulatory entity unless the
requirements under both of the following paragraphs are
complied with:
(1) Publication.--The requirements under this paragraph are
complied with if the conditions under one of the following
subparagraphs have been met:
(A) By federal reserve and treasury.--The Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the
Secretary of the Treasury have caused the proposed text of
the proposed final international insurance standard to be
published in the Federal Register and made available for
public comment for a period of not fewer than 30 days (which
period may run concurrently with the 90-day period referred
to in subsection (b)(3)).
(B) By state insurance commissioners.--The State insurance
commissioners have caused the proposed text of the proposed
international insurance standard to be published in a similar
form and manner that provides for notice and public comment.
(2) Capital standard.--In the case only of a final
international insurance standard setting forth any capital
standard or standards for insurers--
(A) such international capital standard is consistent with
capital requirements set forth in the State-based system of
insurance regulation;
(B) the Board has issued capital requirements for insurance
companies supervised by the Board and subject to such
requirements, which shall be issued through rulemaking in
accordance with the procedures established under section 553
of title 5, United States Code, regarding substantive rules,
under which the periods for notice and public comment shall
each have a duration of not fewer than 60 days; and
(C) to the extent that such international capital standard
is intended to be applied to a company or companies
supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, is consistent with the capital requirements of the
Board for such companies.
(b) Submission and Layover Provisions.--The Secretary and
the Board may not agree to, accept, establish, enter into, or
consent to the adoption of an international insurance
standard established through an international standard-
setting organization or a foreign government, authority, or
regulatory entity unless--
(1) the Secretary and the Board have--
(A) conducted an analysis under subsection (c) of the
proposed international insurance standard; and
(B) submitted to the covered congressional committees, on a
day on which both Houses of Congress are in session, a copy
of the proposed final text of the proposed international
insurance standard and the report required under subsection
(c)(2) regarding such analysis;
(2) the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board have
determined, pursuant to such analysis, that the proposed
standard will not result in any change in State law;
(3) with respect to a capital standard under subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board certify
that the proposed international capital standard is designed
solely to help ensure that sufficient funds are available to
pay claims to an insurer's policyholders in the event of the
liquidation of that entity; and
(4) a period of 90 calendar days beginning on the date on
which the copy of the proposed final text of the standard is
submitted to the covered congressional committees under
paragraph (1)(B) has expired, during which period the
Congress may take action to approve or reject such final
standard.
(c) Joint Analysis by Chair of the Federal Reserve and
Secretary of the Treasury.--
(1) In general.--An analysis under this subsection of a
proposed final international insurance standard shall be an
analysis conducted by the Secretary and the Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in
consultation with the State insurance commissioners, of the
impact of such standard on consumers and markets in the
United States and whether any changes in State law will
result from such final standard.
(2) Report.--Upon completion of an analysis under this
subsection of a final international insurance standard, the
Secretary and the Board shall submit a report on the results
of the analysis to the covered congressional committees and
the Comptroller General of the United States. The report
shall include a statement setting forth the determination
made pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding any changes in State
law resulting from such final standard.
(3) Notice and comment.--
(A) Notice.--The Secretary and the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall provide notice
before the date on which drafting the report is commenced and
after the date on which the draft of the report is completed.
(B) Opportunity for comment.--There shall be an opportunity
for public comment for a period beginning on the date on
which the report is submitted under paragraph (2) and ending
on the date that is not fewer than 60 days after the date on
which the report is submitted. Nothing in this subparagraph
shall affect the authority of the Board to issue the rule
referred to in subsection (a)(2).
(4) Review by comptroller general.--Upon submission of a
report pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Comptroller General,
the Comptroller General shall review the report and shall
submit a report to the Congress setting forth the conclusions
of the Comptroller General's review.
(d) Limited Effect.--This section may not be construed to
establish or expand any authority to implement an
international insurance standard in the United States or for
the United States or any representative of the Federal
Government to adopt or enter into any international insurance
standard.
(e) Treatment of State Law.--In accordance with the Act of
March 9, 1945 (Chapter 20; 59 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et
seq.), commonly referred to as the ``McCarran-Ferguson Act'',
this section may not be construed to preempt State law.
[[Page H7315]]
SEC. 5. REPORTS.
(a) Reports and Testimony by Secretary of the Treasury and
Chair of the Federal Reserve.--The Secretary and the Chairman
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall
submit to the covered congressional committees an annual
report and provide testimony, not less often than every 6
months, to the covered congressional committees on the
efforts of the Secretary and the Chairman with the State
insurance commissioners with respect to international
insurance standard-setting organizations and international
insurance standards, including--
(1) a description of the insurance standard-setting issues
under discussion at international standard-setting bodies,
including the Financial Stability Board and the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors;
(2) a description of the effects that international
insurance standards could have on consumers and insurance
markets in the United States;
(3) a description of any position taken by the Secretary
and the Board in international insurance discussions or on
any international insurance standard;
(4) a description of the efforts by the Secretary and the
Board to increase transparency and accountability at the
Financial Stability Board with respect to insurance proposals
and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors,
including efforts to provide additional public access to
working groups and committees of the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors; and
(5) a description of how the Secretary and the Board are
meeting the objectives set forth in section 3, or, if such
objectives are not being met, an explanation of the reasons
for not meeting such objectives.
(b) Reports and Testimony by State Insurance
Commissioners.--The State insurance commissioners may provide
testimony or reports to the Congress on the issues described
in subsection (a).
(c) Report on Transparency.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Secretary
shall submit to the Congress a report and provide testimony
to the Congress on the efforts of the Chairman and the
Secretary pursuant to subsection (a)(4) of this section to
increase transparency at meetings of the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors.
(d) GAO Report on Transparency of Outside Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the covered congressional committees a
report, and provide testimony to such committees, identifying
and analyzing the transparency and accountability of any
organization acting as a designee of, or at the direction of,
the head of a State insurance department on issues related to
international insurance standards, which is not employed
directly by the State.
(2) Content.--The report and testimony required under this
section shall include a description and analysis of--
(A) the role, involvement, or relationship, of any
organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1), of, with,
or to the State insurance departments' activities as
authorized by, directed by, or otherwise referred to in this
Act, including a description and analysis regarding such
organization's participation in policy and decision-making
deliberations and activities related to international
insurance standards;
(B) any financial support provided by such organization to
any State insurance department personnel in furtherance of
their activities related to international insurance
standards, the nature and amount of such support, and any
understandings between the organization and the State
regarding travel protocols and State laws governing State
officials' receipt of, benefitting from, or being subsidized
by, outside funds;
(C) the budget, including revenues and expenses, of any
organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1) relating to
participation in international insurance discussions on
issues before, involving, or relating to the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors, the Financial Stability
Board, or any other international forum of financial
regulators or supervisors that considers such issues, and how
the organization collects money to fund such activities;
(D) whether each such budget of such an organization is
developed under a process comparable in its transparency and
accountability to the process under which budgets are
developed and appropriated for State departments of insurance
and Federal executive branch regulatory agencies, including--
(i) an identification of any bodies independent of the
organization that set standards for and/or oversee that
organization's budgeting process; and
(ii) a description of the extent to which and how the
organization, in funding its operations, uses or benefits
from its members' ability to compel entities subject to its
members' regulatory authority to use the services of the
organization or any of its affiliates; and
(E) the extent to which the work product of any
organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1)has the
effect of establishing any self-executing national standards,
and in what way, and whether such standards are developed
under processes comparable in their transparency and
accountability to the process under which national standards
are developed by the Congress or Federal executive branch
agencies.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, or the designee of the Board.
(2) Covered congressional committees.--The term ``covered
congressional committees'' means the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
(3) International insurance standard.--The term
``international insurance standard'' means any international
insurance supervisory standard developed by an international
standards setting organization, or regulatory or supervisory
forum, in which the United States participates, including the
Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally
Active Insurance Groups, the Financial Stability Board, and
the International Association of Insurance Supervisors.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee.
(5) State insurance commissioners.--The term ``State
insurance commissioners'' means the heads of the State
insurance departments or their designees acting at their
direction.
SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF COVERED AGREEMENTS.
Section 314 of title 31, United States Code is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(1) the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States
Trade Representative have caused to be published in the
Federal Register, and made available for public comment for a
period of not fewer than 30 days (which period may run
concurrently with the 90-day period for the covered agreement
referred to in paragraph (3)), the proposed text of the
covered agreement;''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Consultation With State Insurance Commissioners.--In
any negotiations regarding a contemplated covered agreement,
the Secretary and the United States Trade Representative
shall consult with and directly include State insurance
commissioners.
``(e) Prohibition on Regulatory Authority.--In accordance
with subsections (k) and (l) of section 313, a covered
agreement shall not be used to establish or provide the
Federal Insurance Office or the Treasury with any general
supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of
insurance or with the authority to participate in a
supervisory college or similar process.
``(f) Treatment Under Other Law.--A covered agreement shall
not be considered an international insurance standard for
purposes of the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016
and shall not be subject to such Act.''.
SEC. 8. DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF FINANCIAL STABILITY
OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.
Subsection (a) of section 112 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5322(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Duties of independent member.--To assist the Council
with its responsibilities to monitor international insurance
developments, advise Congress, and make recommendations, the
Independent Member of the Council shall have the authority
to--
``(A) regularly consult with international insurance
supervisors and international financial stability
counterparts;
``(B) consult with, advise, and assist the Secretary of the
Treasury with respect to representing the Federal Government
of the United States, as appropriate, in the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors (including to become a
non-voting member thereof), particularly on matters of
systemic risk, and to consult with the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System and the States concerning such
matters;
``(C) attend the Financial Stability Board of The Group of
Twenty and join with other members from the United States,
including on matters related to insurance and financial
stability, and provide for the attendance and participation
at such Board, on matters related to insurance and financial
stability, of State insurance commissioners; and
``(D) attend, with the United States delegation, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and
observe and participate at the Insurance and Private Pensions
Committee of such Organization on matters related to
insurance and financial stability.''.
SEC. 9. STATE INSURANCE REGULATOR INVOLVEMENT IN
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SETTING.
Parties representing the United States at the Financial
Stability Board of the Group of Twenty on matters, and in
meetings, related to insurance and financial stability shall
consult with, and seek to include in such meetings, the State
insurance commissioners.
SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may
be construed to support or endorse the domestic capital
standard for insurers referred to in section 4(a)(2) or any
such domestic capital standards established by the Board.
SEC. 11. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RESERVE FUND.
Clause (i) of section 4(i)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d(i)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by
inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, except that
for fiscal year 2017, the amount deposited may not exceed
$43,000,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will
control 30 minutes.
[[Page H7316]]
The Chair now 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.
{time} 1530
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5143, the Transparent
Insurance Standards Act of 2016.
Introduced by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of our committee, Blaine
Luetkemeyer, H.R. 5143 enhances Congress' constitutional oversight of
international deliberations relating to insurance standards. Mr.
Speaker, again, this is legislation which is about accountability,
transparency, and oversight.
More specifically, the legislation establishes a series of
requirements to be met before the Federal Insurance Office or the
Federal Reserve may agree to accept, establish, enter into, or consent
to the adoption of a final international insurance standard. Permit me
to go into greater detail.
First, the Federal Insurance Office and the Fed must publish any
proposed final standard and allow for public comment. A public comment
is critical to our negotiating posture, Mr. Speaker. In so doing, the
involved agencies must provide a joint analysis of the impact the
standard will have on consumers and the U.S. insurance markets. Before
agreeing to any international standard relating to capital, the Fed is
required to first promulgate its domestic capital standard rule.
The bill makes similar requirements for negotiations concerning
insurance covered agreements. It sets negotiating objectives for U.S.
parties and also mandates that the Federal Insurance Office and the Fed
report and testify before Congress twice annually.
Finally, H.R. 5143 ensures that the independent member with insurance
expertise who sits on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, known
as FSOC, is permitted to assist the FSOC in international discussions
and attend meetings of international bodies where insurance standards
are discussed.
Mr. Speaker, for almost 150 years, U.S. insurance companies of every
type--including property-casualty, life, reinsurance, health, and
auto--have been primarily regulated by our States. Congress and the
States have occasionally reviewed the effectiveness of the State-based
regulation of insurance and coordinated efforts to achieve greater
regulatory uniformity. In 1949, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson
Act, which confirmed the States' regulatory authority over insurance,
except where Federal law expressly provides otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, this changed with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in
2010. Dodd-Frank changed the insurance landscape and further enlarged
the Federal Government's role in the insurance industry by creating a
Federal office specifically tasked with insurance matters. Dodd-Frank
established the Federal Insurance Office at Treasury and charged its
director with representing the interest of U.S. insurers during
negotiations of international agreements.
Among other things, H.R. 5143 seeks to prevent any Federal overreach
and establishes essential guardrails for the Federal Government when
discussing international insurance issues abroad. The bill is not
intended to bring international negotiations to any type of halt. Team
USA has experienced victories at the International Association of
Insurance Supervisors, and has kept Congress informed of its intent to
negotiate the first of what could be many covered agreements.
However, we should not underestimate the importance of these
conversations or the implications they can have on insurers and the
American consumers because they need to be heard and they need to be
represented.
As the leader of a Missouri-based midsized insurance company has told
our committee, Mr. Speaker:
We worry about the potential negative impacts any
international agreement could have on the domestic
marketplace or the State-based regulatory system that has
served consumer and insurance needs for more than a century.
He added:
Congress should conduct strong oversight in this area in
order to protect domestic insurance markets, companies, and
especially their policy holders.
Strong oversight and transparency are, indeed, absolutely essential,
and that is what we get with this bill.
It is simply imperative that our States, the executive branch, and
Congress work cooperatively to signify to the International Association
of Insurance Supervisors, the Financial Stability Board, and to foreign
governments that we will only lend our name to standards and agreements
that benefit U.S. consumers. The bill we are considering today will
assuredly lead us to this goal.
Again, H.R. 5143 provides greater transparency, allows for a stronger
Team USA in negotiations, and sends a signal to foreign governments and
international organizations that the United States will lead and not be
led into bad agreements. With the greater congressional oversight the
bill provides, we can ensure that any deal that is reached will be a
fair deal, and a good deal, for the American people.
Again, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Luetkemeyer), for his leadership, yet again, on bringing an excellent
bill to the House floor.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Last week, the majority made it clear
that it was just getting started with the special interest giveaways at
the expense of financial stability and consumer protection.
Now, before we adjourn, we are here to debate one last holiday gift
to Wall Street. This bill's gift is less oversight of the largest
insurers in the United States, which will put us at risk for another
AIG. Don't forget, AIG was bailed out to the tune of $182 billion.
While Democrats passed Wall Street reform to prevent another crisis
and future bailouts, Chairman Hensarling and Donald Trump have made it
clear that Dodd-Frank is on the chopping block. Without the safeguards
in Dodd-Frank, a lack of capital standards for large insurance
companies will put our economy at risk.
No one should be surprised at what is taking place here. This is
Donald Trump's agenda. Despite promises to hold Wall Street
accountable, the President-elect is proposing an administration that is
heavy on Wall Street insiders. Their plans will do little to help the
millions of Americans struggling to get ahead, but that is by design.
Because ``Trumpism'' isn't really about helping the middle class. It is
about lining the pockets of some of our biggest banks and insurance
companies.
AIG, as I mentioned, is a poster child of the financial crisis. It
engaged in financial activities that more closely resemble investment
banking than traditional insurance.
Prior to the crisis, State regulators, which have primary
jurisdiction over insurance companies, did not effectively account for
AIG's activities related to credit derivatives or securities lending,
for example, which allowed it to skate by with minimum capital. When
AIG's bets on subprime mortgage-backed securities failed, it collapsed
and required a taxpayer bailout. Recall that we bailed out AIG because
it was a counterparty to nearly all of the largest global banks;
meaning that if AIG failed, it would bring down a series of global
megabanks with it.
So under Dodd-Frank, we improved the oversight of insurance companies
by giving Federal regulators the necessary tools to prevent another
collapse of large, globally active insurance companies. We are talking
about the big boys here: AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. For the past
several years, Federal regulators have been overseeing systematically
important financial institutions, which are identified as such because
they are expected to pose a substantial risk to our financial stability
if they fail. Our Federal regulators have also been negotiating with
[[Page H7317]]
140 other countries on international standards for large globally
connected insurers.
However, today's bill is designed to undermine the progress we have
made on this front, and to ultimately prevent the adoption of these
capital standards in the United States.
In fact, H.R. 5143 would add layers of burdensome red tape and
unworkable requirements on our Federal negotiators, making it virtually
impossible for them to advocate effectively for U.S. interests on these
issues or agree to any kind of standard. For example, this bill would
prevent negotiators from agreeing to any standard unless it focuses
exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims. However, focusing
exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims can lead those same
policyholders vulnerable to systemic failure.
Moreover, by crippling our ability to engage effectively on
international insurance issues, this bill will ensure that the rest of
the world will move on to adopt standards that are not in our best
interest.
At worst, this bill is unconstitutional--something that the
administration detailed in its statement of policy--raising multiple
conflicts between the President's exclusive authority on international
agreements and the bill's requirements to directly include State
insurance commissioners in international negotiations.
At best, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It caters to
an unfounded fear that internationally agreed upon policies would be
forced upon the small, domestic insurance companies and unwilling
States.
Let me again reiterate that the standards being negotiated
internationally are for the largest insurers that operate all over the
world--companies like AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. It is a scare
tactic to claim that these standards would be applied to anyone but the
largest and most interconnected global insurers.
Second, States can never be compelled to adopt international
standards such as these. These standards are nonbinding and each
individual State has the discretion to adopt them, modify them, or
reject them entirely after going through their full regulatory process.
Third, stakeholders have ample opportunity to weigh in on these
discussions. For example, Federal negotiators have held multiple
sessions for stakeholders to provide input, and the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors has greatly improved public access
and consultation. Yet, this bill, H.R. 5143, would require several
additional notice and comment periods and several other layers of
unnecessary red tape.
To make matters worse, the sponsor proposes to pay for the bill's
costs by taking $7 million from the Securities and Exchange
Commission's reserve fund, which means that our financial watchdog will
be unable to respond to unforeseen events, like the flash crash.
In short, this bill would ask taxpayers to pay for the cost of
rejecting capital standards by taking away the funding the SEC needs to
respond to emergency situations that threaten financial stability. That
just doubles down on the irresponsible policymaking we have seen by the
opposite side of the aisle.
As the veto threat issued by the White House on this bill states:
The Nation has made great progress as a result of Dodd-
Frank, and we cannot allow this bill to hamper the United
States' ability to implement the best standards for our
unique regulatory regime.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans will go to any lengths
necessary to give industry what it wants--less oversight, less
supervision, and less regulation. Republicans have repeatedly tried to
hamstring our efforts to more effectively monitor and respond to
systemic risk by working to dismantle the FSOC and its designation
authority for SIFIs. They have called the FSOC unconstitutional and
helped companies like MetLife challenge its designation in court. So I
am not really surprised that Republicans would close out 2016 by
bringing this bill to the floor, but I am disappointed because the
American people deserve better.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the author of H.R. 5143 and the chairman of
our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
{time} 1545
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank the chairman for his tireless help and
support in getting this bill to where it is today.
Mr. Speaker, insurance serves as the backbone of financial
independence for millions of Americans. It offers support when it is
needed the most so that consumers can be assured that they are
protected in the event of a loss. Our Nation has a history of
thoughtful insurance regulation and strong consumer confidence. To
ensure that, we need to make sure that foreign regulators don't do
anything to jeopardize that.
The Transparent Insurance Standards Act would establish a series of
reasonable requirements to be met before our Team USA, if you will--the
Treasury's Federal Insurance Office, the Federal Reserve, or any other
party to international regulatory conversations--consents to the
adoption of a final insurance standard. H.R. 5143 would also require
Team USA to publish any proposed final standard for congressional
review and public comment.
Additionally, H.R. 5143 would institute a 90-day layover period,
allowing Congress the ability to block any international agreement. It
would also ensure State insurance commissioners a broader role in
negotiations, thereby protecting our State-based regulatory system that
has served policyholders so well. In doing so, the bill would not only
help protect the best interests of U.S. insurance customers, but it
would also be a step in restoring the powers vested to Congress in
Article I of the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, when the Financial Services Committee embarked on this
journey, the intent was to craft a bill that not only respected the
process, but that provided this body and the public with more
opportunity. As such, H.R. 5143 has been drafted with the input of a
wide variety of stakeholders, and it has generated broad support. This
bill is not intended to bring the international process to a halt.
Rather, it will serve as leverage for U.S. negotiators and will ensure
that we are in a position to export domestic standards rather than
import European-centric ones.
The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that our constituents don't
read about international insurance standards in the local paper or
discuss them at the dinner table. However, these conversations and the
negotiations at the IAIS have real implications on U.S. companies and,
more importantly, on every American policyholder.
Given that, consideration of this bill shouldn't be a partisan
affair. Many of my friends across the aisle and their constituents
would like to see more sunshine on this international process, and this
bill does just that. It is imperative that the United States--that is,
the States, the executive branch, and Congress--work cooperatively to
signal to the IAIS and foreign governments that we will only lend our
name to standards and agreements that benefit U.S. customers. We will
lead and not be led, as our chairman just said.
Again, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his support of this important
bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R.
5143.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. CLEAVER. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak on
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I find much greater satisfaction in working on
legislation with the subcommittee chairman, Blaine Luetkemeyer, than
opposing such; but, Mr. Speaker, I do, in fact, believe that H.R. 5143
would prescribe narrowly tailored reporting and negotiating
requirements that must be completed before any international regulatory
insurance standard could be agreed on.
In the wake of the financial crisis with the passage of Dodd-Frank,
the Federal Insurance Office, FIO, was
[[Page H7318]]
tasked with representing the United States at international insurance
forums. Currently, the FIO has been negotiating alongside the Federal
Reserve and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC,
on behalf of our country's insurance interests. The Housing and
Insurance Subcommittee has held numerous hearings on this topic, giving
us ample opportunity to more fully understand the process that is being
undertaken at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors as
well as with other international bodies.
It is critical that Team USA continue to advocate strongly on behalf
of the U.S. insurance system, and it is imperative that we do not
hamstring their ability to do so. More specifically, the bill contains
a number of provisions that would ultimately delay our negotiations
abroad. If we limit the ability of our negotiators to do their job, we
lose our seat at the international table, which, I believe, will weaken
our position. Like most on the other side, I am a strong proponent of
the State-based system.
Our Missouri insurance commissioner has recently held a national
position. In order to effectively communicate our position and advocate
for this unique American system, we need to ensure that our
international representatives are empowered, and we believe that this
actually impacts their role at the table.
Additionally, none of the standards that may be decided upon
internationally are binding. This is, perhaps, the most significant
thing I am saying. As everyone knows, the States would have to approve
any standards because we can't impose those standards on them. These
standards would have to be agreed to domestically--they would have to
go to each and every State--and they won't be approved on the Federal
level. This process would include a notice and a comment period.
I do believe that this bill does not address a single problem, that
it does not fix any broken part of this process that is going on.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and a heavy heart
that I yield to the next gentleman. I have a heavy heart because I fear
this will be the last time I yield time to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Neugebauer); but it is with great pride that, for 14 years, I have
called him friend and colleague. He is retiring from this institution.
He has been tireless in his service to our committee, his constituents,
and this country. He has been a tireless advocate for the cause of
freedom, free enterprise, and the lot of the common man and the common
woman; and this will be a lesser institution upon his departure.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), my
friend.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman and thank him for his leadership
and his kind words.
It has been a great pleasure to serve on this Financial Services
Committee. I think we have done some good work. I enjoyed working with
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on some issues as well. I
wish you the very best as you continue as a committee to work on behalf
of Americans all across the country to make sure that they have access
to the financial products that they need for their families.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5143, offered by my good
friend from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The Transparent Insurance Standards Act is critically important to
ensuring that the U.S. State-based model for regulating insurance is
preserved and that international agreements benefit U.S. consumers.
Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the increased role of the
Federal Government in insurance regulation has led to changes to U.S.
participation in international insurance forums, like the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors.
The Federal Insurance Office, FIO, is charged with representing the
interests of U.S. insurers during negotiations of international
agreements. Further, the FIO, along with the Federal Reserve, is an
active participant in international standard-setting bodies. Over the
last several years, developments in international insurance supervision
have created tension with our State-based model.
The European Union has moved toward a single regulatory structure for
its member states. This effort, known as Solvency II, will harmonize
the varied regulatory regimes in each European nation. Many have raised
concern that Solvency II will be adopted as the gold standard for
international insurance supervision. Solvency II could put the U.S.
insurance industry and the U.S. policyholders at a disadvantage.
H.R. 5143 is important legislation that enhances the congressional
oversight of international deliberations for insurance regulation. It
holds both the FIO and the Federal Reserve to important benchmarks that
ensure that U.S. interests are being represented. For example, the
agencies must provide joint analyses on the impact of proposed
international standards on U.S. consumers and insurance markets.
Further, it allows for public comment on any proposed final standard
that the U.S. may agree to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. These regulatory checks are not new to many U.S.
agencies, which already must comply with certain Administrative
Procedure Act requirements when setting Federal standards. While there
may be a critical role for U.S. representatives to play in the
international insurance discussion, it is important that our advocates
ensure that U.S. interests are not recklessly pushed aside in the name
of global harmony.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5143.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking
member of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises
Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman.
I join the chairman in thanking Congressman Neugebauer for his
outstanding service to this institution, to his district, and to this
country. He has been an outstanding Member. It has been a pleasure to
serve with him.
We will miss you. Thank you for your friendship, your consideration,
and your really hard work for good, sound policy in this country. Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5143.
I believe that it would undermine the Fed's ability to negotiate
international agreements on insurance regulation, and I think that that
will cause a big problem for insurance in our country.
Telling the Fed that it can't agree to any international standard on
insurance that isn't already the law in the United States absolutely
makes no sense whatsoever. The other countries would simply stop
negotiating with us, and I believe we would lose our voice and our seat
at the table, and that is not good for America.
It is also important to remember that nothing the Fed or Treasury
agrees to internationally can be binding on State insurance regulators.
That is already the law, and we don't need a new law to tell us that.
The Fed does regulate 14 insurance companies through its holding
companies. This has been a Federal authority, and there is nothing new
about that.
The Fed should be able to align the insurance regulations that it has
authority over with the regulations in other countries. One of the big
lessons of the scandal and of the economic downturn of 2008 was that
different regulatory regimes in different countries could have
different incentives, and some of them were bad incentives--for
example, AIG. The only problem that existed with this country was in
the different incentives in England.
I am very uncomfortable with a bill that hamstrings the Federal
Reserve's ability to regulate the safety and soundness of the large
insurance holding companies that it has authority over and to ensure
that those regulatory standards are consistent internationally, so I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), and I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman be able to control the remainder of such time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
[[Page H7319]]
There was no objection.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the Monetary Policy and Trade
Subcommittee chairman.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my fellow subcommittee chairman for
working with me to protect the State-based insurance regulatory model
that has served our Nation so well for 150 years.
To my colleague from New York, I am very comfortable with this bill
and with the underlying philosophy that has brought us here.
Mr. Speaker, I am a former State representative in the Michigan
Legislature, and I know firsthand that Michigan does a better job of
protecting policyholders within their borders than the Federal
Government does or could. Even more so, Michigan certainly knows how to
maintain a robust insurance marketplace that works for Michigan
customers. Additionally, Michigan serves as an entry point for several
foreign companies which then come into the U.S. marketplace.
However, there are bureaucrats in Washington who believe that they
know best. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded the Federal
Government's role in the insurance marketplace by creating the Federal
Insurance Office and charging the Director with representing the U.S.
during the negotiations of international agreements. At the same time,
the Dodd-Frank Act changed domestic insurance regulation, which also
led to the changes in U.S. participation at the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors, or IAIS.
{time} 1600
The IAIS develops international insurance regulations for its 190
jurisdictions in more than 140 countries to then adopt those. I am
concerned that this could influence the U.S. to replace the State-based
insurance regulatory model with international standards that were
created by unelected European bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, our States are, as Justice Brandeis so eloquently
coined, ``laboratories of democracy;'' and in his words that means that
a ``State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try
novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the
country.''
I can't think of a better example of a successful experiment than the
State-based insurance regulatory system, especially in my home State of
Michigan. That is why the protections provided in the Transparent
Insurance Standards Act are so vitally important.
The straightforward bill simply gives the States and Congress the
opportunity to comment on any international insurance standard before
it may be adopted.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this very, very
important bill and support our system that has existed for 150 years.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to the
ranking member for allowing me this opportunity.
First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentlewoman from New York and the other gentleman from Texas regarding
our colleague, Mr. Neugebauer. From the day that I walked into this
Chamber, he has been nothing but a paragon of gentlemanliness toward
myself and my colleagues. In fact, every freshman receives a flag flown
over the Capitol that Congressman Neugebauer has had flown. And
wouldn't you know it, small world category: 2,000 miles away, he
happened to be good friends with my uncle, which I didn't even know
until he arrived here. He will be missed. He is a testament to how you
can see the world completely differently, yet be able to treat one
another with respect.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncomfortable because this is the second
time in a week I have risen to oppose a proposal by my friend from
Missouri who I think actually is trying to do the right thing and with
whom I have dealt in good faith and who has dealt in good faith with
us. But I do, in fact, rise to oppose this bill because in some cases
it goes too far, in some cases it won't work, and in some cases,
frankly, it doesn't go far enough.
It goes too far in terms of stealing the money from the SEC reserve
to pay for this. Its costs and those associated with its implementation
should not be borne by another enforcement agency whose job it is to
keep us safe.
It won't work in terms of its reporting requirements: all of these
expensive requirements that require the rate on the SEC, the
transparency, the reporting. Anybody who knows anything about
negotiations knows you can't post a public notice about what you intend
to do and hope to be successful on the outcome.
I happen to have been a professional on both sides of the labor
management negotiations table, and I can tell you, the last thing in
the world you want to do is post your playbook. That would be a little
bit like the football team saying: Come here, defense; let me tell you
what we are going to do.
That would, in fact, be the net effect of this particular approach.
The objective: to maintain the integrity in the McCarran-Ferguson Act
is the right one. It is the wrong approach. In some cases it, frankly,
doesn't go far enough because, the truth is, we ought to have these
international discussions and negotiations for international firms; but
this bill would only apply to the IAIS. There are a lot of
international forums where insurance is at the table. The fact of the
matter is, the State regulators ought to be at those tables as well.
Look, there is a better way. I offer it to you. It is a bill I have
introduced, which is H.R. 6436, that takes a principle-based approach.
It merely says that the State-based insurance regulators have got to be
at the table, and we have to protect that system. It is a principle-
based, not a top-down, command and control heavy bureaucracy approach
to achieving the same objective while at the same time ensuring that we
provide adequate protection and regulation for international insurance
companies, but respecting the State-based system.
I don't know why we can't get the win-win here. You know, I find it
ironic that my legislation, H.R. 6436, actually enjoys broad-based
support among the stakeholders: the regulated and, yes, the regulators.
The State-based insurance regulators believe that this is the best
approach to take, and it is the one I think is a win-win for everybody.
It achieves everybody's objectives. That is not what H.R. 5143 will do.
H.R. 5143 goes too far in some cases, won't work in others, and
doesn't go far enough in others. So I hope that you will reject it,
provide us with an opportunity to continue to negotiate in good faith,
and get to win-win because win-win is possible in this circumstance.
I, once again, thank the ranking member very much for this
opportunity.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for all of his
work on this bill, H.R. 5143.
As we enter into this debate, I think it is important to look at who
supports what. If you look at insurers in States like Wisconsin, they
have looked at Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill and they love it. They think it
is a great bill because it protects the American State-based model.
If you are a large global insurer, you don't like this bill because
you want one global international standard that you have to comply
with.
So we are here fighting for the little guy, those little insurance
companies that dot all of our States, that serve our communities and
our families; and the opposition is standing with the large insurers
which have been more concerned about this bill than the little guy,
which goes to my point.
I am concerned that the Federal Reserve and Treasury could enter into
an international framework that undermines the U.S. system in favor of,
again, this European-centric model that is inconsistent with our
American model. If you look at this great American model, it has worked
for 150 years.
Look back to the 2008 crisis. This system in America, with a ton of
pressure, it performed beautifully. It did really well. Why do you want
to cash that in for a different model?
[[Page H7320]]
I guess my concern is that those State insurers like in my State,
they are not even regulated at the Federal level, but they are
concerned that on the track that we are going, they very well may be.
This is pretty simple stuff.
What Mr. Luetkemeyer is looking for is openness and transparency. He
just doesn't want Washington bureaucrats negotiating a deal. He wants
all stakeholders as part of this deal. And lo and behold, it is a
remarkable concept; but if we are going to have fundamental changes to
our insurance law, why only have unelected bureaucrats make those
decisions? Why not empower the Congress, the people who are responsive
to the American electorate?
We should have a say in this process. Put us back in control, which
is exactly what Chairman Luetkemeyer does.
It is a great bill. I encourage all of my friends on both sides of
the aisle to show their resounding support.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his
work on H.R. 5143. I rise in strong support of the legislation.
Now, what we are hearing on the floor today is very similar, I
suspect, to the discussion at the founding of this country, yet some
who wanted a strong central government, strong regulating powers from
Washington and some who said, no, that will not be the best way to
provide a strong economy, that we should send the decisions closer to
where people live. Frankly, that choice is being played out worldwide
right now, and that is the case with the question in front of us.
Should we allow people in Europe to tell us what our markets will
look like here?
Now, there are those who say yes. I am in the group that says no.
Because our system here has created its own stability. In the financial
difficulties of 2008 and 2009, our market performed just perfectly. We
have got 56 different regulators, each one has their own
responsibility. It provides a safer market for the consumer. It
provides a safer product for the consumers to purchase. Why we would
send that authority to some other country across the oceans just never
made sense to those of us who want the decisions made closer to the
people.
Secondly, we have to think that it is good for American jobs. Anytime
people in a different country are deciding what the rules are, they are
going to skew it in favor of themselves. Again, our market is well
diversified. It is spread among the States, and it provides insurance
markets for every individual State and some more than just the one.
So that tells us that it is good for the economy, it is good for the
consumer; but, finally, we need the stabilizing force here, the ability
for Americans to determine what we are going to do.
I think that the recent election has been maybe a referendum on: Do
we want to give up power to the local people, or do we just send it
away?
Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill preserves power for the people. It preserves
power for the Congress. I would urge support for Mr. Luetkemeyer's
bill, H.R. 5143.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 5143, the
Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016, with my good friend and
colleague from the State of Missouri, Representative Blaine
Luetkemeyer.
Dodd-Frank reversed a nearly 150-year precedent of the U.S. insurance
industry being regulated primarily by the States. From property-
casualty, life, reinsurance, health, and even auto, the Obama
administration and Dodd-Frank created a more invasive role for the
Federal Government to intervene in this industry.
Where this has become apparent is during the negotiations of
international agreements regarding insurance standards, where our
foreign counterparts, particularly in the European Union, are trying to
force us to adopt their standard and forgo our State-based insurance
regime.
Most concerning is that many of these meetings take place behind
closed doors with little accountability or transparency while our
Federal Government says they are negotiating on behalf of our best
interests.
H.R. 5143 would enhance congressional oversight into these
deliberations by establishing requirements to be met before the Federal
Government can agree to the adoption of any final international
insurance standards or covered agreements. Setting these procedures in
place ensures that Missouri policyholders and customers will be
protected from premium increases by having to adopt international
standards that don't apply or make sense here in the United States.
Americans are sick and tired of the Federal Government making choices
on their behalf without proper input and oversight. Congress needs to
be more involved in these negotiations that could have substantial
impacts on policyholders across the country.
I have two letters of support from companies in Missouri that
represent over 40,000 customers and employees in the State. The
companies state that this bill will help prevent costs from being
driven up in Missouri, and I would like to include these letters in the
Record.
Cameron Insurance Companies,
August 19, 2016.
To: Members of the Missouri Congressional Delegation
Dear Representatives: On behalf of Cameron Mutual Insurance
Company and the 39,370 policyholders/employees in Missouri, I
am writing to ask for your support. During the next few
months, U.S. negotiators and their international counterparts
are scheduled to meet behind closed doors around the globe
approximately three dozen times to make strategic decisions
on new international capital and regulatory standards. The
U.S. is under pressure from international regulators to adopt
their standards. These types of changes have the very real
potential to drive up costs here at home.
It is important that the U.S. defend its effective system
of insurance regulation. Our U.S. negotiators should not
agree to new standards that could eventually weaken U.S.
consumer protections, reduce competition, and, according to
economist Robert Shapiro, cost homeowners insurance consumers
up to an additional $100 per year.
H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016,
introduced by Missouri's own Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer,
provides critically important checks and balances regarding
negotiations on international insurance standards by
requiring transparency, accountability, and consultation with
Congress, and allowing for public input. The bill passed the
House Financial Services Committee in June.
It is critical for Congress to act on this legislation now
and I am asking you to defend U.S. insurance markets and to
preserve our effective, consumer-focused, state-based system
of insurance regulation. Please contact House leadership and
the Financial Services Committee leadership and request a
September House floor vote on H.R. 5143.
Transparency, accountability, and consultation with
Congress and the public is a simple and reasonable approach
to ensure our system is not undermined by closed-door
international regulatory fora. H.R. 5143 strengthens the U.S.
voice by requiring U.S. state and federal negotiators reach
consensus on advocacy positions and supporting them by
shining a light on the negotiations.
Sincerely,
Brad M. Fowler,
President/Chief Executive Officer,
Cameron Mutual Insurance Company.
____
Shelter Insurance Companies,
September 7, 2016.
Re: H.R. 5143, the ``Transparent Insurance Standards Act of
2016''
Hon. Ann Wagner,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wagner: Shelter Insurance is the
largest domestic property and casualty insurance company in
Missouri, writing more than $1.6 billion in premium, and is
home to almost 1,700 Missouri constituents/employees.
On behalf of Shelter Insurance Company, our agents,
employees and mutual policy holders in Missouri, I am writing
to ask for your help to defend the state-based system of
insurance regulation. Congressman Luetkemeyer's bill, H.R.
5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016,
provides critically important checks and balances regarding
negotiations on international insurance standards by
requiring transparency, accountability, and consultation with
Congress, and allowing for public input.
We ask that you please encourage Chairman Hensarling and
House leadership to schedule a House vote on this legislation
in September.
[[Page H7321]]
As you well know, the next few months are important when it
comes to international insurance regulation. By the end of
2016, U.S. negotiators and their international counterparts
are scheduled to meet behind closed doors around the globe
approximately three dozen times to make strategic decisions
on new international capital and regulatory standards. The
U.S. is under pressure from international regulators to adopt
their standards. These types of changes have the very real
potential to drive up costs here at home in Missouri.
It is important that the U.S. defend its effective system
of insurance regulation. Our U.S. negotiators should not
agree to new standards that could eventually weaken U.S.
consumer protections, reduce competition.
Again, our ask is that you please work with House
leadership and the Financial Services Committee leadership
and request a September House floor vote on H.R. 5143,
I thank you for your help on this bill and for your
continued leadership on these efforts that are important to
my company and many insurers around the United States.
Sincerely,
Rick Means,
President and CEO.
Brian Waller,
Director of Government Relations.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I simply ask my colleagues to support this
commonsense piece of legislation that instills transparency and
accountability for our government when negotiating with their foreign
counterparts.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
{time} 1615
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and his
staff for the hard work that went into crafting this legislation,
coordinating with the insurance industry and the diverse array of
stakeholders and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, for about 150 years, the American insurance industry has
been regulated at the State level. This has enabled the tailoring of
regulations and business models to local circumstances for insurance
companies of all types, structures, and sizes. This system has provided
our domestic insurance industry a competitive advantage that benefits
consumers and the market for insuring against risk. It is a superior
model to the concentrated national champion insurance models of Europe.
Some of Dodd-Frank's policies threaten to upend this existing
regulatory infrastructure by interjecting the Federal Government, and
ultimately international regulators, into the oversight of the American
insurance industry. Regardless of one's views on Federal oversight of
insurance, I think we should all agree that Congress should have a
stake in this process and engage in robust oversight of any Federal or
international standards.
The Transparent Insurance Standards Act achieves just that. The
legislation sets clear objectives, or rules of the road, for the
Federal Insurance Office and the Federal Reserve that must be met
during negotiation and, ultimately, adoption of any international
insurance standards or covered agreements.
The bill ensures that State insurance commissioners or their
designees are directly involved in the negotiation process; and before
adoption of such an international standard, the public and Congress
must have access to the final text and the opportunity to provide
comments.
FIO and the Fed would be required to file reports and come before
Congress twice a year to brief us on the progress and implementation.
If the standards include capital requirements, the Fed must have
promulgated a domestic standard first, and this will prevent the tail
wagging the dog that we have seen with other international financial
standards.
These reforms and several other provisions ensure that, if the United
States is going down the road of Federal and international insurance
standards, the process is transparent, and Congress, the States, and
the American people have a say in that process.
For these reasons, I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I
urge its passage.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is my last speaker. Last
but not least, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Williams), an entrepreneur who understands the importance of
our free enterprise system and how important it is for the insurance
industry to be able to protect those interests of the free enterprise
folks.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I think by now the secret is out the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has been a
complete failure.
For the last 6 years, in an effort to protect consumers, the Dodd-
Frank Act has instead stifled job creation for millions of Americans
with regulation after regulation. H.R. 5143, which I am a proud
cosponsor of, aims to roll back one of the many unintended consequences
forced upon U.S. insurers.
For 150 years, the State-based model, the American model, has been
successful because it focused on one thing--the consumer. The U.S.
State-based insurance regulatory system is unmatched by any insurance
regulatory system in the world. It is important that U.S. insurers are
not put at a competitive disadvantage worldwide and we continue to act
in their interest.
H.R. 5143 requires Congress to conduct oversight of international
conversations focused on insurance standards and establish a series of
requirements to be met by our top negotiators at Treasury's Federal
Insurance Office.
Furthermore, transparency and accountability is often lacking in
international regulatory discussions, something that is fundamental to
the State-based system. It is important that Congress takes every
opportunity to open doors, not close doors, and allows all interested
parties to participate in negotiations with our international
counterparts. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strongly encourage
increased transparency and information sharing and bring to light the
true objectives.
Just as Congress is routinely involved in international trade
negotiations, this should be no different. It is important we work
cooperatively and only agree to standards and agreements that benefit
U.S. consumers and allow us to maintain a strong insurance marketplace.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for his leadership and
the work our committee has done to stand up for U.S. insurers and
consumers. I strongly urge passage of this bill. In God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time to close.
The gentleman who just gave testimony indicated that the secret is
out. I don't think he described the secret accurately, but let me just
say it is out, and, just as Mr. Hensarling said on the floor the other
day, we ain't seen nothing yet. They are out to destroy Dodd-Frank,
they are out to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and
they keep coming forward, as they are doing today, to protect Wall
Street.
I ask my colleagues to consider the great progress we have made since
the enactment of Wall Street reform to fix the blind spots that
prevented our regulators from seeing the big picture. Our U.S.
financial system is increasingly complex, and the regulatory structure
for the oversight of our system was fragmented before the financial
crisis. This was particularly true of the insurance industry, which is
regulated primarily by the States.
While our State-based system for insurance regulation has many
strengths, by its very nature, it is ill-suited to address all of the
issues related to large, globally active insurance companies. That is
why Dodd-Frank, while continuing to recognize the primacy of State-
based regulation, changed many of the ways in which the insurance
industry is supervised for consolidated supervision and enhanced
regulation.
If we take a look at AIG, of course, one cannot help but ask: What
State regulated AIG; and why did we get into the problem that we got
into with AIG? It was because of its London-based operation. That is
why it is so important to have cooperation between the countries on
these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world.
[[Page H7322]]
Let's remind everyone what this bill really does. It takes us
backward. It says: forget about examining systemic risks across
jurisdictions, and, instead, let's continue to leave the largest
internationally active insurers in the world off the hook for any risk
they may pose to our economy. Not the small, domestic insurers that
engage in traditional activities, not the companies that make up such
an important part of our economy in rural areas, and certainly not the
insurers that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis.
We are talking about the biggest and most complex insurers that have
operations all over the globe and pose risks to international financial
stability.
This bill is not about transparency, as its title would suggest. It
is about weakening oversight of these large firms and making it
virtually impossible to agree to any kind of international insurance
standard. This bill is also not about protecting policyholders. It is
about burying our head in the sand and going back to the precrisis days
where all of us, including policyholders, were vulnerable to a systemic
failure.
So let's call this bill what it is. It is a giveaway to the insurance
industry that is trying to escape more oversight. And let's not pretend
that this bill would ensure a more unified U.S. posture on the
international stage because, under the provisions of this bill, the
U.S. will be severely crippled in its ability to negotiate on these
issues, which means that the rest of the world will move forward while
American interests get left behind.
What are we talking about? We are talking about capitalization. And
if we are not willing to engage with other countries in this
international community about these big insurance companies that are
operating all over the world about capital standards, we are putting
our own country at risk. The administration has already issued a strong
veto threat for all of these reasons. For these reasons, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Let me share with you exactly what the administration is saying.
``The restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on United
States representatives in international insurance matters under H.R.
5143 would raise serious constitutional concerns and severely outweigh
any potential attendant benefits. . . .
``FIO, the Federal Reserve, and state insurance commissioners are all
actively engaged at the IAIS and regularly coordinate with one another,
ensuring that each aspect of the unique United States regulatory regime
is adequately represented in any international negotiation. Despite
their effective coordination and extensive work thus far to improve
global insurance regulation, the restrictions which H.R. 5143 seeks to
impose would stop this work in its tracks and would put in place
cumbersome and counterproductive requirements. . . .
``Because this legislation seeks to tie the hands of U.S.
representatives, in an unconstitutional manner, and prevent them from
effectively negotiating on international insurance matters, the
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5143.''
Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that my colleague, the chairman of the
Committee on Financial Services, promised me and threatened me and
others that we ain't seen nothing yet, I think it is very clear about
what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle and how Mr.
Hensarling and the committee are already carrying out the Trump agenda.
They are making sure that before we leave here on break everyone
understands that they are not about to support Dodd-Frank in any shape,
form, or fashion, but, rather, they are going to take every opportunity
to undermine Dodd-Frank because they don't believe in reforming Wall
Street.
Mr. Trump said that he was running for the United States President
because he wanted to drain the swamp, but Mr. Trump and his leadership
are already showing us that they intend to expand the swamp, that they
are going to grow the swamp, that they are going to make sure that they
have everybody from Wall Street, many of whom have already been fined,
been accused of fraud, who are under investigation--somehow he is
bringing them close to him, and I wonder why.
This legislation today basically tells you a story. It tells you a
story that they are talking about. They are saying, in essence, that
we, the United States of America, operate unto ourselves. Yes, we have
these big firms, and we don't mind that they have big businesses in
other countries, like AIG. We don't mind that they are operating
internationally. We have State regulations, and our State regulations
will take care of whatever our needs are for oversight of insurance.
But they can't tell you why that didn't happen with AIG. As a matter
of fact, they don't mention AIG. They wish the story of AIG would just
simply go away. They don't want the American people to be reminded of
what happened with AIG that almost brought this country to its knees.
They don't want to remind the people that we had to bail them out. They
don't want to remind the people that they were undercapitalized, their
credit default swaps were fraudulent, and they didn't have anything to
back it up. So here we are, and they are asking the American people to
ignore all of this, just forget all of this. We are out to protect
those who certainly should not be protected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Just to recap what we are doing here: We have a bill in front of us
here that is basically trying to give leverage to Team USA, which are
the representatives from the United States, one of which was created by
Dodd-Frank, to represent the United States insurance industry at the
negotiating table with regards to the International Association of
Insurance Supervisors. Now, this is a group of people from around the
world that regulate insurance companies in each of these other
countries.
Now, these regulators have a different set of rules and regulations
and a different purpose from the standpoint that they regulate
insurance at the national level in each one of these countries, where
we in this country regulate insurance at the State level.
{time} 1630
When the IAIS tries to promulgate rules and regulations, it is like
trying to put a square peg in a round hole when they try and put those
rules and regulations on our companies here. As a result, this bill is
to try and give leverage to our negotiations so that doesn't happen and
so they can protect our industry. In fact, the negotiators want this
bill because they need that leverage to be able to go and say no to
some of the standards that are being proposed so that they can protect
our industry.
Now, I will give you a quick example. In my own State, we have a
company that provides reinsurance in one of the countries in Europe.
That country right now is trying to impose some new standards on that
company to be able to do business there.
We need to have the regulators be able to go to the IAIS and say:
Look, this is not working. You cannot impact and undermine our own
companies in this country with these rules that do not work. They need
to be on a level playing field with everybody else.
So this is a way that we can protect our companies and our industries
and our consumers from this regulation that is basically out of control
sometimes.
Mr. Huizenga made a great point. He said: Why would we allow
unelected foreign regulators to tell our industry what to do? That is
what we have got. We have got a group of bureaucrats from around the
world who are trying to tell our companies, our insurance industry--it
isn't one company; it is everybody in this country--what to do. They
are not elected, but we are in this Congress. Shouldn't we put the
people's representatives in charge of this?
Mr. Pearce made that comment. These regulations need to be decided by
the people's representatives. That is us. That is what this bill does.
It puts us in charge of saying yes or no to whatever agreements are
done over there.
Mr. Barr made the comment that we need to protect the insurance model
of our industry. And that is what this does. We in the Congress can
look and see if these rules and regulations will protect the industry.
It doesn't mean we throw them all out either. The underlying
principle of
[[Page H7323]]
everything that the minority ranking member is talking about here is
that we are going to throw out every regulation that is being proposed.
No, this is not the case.
What we want to do is make sure the ones that are being proposed are
okay and will not negatively impact our industry. The ones that are
going to be helpful, we will support those. We will let them go
through. That is up to Congress. We should be in charge of those
decisions, not somebody else around this world.
Mr. Williams made a good point. He said this is kind of like a trade
agreement. We approve all the trade agreements over in the other body,
if I am not mistaken. Should we approve an agreement like this where we
are going to impact an entire industry? I think so, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just move on to a couple of points that were made by a couple
of folks during the discussion on the other side.
They talked about the pay-for in the bill. The pay-for in the bill
actually comes from a slush fund of the SEC, which is overfunded at
this point and that they are going to use less than 20 percent of that
money this year. It is well paid for. It is well within the reason of
being able to afford this, and it is not going to impact that regulator
at all. So I think we are in great shape.
Somebody made the comment that the Fed does have the authority to
make these rules. No, they don't. They don't have authority to make a
rule across the board on all insurance companies in this country. That
is not a true statement.
The statement was also made about the G-SIFIs and systemic
institutions. This bill doesn't do anything to address G-SIFI
designation. This bill is about protecting the IAIS, which is a
supervisory body. It is not the Federal Stability Board. It is not the
international board that decides all of these G-SIFI designations. This
is the board that oversees the regulatory structure of insurance
companies.
Somebody said it has constitutional concerns. If it has
constitutional concerns, then you have just told me that Dodd-Frank is
unconstitutional. That is all we are doing is dealing with what has
gone on in Dodd-Frank when setting up the FIO office to try and give
them the leverage and power they need to do something.
It is interesting because the ranking member last week was railing on
a bill that we had on the floor about transparency and oversight of
regulators. You know what? We listened to her. This bill today does
that very thing. It adds to transparency, and we are providing
oversight for the regulators. I would think she would be excited about
this legislation and be willing to support it.
One other comment, Mr. Speaker, and I will close.
The ranking member keeps throwing AIG at us. That is a red-herring
from the standpoint that AIG is made up of two separate entities: one
is an insurance company; one is the securities and investment company.
The company that was in trouble was the securities and investment part.
The insurance company stayed solid and solvent. That is not the one
that was bailed out.
So, again, the point was made by one of my colleagues--Mr. Duffy, I
believe it was--that in 2008 our system worked. And he is correct; it
did work. Our insurance industry in this country withstood one of the
largest and most devastating recessions in history since the Great
Depression, and it came out of it with very little negative problems
that could impact the quality of insurance being provided for our
citizens.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying this bill does what we
would hope that every bill would do in this Congress, and that is that
it gives leverage to people who can do good to protect our industries
and our people, our way of life and our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Printed in House Report 114-846 Offered by Mr. DeSantis
Mr. DeSANTIS. 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:
Page 4, line 11, before the period insert the following:
``and that any such final standard is composed in plain
writing (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Plain
Writing Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. 301 note))''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 944, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple. It requires
that any international agreement needs to be written in plain writing
as a condition to enter into the agreement.
I am offering this from the perspective of people in Florida, my
district, and elsewhere who are small businesses, who are small
companies who can't afford to hire large legal teams simply to
understand overly complex regulations. They are already beset with way
too much, both in terms of the scope, but also in terms of the
complexity; and when you have complex agreements or regulations imposed
on them, it not only makes life difficult for them, it actually gives
them a competitive disadvantage over some of the big companies that we
are always hearing about.
So I think writing in plain language, clear and concise, makes it
easier for small businesses to comply without amassing huge amounts in
legal fees and other overhead costs.
Plain writing doesn't change the regulation. You can have a
regulation. It just requires it to be written in a way that doesn't
require you to hire $500-an-hour attorneys to interpret it for you. So
I think it is a commonsense way to help small business with no taxpayer
expense.
I would note that the need for plain writing has been something that
the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has embraced over decades.
I appreciate my friend from Missouri's bill. I intend to support it.
I think this amendment will be added protection for those who are
struggling to do well in an economy in which so much that comes out of
Washington seems to be making it more difficult for them to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires
that any final standard agreed to under the terms of this bill be
composed in plain writing in accordance with the Plain Writing Act of
2010. That law basically requires that Federal agencies use ``clear
government communication that the public can understand and use.''
As a matter of general policy, I think that makes good sense. We want
the public to be able to understand the rules and regulations that
impact their daily lives. When government regulations are difficult to
comprehend, it undermines rather than enhances our goal of setting
clear rules of the road and preventing misconduct. But no amount of
clear communication or plain writing will improve the basic issues with
the underlying bill.
Of course we support plain writing. I wish that all of us would adopt
and carry out and implement the legislation that was passed, supported
by both sides of the aisle, for plain writing, for plain English. I
wish the State would do it with their propositions, et cetera. We all
pay lip service to it, but then we come with the gobbledygook that the
American public has to try and understand.
So, yes, I support plain writing. I support the public being able to
understand what we do, but I don't want people to be confused. Plain
writing has nothing to do with the basic issues in this underlying
bill.
While I do not take issue with the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida, I continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It
is a solution in search of a problem, one that certainly does not
exist.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this is an amendment that
my friend from California can embrace.
[[Page H7324]]
I urge everyone to embrace it and would just urge people to support the
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 Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
DeSantis).
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.
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.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes
on motions to suspend the rules with respect to H.R. 6076, S. 2971, and
H.R. 5790, in each case by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 170, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 613]
YEAS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
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)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
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)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--170
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Evans
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Brown (FL)
Chu, Judy
Clyburn
Costa
Fincher
Granger
Graves (MO)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Jolly
Kirkpatrick
Lee
McDermott
Miller (MI)
Neal
Poe (TX)
Rice (NY)
Roskam
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
{time} 1705
Mr. MESSER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________