[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     comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or 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.

                          ____________________