[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1280-H1286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4296, OPERATIONAL RISK CAPITAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR BANKING ORGANIZATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 4607, COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 747 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 747
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4296) to
place requirements on operational risk capital requirements
for banking organizations established by an appropriate
Federal banking agency. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of
[[Page H1281]]
Rules Committee Print 115-60, modified by the amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2.
Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4607) to amend the
Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of
1996 to ensure that Federal financial regulators perform a
comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or
otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on
covered persons, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-61, modified by the amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Just 3 weeks ago, we hosted a small lender in my district office who
was being hindered in his efforts to serve home buyers in eastern
Colorado. Why? Washington, in its unyielding effort to regulate every
decision of Americans, lumped this lender into a broader regulation
that came out of the housing crisis 10 years ago. This isn't some
theoretical exercise. These regulations have real impact on Coloradans.
The last time I was on the floor debating these issues, I discussed
the affordable housing situation in Colorado. Without completely
recounting that debate, I want to reiterate the basic facts.
From 2009 to 2016, Colorado had a net increase of 600,000 people. In
that same time, housing costs skyrocketed by more than 57 percent.
Since 2016, our growth has begun to fall off considerably. When The
Denver Post researched why a State with a high quality of life and
decades more growth potential had a dramatically slowing growth rate,
they found that a substantial part of it had to do with rising housing
costs.
We must reconsider our Washington-knows-best regulatory approach. We
here in Washington can't possibly know what is the best for a potential
home buyer in Trinidad or Las Animas or Fort Morgan or Greeley or
Castle Rock, Colorado.
I, for one, am tired of the arrogance of Washington telling us in
eastern Colorado which banks we can and can't use to finance our
mortgages. It is time that we bring financial accountability to the
place that needs it most: Washington.
That is what these two financial bills do. They return power to the
American people. They reduce unnecessary regulations on small community
banks and credit unions, thereby freeing up capital that small
businesses and employers can access to create new jobs. They make
commonsense changes to Federal laws so that regulators have to
routinely review their regulations to ensure that the regulations are
not overly burdensome.
Eastern Coloradans are frustrated with the Washington-knows-best
mindset of their government, and I am listening to them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which provides
for the consideration of two bills from the House Financial Services
Committee--H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, and H.R.
4296, legislation to undercut operational risk capital requirements--
under a completely closed process.
These are the 66th and 67th closed rules of this Congress, Mr.
Speaker. I am deeply concerned with the Republican leadership's total
lack of consideration for regular order.
For all intents and purposes, regular order is dead in this Congress.
We consider one closed rule after another after another after another,
and Republicans routinely rush bills to the floor without even holding
hearings on the underlying legislation to help Members better
understand the impacts of these bills and to benefit from expert
witnesses.
What is especially shameful about the process today, Mr. Speaker, is
the fact that there were amendments submitted, but Republicans decided
to self-execute these nongermane amendments with no debate or
discussion on the House floor and to shut down the ability of Members
to offer additional amendments. This is just bad legislating, plain and
simple.
I hope that if November turns out the way I hope it does and we have
a change in leadership in Congress, when Democrats are in charge, we
run this place like professionals, like adults, where we respect all
points of view, where we go back to regular order, when we say we are
going to go back to regular order, we mean it.
Why are we doing all of this, Mr. Speaker? What is possibly so urgent
that we have to throw regular order out the window?
Today, we are considering another two pieces of deregulatory
legislation that will benefit big banks at the expense of financial
stability to our economy and consumer protections that help everyday
families.
H.R. 4607 would create a lopsided approach to implementing
regulations that force agencies to consider the cost of regulations on
bankers without considering the benefit to consumers. H.R. 4296 would
undermine the ability of regulators to establish operational risk
capital requirements to protect our economy from another crisis.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Our constituents expect Congress
to put them first, not the big banks, especially the big banks that
wrecked our economy and endangered the life savings of millions of
families. We owe it to them to bring to the floor legislation that will
help their lives and make our country better. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker,
this Congress has failed to act on meaningful legislation that will do
anything like that.
Mr. Speaker, today marks nearly 2 weeks since 17 people, including 14
students, were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida. This was one of the worst shootings our country has
ever seen. It was the eighth school shooting this year, and it is only
February.
Yet Republicans in Congress have not lifted a finger to take up
bipartisan gun reform legislation that would help to prevent shootings
like these and protect our kids. Instead, we are here considering a
bill that will only help the already rich and powerful.
This is shameful. It is absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that monitors gun
violence, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in
America. In 2018 alone, less than 2 months, there have been over 400
teens aged 12 through 17 and 90 children under the age of 11 killed or
injured by guns.
Yet the majority in this House even refuses to bring to the floor
legislation banning bump stocks, a reform agreed
[[Page H1282]]
upon by both sides of the aisle, I thought. The NRA has even said that
``devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully
automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.'' I don't
know if they meant it, but they said it.
President Trump: ``I will be strongly pushing comprehensive
background checks with an emphasis on mental health. Raise age to 21
and end sale of bump stocks. Congress is in a mood to finally do
something on this issue--I hope.''
Now, it is true that we have a President who is so erratic that he
changes his mind from one hour to the next, but so far, I haven't seen
a retraction tweet. So I have every reason to believe he is still
standing by his commitment to supporting these modest gun safety
reforms.
Yet here we are, just days after this horrific mass shooting, and not
one single gun reform or gun safety bill is being voted on or even
scheduled for a vote. I am furious that, in the face of such tragedy
and such senseless violence, this Congress continues to do nothing--not
a thing--to protect our kids and our families and our communities.
Students from Amherst Regional Middle School in my district in
Massachusetts sent me a letter last week that every Republican in
Congress should read.
They write: ``Seventeen innocent people lost their lives. . . . That
scares us. It scares us that kids have to go to school wondering if
they are next. That we even have to think that the next time we see
some of our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And
what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to do anything
to change this.''
They continue: ``They are gone because our country doesn't care
enough to have better gun control, and we will not stop fighting until
they get their justice. . . . We're writing this letter because we want
to personally ask each and every one of our politicians: How many more
killings must we bear before the laws are changed. . . . Our country is
no longer safe. Not in school, church, concerts, parties, or even
public meeting areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives
depend on your actions.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter written by these
students.
Dear Congressman McGovern: Seventeen innocent people lost
their lives on February 14th, 2018. That scares us. It scares
us that kids have to go to school wondering if they are next.
That we even have to think that the next time we see some of
our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And
what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to
do anything to change this. Please don't forget. About the
pain and suffering of all the families and the victims. About
the children fearing that their school is next. About all of
the lives that will never be lived. They are gone because our
country doesn't care enough to have better gun control, and
we will not stop fighting until they get their justice. And
that's why we wrote this letter. We're not writing it to get
some extra credit points or fame. We're writing this letter
because we want to personally ask each and every one of our
politicians; how many more killings must we bear before the
laws are changed and regulations are tightened. Before the
government cares for our safety. Before the lives that were
lost are never forgotten or regarded as yesterday's news. The
time to talk about gun-control is now. It is not next decade
or next year or even next week. It is now. Now is the time to
strengthen the process involved in conducting a complete
background check and lengthen the waiting period required in
order to receive a firearm. Please stand with us and all of
the of the students and children in our nation. Stand with
all of the families of the victims. Stand with the
tremendously brave people who lived through these terrifying
events. Stand with the heroes who saved countless lives, and
ended up losing their own. Our country is no longer safe. Not
in school, church, concerts, parties, or even public meeting
areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives depend
on your actions and support.
Sincerely,
Students at Amherst Regional
Middle School.
{time} 1200
Mr. McGOVERN. I cannot say it better than these students, Mr.
Speaker. These are young people writing to Congress begging us to do
something to end the violence. They are young people who want a better
future.
I would just ask my Republican friends: Are you so beholden to the
National Rifle Association that you could possibly turn your backs on
our country's young people? Can you really ignore these heartbreaking
pleas for action?
You know, a recent poll showed that 80 percent of Americans support
bans on assault-style weapons like the one used in the Florida school
shooting and 90 percent support tougher background checks. These are
commonsense reforms that have overwhelming support from the American
people. This should be a bipartisan issue that we could come together
on.
But I would say, even if you don't want to support what I think is
commonsense legislation and commonsense reform, understand that the
majority of the people in this country do support this and at least
bring these bills to the floor so that we could have a debate, and then
people can vote however they want to vote.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and these terrible bills
that help big banks, put consumers in our country at risk, and do
absolutely nothing to address the real priorities that we should be
tackling. It is long past time for Congress to finally do something to
stop these horrific mass shootings that are taking the lives of our
kids and our families.
Mr. Speaker, we could just have easily spent this afternoon debating
and approving one, or more, of any of the gun safety and gun reform
measures that have bipartisan support. We could have shown high school
and elementary students, our children, Mr. Speaker, that we heard them,
that we care about them, and that we are starting to take action.
Instead, we are debating these worthless bills to help big banks and
continue to ignore our children's suffering. Shame on this Congress,
Mr. Speaker, shame on all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a member of the Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Colorado for yielding me this time to speak on this rule.
I have to admit, I was a little confused when I walked in, based on
what I was hearing on the other side, of what bill we were actually
discussing. And let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, before I get into
why I am rising today in support of these important bills that have
bipartisan support.
Being someone who has been on the receiving end of being shot at, we
have to focus on how do we make our children safe. I think everybody in
this Chamber is deeply, deeply concerned on that. We have to assume the
next shooter is there and he already has a weapon, and the actions that
we take must be focused clearly on how do we make these children safe.
I don't think there is any person in this Chamber who would disagree
with that, and especially, I know, on our side of the aisle, so we are
committed to that.
But today, we are here speaking on a rule that is very important for
two substantive bills that we are bringing up, and I rise in support of
not only my bill, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, but also my
colleague, Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill, which we are also discussing here.
This week, the House is continuing to take up strongly bipartisan
bills from the Financial Services Committee. The committee has passed,
so far, Mr. Speaker, 91 bills in this Congress, and we have taken our
remarkable productivity to the floor by passing 36 bills out of this
Chamber, and six of them have been signed into law.
My bill, which we are beginning to debate here today, is another
strongly bipartisan bill which will provide regulatory relief for
financial institutions and increase access to capital and credit for
businesses and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, there is a historical trend for the government to
overregulate after an economic recession. The recovery from the
financial crisis of 2008 to 2009 was weak and slow for many reasons,
not least of which was overregulation of the financial sector by the
Dodd-Frank Act and the previous administration.
Some would argue that there is also a trend to underregulate during
good economic times like we are living in now. Some say that the
regulatory relief legislation that we passed out of
[[Page H1283]]
the Financial Services Committee will lead to abuses by big banks and
other financial institutions and cause another financial crisis.
But these bills will not cause the government to underregulate banks
and credit unions. They will simply implement smart regulation. In
other words, these bills do not gut or eliminate regulation. They
right-size regulation and make it more efficient.
Back in 1996, Congress did a good thing by passing the Economic
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or as we call it,
EGRPRA. EGRPRA requires the banking regulatory agencies to go back once
every 10 years--that is, once a decade--and review their regulations to
identify those that may be outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome,
and then they are to send a report to Congress. It also requires the
agencies to eliminate regulations if they determine they are
inappropriate.
Make no mistake, EGRPRA was a good idea back in 1996, and it is a
very valuable tool, but far too often EGRPRA regulatory reviews have
been viewed as merely a check-the-box exercise by these agencies and in
the financial sector. Many believe the two EGRPRA reports, which were
released in 2007 and then a decade later in 2017, were lackluster and
could have produced more useful recommendations to policymakers; and
under the current EGRPRA law, it will be another decade before we could
actually look at those regulations again.
EGRPRA could also result in more action from the regulators to clean
up outdated and unnecessary rules. That is why it is important for
Congress to revisit EGRPRA and to revitalize this law.
My bill contains several reforms to the EGRPRA review process that
will breathe new life into the law and make sure it is not simply a
check-the-box exercise for regulators. This bill will require more
frequent regulatory reviews by moving the review cycle from 10 to 7
years. It will expand EGRPRA to include all regulated financial
institutions instead of only the insured depository institutions. It
will expand EGRPRA to include the CFPB, and the bill will also codify
the National Credit Union Administration into EGRPRA, since the NCUA
participated in the latest review voluntarily.
The bill will also require the CFPB to use its findings from its
Dodd-Frank regulatory reviews and its EGRPRA reports so the CFPB does
not waste time on rules it has already reviewed. And most importantly,
this bill will require the agencies to tailor rules they find to be
unnecessary, outdated, or overly burdensome based on the size and risk
profile of the bank or credit union--that is, the regulators making the
determination, not the banks and not the institutions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I am wrapping up.
This bill passed out of the committee with a strong bipartisan vote
of more than two-thirds of the committee members, including all
Republicans and eight Democrats. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues, I mean, let's be
honest, the two bills that we are debating today are ``nothing
burgers.'' I mean, you know, I just figured this out. In the Rules
Committee, we have spent 43--43 percent of the bills that have come
before the Rules Committee have been financial service-related bills,
mostly to undercut Dodd-Frank and to reward big banks and powerful
special interests.
But, you know, we could debate that, but no matter what you think
about some of this legislation, most of it, I think, has been either,
you know, destructive to our economy or it doesn't add up to very much
of anything. But no matter what you think about it--and we could say
that banking issues are important--they are not as important as
protecting our kids.
I mean, 43 percent of the bills that have come before the Rules
Committee have basically been attempts to reward big corporations and
big financial institutions in this country. We have spent zero time,
zero percent of our time, discussing legislation to ban bump stocks. We
have spent zero percent of our time in the Rules Committee considering
legislation to strengthen and expand universal background checks. We
have spent zero percent of the time debating a bill to ban assault
weapons. We have spent zero percent of our time discussing how we can
restrict high-capacity magazines.
I can go on and on and on. We spent zero percent of our time on the
issue of guns, notwithstanding that we are seeing massacres occur on a
regular basis in this country. There is something wrong here, and, I
mean, we have the time; and if this were a priority, we would be
talking about some of this commonsense gun legislation today rather
than, as I said, these ``nothing burgers'' that are now before us.
Mr. Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, a gunman walked into a school in
Parkland, Florida, and gunned down 17 students and teachers.
Unfortunately, senseless acts of violence like that one are far too
common. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, every day, 96 Americans
are killed with guns; and every year, there are 13,000 gun homicides in
the United States.
With this most recent tragedy in Parkland, Americans have stood up
and said: Enough is enough. We have all been inspired by these eloquent
and passionate voices of these young students from Florida who have had
the guts to stand up and speak truth to power. But you know, Mr.
Speaker, according to a Quinnipiac poll from last week, over 90 percent
of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for gun
purchases; and according to a CNN poll from yesterday, over 70 percent
are in favor of stricter gun control laws generally.
The American people are clamoring for action on this issue, and we
have yet to do anything about it, not one thing. As I mentioned, all of
our time has been spent mostly on legislation to help the well-off and
the powerful in this country. We have not spent any time at all talking
about this issue of guns, which are killing our kids. But today, my
Republican colleagues have an opportunity to put the safety of our
children over the power of the gun lobby.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and
if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up three commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the
Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464,
the Background Check Completion Act; and H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence
Restraining Order Act.
These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale
background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a
completed background check, and ensure that people who are a danger to
themselves or others can be prevented from purchasing or possessing a
gun.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I ask my good friend from Massachusetts, in the revision
of his remarks, if he wouldn't just clear up one point. He had
mentioned that this Congress has not done anything in regard to gun
violence prevention, and while true, it is not completely accurate.
The fact of the matter is, this Congress is controlled by the
Republican Party. The Republican Party determines what bills go for a
hearing, what bills come up for a vote. So the fact is, this is a
Republican problem. They are the ones that are stopping commonsense gun
violence prevention legislation from coming up for a vote to make the
American people more safe.
Mr. Speaker, there are many important bills that this House could be
considering, but none more important than legislation that would save
lives
[[Page H1284]]
and prevent gun violence. There is no single bill, nor policy, that
will end gun violence in America, but we do know that background checks
work. Every day, background checks stop more than 170 felons, some 50
domestic abusers, and nearly 20 fugitives from buying a gun.
Unfortunately, those folks who were blocked from buying a gun from a
licensed dealer can go around the block, around the corner, or down the
street to a gun show or to an online site and get a gun, oftentimes the
same gun, without having to go through a background check.
There is a reason that 97 percent of Americans want to expand and
strengthen our background check system. Even the President has come out
and said that he is in support of this. I can't think of many things
that Americans agree on 90 percent of the time, but they do so on
background checks.
We have a bipartisan bill ready to go. H.R. 4240, both Democrats and
Republicans coauthoring that bill, the Public Safety and Second
Amendment Rights Protection Act, would help get more records into the
NICS system and would expand background checks to all commercial sales.
{time} 1215
We shouldn't have to wait for another mass shooting, and we shouldn't
have to wait for the 44th moment of silence. Let's act now. Oppose the
previous question and give us a vote on H.R. 4240.
How many more people have to die before Members of this body will
muster the courage to bring background check legislation that will help
to the floor of this House for a vote?
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions
and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the combined rule for H.R. 4296, my
bill that addresses difficulties with operational risk capital
requirements imposed on financial institutions, and H.R. 4607, the
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. Both of these bills are
commonsense reforms to regulation that will improve the efficiency of
our financial system. My legislation, H.R. 4296, will replace misguided
capital standards imposed by the international standard setters, the
Basel Committee.
The Basel Committee requires U.S. institutions to hold excessive
capital based on a ``look back'' approach of an organization's risks,
previous earnings, and other provisions that provide no indication of
future risks. The methodology employed by this international body has
forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve
rather than putting the money to work in the form of loans and
investments. That is money that could be used to fund mortgage loans,
car loans, and other day-to-day financing for American consumers.
I recognize the importance of our Nation's financial institutions to
hold capital in the event of a future crisis or distress, and H.R. 4296
maintains those capital requirements. As a former regulator, I can tell
you that it is important to have adequate capital to regard against
loss. But there is a sweet spot that needs to be attained, and
regulators can do that if you have proper regulation in place.
What this bill does is amend the method by which the reserve capital
is calculated by focusing standards based on an organization's current
business activities. This approach offers a better assessment of the
amount of capital that should be held to withstand any future crisis.
The methods-based approach proposed in H.R. 4296 properly calibrates
operational capital requirements. It maintains strong and healthy
financial institutions, while unshackling billions of dollars for
lending purposes.
The second bill we are discussing here today provides another
opportunity to advance a more practical approach to regulation. H.R.
4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, sponsored by Mr.
Loudermilk from Georgia, offers a holistic approach to U.S. prudential
financial regulation.
This bill requires all Federal financial agencies, including the CFPB
and National Credit Union Association, to participate in the Economic
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act's, or EGRPRA,
comprehensive review of rules and regulations. The purpose of the
review is to ensure that regulation is not overly burdensome,
duplicative, or outdated, while maintaining standards to promote safety
and soundness.
Additionally, H.R. 4607 requires the agencies to meet every 7 years
for a comprehensive regulatory evaluation, as opposed to the current
10-year cycle in statute.
I am hard pressed to think of a less controversial bill than this
one. Requiring regulators to review the impact of their actions on a
more frequent basis is a simple and straightforward way to improve
efficiency.
H.R. 4296 and H.R. 4607 have garnered bipartisan support, Mr.
Speaker, because they are practical solutions that will properly guide
supervisors to enforce more effective regulation. The result of these
modest bills will be the promotion of a vibrant and open economy that
works for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this
rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said at the outset. The rule we
are considering would make in order two Financial Services bills that I
think amount to ``nothing burgers,'' especially when compared to what
we should be doing in terms of protecting our communities and
protecting our kids from gun violence. That should take priority over
this.
We have young people from Florida here, going door to door, talking
to Members of Congress and Members of the Senate, begging us to do
something. And what are we going to consider is the Comprehensive
Regulatory Review Act, and then we are going to consider the
operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations.
I did a couple of townhall meetings over the weekend, and I can tell
my colleagues truthfully that nobody in the audience asked a question
about the operational risk capital requirements for banking
organizations. Nor did they bring up the need for us to rush ahead and
pass the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, but they did ask what we
are doing to protect their kids and to protect our schools.
We are living in a time when parents have to wonder when they send
their kids to school in the morning whether they will come back alive.
We are living in a time when going to the movie theater is a risk, when
going to a concert is a risk, or when going to church is a risk. This
is unacceptable, and people have had it.
I would say to my colleagues who are beholden to the National Rifle
Association: I get it. If you don't want to stand up to them, that is
fine, but don't stand in the way of this House having a debate on these
issues and having a vote. Let the American people see where everybody
stands, Democrats and Republicans alike.
It is unbelievable to me, in the aftermath of this tragedy, that we
are here talking about the operational risk capital requirements for
banking organizations, when we should be talking about strengthening
our background checks and expanding our background checks; when we
should be talking about banning bump stocks; when we should be talking
about dealing with high-capacity magazines; and when we should be
talking about banning assault weapons.
People don't have to vote for those things if they don't want to, but
I think that is what the American people want. You see it in the
polling data. I am hearing it when I go home and I talk in townhalls.
People are just frustrated that we are doing nothing. We hold moments
of silence, and that is about it. I think some in the NRA are hoping
that this is kind of business as usual. That we will have this terrible
tragedy, then, as time goes on, people will focus less and less on it,
the media will focus less and less on it, and then we will just kind of
move on.
I remember, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, there was
talk about banning bump stocks. The President said he thought that was
a good idea. Even the NRA did. Time went on, the focus went off of what
happened in
[[Page H1285]]
Las Vegas, and we did nothing. Maybe that is what some of my colleagues
are hoping for, is that time will pass and we will do nothing. But it
is such an abrogation of our duty and our responsibility, and I just
don't get it. I don't get it.
This is another closed rule that makes a mockery of regular order.
But what is even more disturbing to me is that we are prioritizing
banking issues over protecting our kids and our families, and I just
find that unconscionable.
I think the anger in this country is just growing more and more and
more. I have great hope that these young voices, not just those from
Parkland, Florida, but high school students all across this country,
who want a future where they don't have to worry about going to school,
their voices are getting louder and louder and louder, and they are not
going to cave and they are going to demand change. It is their future,
and they want us to give them a future where they feel safer and more
protected.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can bring up some commonsense gun safety legislation. Again, if
you don't want to vote for it, you can vote ``no,'' but we have to have
the debate.
I think that is what is particularly insulting to so many people
across this country who are frustrated with this House when it comes to
gun safety legislation, is that we don't even have the guts to have a
debate. We don't even bring it up. It is not a priority. I think we
have an opportunity now, if we defeat the previous question, to make it
a priority.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no''
vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close debate by reviewing a few basic truths.
In the aftermath of the financial meltdown last decade, Washington
embarked on a campaign to reduce the power of Wall Street over
Americans. In typical Washington fashion, we, instead, got a
monstrosity of a new regulatory infrastructure that has all but snuffed
out Main Street lenders. The plan to reduce Wall Street's influence
actually increased it.
This House--not the Senate, because the Senate has refused to act--
listened to the American people and passed the Financial CHOICE Act.
Instead of embarking on a campaign that hurt American people and
propped up Wall Street, we set out with one goal: increase the
financial freedom of Americans.
And we did that. We passed a bill that would make substantive changes
to our financial regulations to the betterment of Americans.
These bills before us today continue on that path. They recognize
that this government should work for all Americans, not just those who
can afford political connections.
Eastern Coloradans should know that I serve them and them alone. As
long as I have this responsibility to represent them, I will work to
reduce Washington's role in their life.
I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership on the Financial
CHOICE Act and these bills. I hope that he will remain engaged in this
effort as he commences the next chapter in his life at the end of this
Congress.
I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership in bringing this debate
to the floor today.
We must never yield in putting Americans first in our public policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 747 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4240) to protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that
all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a
firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, and provide a responsible and
consistent background check process. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 4240 the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3464) to prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm
prior to the completion of a background check. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3464 the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2598) to provide family members of an individual who they
fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others new tools to
prevent gun violence. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4240, H.R. 3464, or H.R. 2598.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
[[Page H1286]]
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________