[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 46 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1618-H1624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4061, FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT
COUNCIL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 4293, STRESS TEST IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 780 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 780
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4061) to
amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to improve the
transparency of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to
improve the SIFI designation process, 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 115-64, 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. 4293) to reform
the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review process, the
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test process, and for other purposes.
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 Rules Committee Print
115-63, 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. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. The rule makes in order two bills reported
favorably by the Committee on Financial Services. Both bills were the
subject of multiple hearings before the Committee on Financial
Services. Each bill was reported favorably by a bipartisan majority
without amendment. The rule adopts the only two amendments that were
offered to these bills.
Madam Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of being here on the
floor debating three financial services bills, and I am back with two
more today. Last night, the Senate took a significant step toward
joining the House in producing a banking reform bill. The negative
impacts of Dodd-Frank are enough to finally overcome even the Senate's
inertia.
[[Page H1619]]
Last year, the House Republicans passed our own plan to reform our
banking system and regulate financial institutions in a smarter way.
Ever since Dodd-Frank became law, our small town and community lenders
have been hamstrung by regulations intended for large Wall Street
banks.
As is usually the case, Washington did not regulate in a manner that
focused on bad actors or that differentiated between diverse financing
institutions. Instead, Federal regulators stamped out one-size-fits-all
regulations that have had negative impacts on our local community banks
and credit unions.
Under the House Republican plan, we correct this wrongheaded approach
by forcing regulators to take into account the size and risk profiles
of smaller institutions. The Financial CHOICE Act ensures the security
of our financial institutions without creating a too-big-to-fail
government support system and encouraging local banks and credit unions
to invest in our communities.
Over the past few months, we have put various components of the
Financial CHOICE Act on the floor in order to demonstrate to the Senate
that there is a bipartisan pathway forward on many of our proposals. We
continue that effort today.
The first bill that is made in order by this rule is H.R. 4061, the
Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act. This bill
enhances transparency and procedural equity of the nonbank systemically
important financial institution designation process.
Under Dodd-Frank, systemically important financial institutions were
intended to be large banks whose collapse would bring about enormous
financial upheaval; however, in the hands of regulators, certain
insurance companies and asset managers were designated as systemically
important. This was not Congress' intent when allowing regulators to
designate nonbanks as systemically important.
The bill before us today will not roll back the ability of regulators
to determine that a large nonbank financial institution is systemically
important, but it will ensure the process for designating the nonbank
as transparent. It also forces regulators to consider other possible
regulatory fixes before designating a nonbank as systemically
important.
{time} 1230
Well, this is all well and good. But what does this mean for
Coloradans and other Americans?
In 2014, the life insurer MetLife was designated as a systemically
important financial institution by regulators. By 2016, MetLife had
prevailed in court and had their designation overturned.
What was revealed was how arbitrary and capricious the designation
process seemed to be. Regulators never clarified what level of risk
would be acceptable, nor did they clearly identify particular types of
financial products or business activities that would result in too much
risk.
So life insurers and others were left wondering how to avoid the
important designation. Being designated would not only increase
compliance costs and consume resources that could not be invested into
the business, it also would have forced the financial company to limit
the options they made available to their customers.
So we see the vicious cycle of overregulation play out again: less
growth and fewer choices.
Fortunately, in the case referenced above, the courts stepped in
early and halted the process. However, we have the opportunity now to
bring about reforms to the designation process that protect Americans
from losing access to financial products that serve them well.
When we talk about Washington picking winners and losers, look no
further than Dodd-Frank and the systemically important financial
institution designation. Let's put an end to these opaque regulatory
decisions and allow light to shine on financial regulators.
Madam Speaker, the second bill that this bill makes in order is H.R.
4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act.
The Federal Reserve determines the ability of bank holding companies
to withstand certain types of economic turmoil. These determinations
have become known as stress tests.
These stress tests have become notorious for their vague rules and
the secrecy by which the regulators conduct the tests. Bank compliance
officers are often stuck trying to figure on what exactly their bank is
going to be examined. Banks not only do not know what they are going to
be tested on, they often never know what they were tested on after the
stress test is conducted.
Frankly, technocrat regulators playing ``hide the ball'' from
Americans that they are regulating seems like a system of government
wholly unlike our own.
A professor from Columbia University testified before the House
Committee on Financial Service that: ``It is hard to believe that the
stress tests' current structure could occur in a country like the
United States, which prizes the rule of law and adherence to due
process.''
Former Senator Phil Gramm testified before a Senate panel and said
the following: ``What does the stress test test? Not only does no one
know, but the regulators see that as a virtue. The Fed's vice chairman
has stated that giving banks a clear road map for compliance might make
it `easier to game the test.' But isn't the fact that compliance is
easier when you know what the law says the whole point of the rule of
law?''
The Stress Test Improvement Act inserts much-needed transparency into
the testing process. It alters current regulations to make the
internal, company-run test an annual exercise. It also streamlines the
number of scenarios on which a bank may be tested, while ensuring that
banks are still tested on whether they are able to withstand a
seriously adverse scenario.
Dodd-Frank was born out of an effort to prevent another collapse of
our financial institutions like we experienced in 2008. Unfortunately,
the broad brush stroke regulatory regime that it produced has had many
unintended consequences.
Hardest hit were our small community banks and credit unions.
However, there were also unforeseen negative impacts on larger
financial institutions as well.
The bills made in order by this rule restructure portions of Dodd-
Frank that have resulted in unreasonable regulation of our financial
institutions. They preserve consumer protections while providing the
certainty needed to reduce compliance costs and expand the ability of
these organizations to provide the best and safest financial services
to Americans.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and the
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30
minutes for debate.
Madam Speaker, today's bills would roll back important consumer and
financial protections by undermining the effectiveness of financial
regulators' ability to conduct important stress tests, create
unnecessary hurdles for regulators to contend with in the future, and
limit the Federal Reserve Board's flexibility in determining the health
and stability of our financial institutions.
Madam Speaker, including these two measures, the Rules Committee will
have considered 30 Financial Services bills this Congress, 15 of which
were considered under closed rules. Those 15 are part of a much larger
closed process that Republican leadership has wielded with brute force
to push through the legislative priorities of powerful special
interests. Indeed, this week, we witnessed the 73rd closed rule for
this Congress, a style of legislating that is as brazen as it is
broken.
This critique of the majority's reliance on a closed process is not
just some technical point, but, rather, an important one; because when
you close out those on your side of the aisle who are not in leadership
and those on our side of the aisle from offering amendments, you do not
simply silence us, you silence the American people.
And what has this process wrought for the American people?
Well, let's take a look. Bear with me because it is a doozy
First, we witnessed the majority--in what I believe was the most
chaotic and convoluted process during my 25 years in the House of
Representatives--try to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans.
[[Page H1620]]
When they couldn't get that done, the majority then honed in on a tax
giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy not only at the
expense of the middle class, but also to the detriment of future
generations, as that bill will explode our national debt by an
estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Just last week, we watched as our Republican friends attacked Clean
Air Act protections to give a handout to specified industries to emit
more pollution into the air.
Is this what my Republican friends were sent here to do: To take away
healthcare from millions of people? To remove important environmental
protections that keep America's air and water safe? To limit the amount
of stress tests the Federal Reserve Board should run on our biggest
financial institutions so that we can avoid another financial meltdown?
Footnote right there. If these stress tests are so bothersome to
these big old banks, how is it that they are making all of this big old
money?
They don't seem to have any hindrance when it comes to sopping up the
resources of this country.
Madam Speaker, my constituents haven't been calling me or writing or
emailing my office asking that we consider or pass any of the measures
the House will consider this week. On the other hand, they have written
to my office asking what Republican leadership is going to do about
addressing the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country. I was
meeting in my office just an hour ago with officials from Tamarac,
Florida, and we received an alert that two schools near the Parkland
school were on lockdown.
My constituents have asked about what Republican leadership will do
to ensure that the DACA recipients have a pathway to citizenship. They
have asked what Republican leadership will do to address our Nation's
needs for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the answer is little to nothing.
Footnote right there. When I came to this Congress 25 years ago,
there were 14,000 bridges in the United States of America in need of a
repair. Today, there are 56,000 bridges in this country in need of
repair.
Madam Speaker, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings
in America. Let me let that soak in. Since 2014, there have been over
1,360 mass shootings in America.
In 2018 alone, nearly 500 teens and over 100 children have been
killed or injured by guns. Last month, 14 students and 3 teachers were
gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by a former student
using an AR-15 that he bought legally.
And just 2 days ago, American citizens took to the grounds of this
Capitol and placed 7,000 pairs of shoes on the front lawn here at the
Capitol. Citizens placed a pair of shoes for every child killed by gun
violence since the Sandy Hook massacre. Regardless of your views on
this subject, please let that number sink in: 7,000 pairs of shoes.
Madam Speaker, we should not be considering a bill to reform the
Financial Stability Oversight Council. We should not be considering a
measure that limits the frequency of stress tests on our financial
institutions.
What we should be doing is considering a ban on bump stocks. We
should be considering a ban on weapons of war. We should be considering
protective orders allowing people to petition a court to temporarily
remove firearms from an individual in crisis.
We should be considering a measure to provide for comprehensive
background checks, and maybe this time try not to sabotage it by
attaching a controversial concealed carry provision to the measure.
Madam Speaker, the Republican majority is also ignoring the plight of
22,000 Dreamers who have lost their protected status since President
Trump ended DACA, and the other hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who
remain in legal limbo. Every day, 120 of them lose their status.
Madam Speaker, 25 times--25 times--House Republicans blocked a vote
on the bipartisan Dream Act, which protects innocent Dreamers from this
cruel Republican inaction. Every day of inaction on the part of my
friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly
made to live under the threat of being torn apart.
Madam Speaker, all across America, our infrastructure is in need of
repair and greater investment. Every Member in the House of
Representatives likely received a visit from members of the National
League of Cities around the United States of America, and every one of
them is talking about infrastructure needs. Every one of them. Yet the
Republican majority has stalled on presenting a single infrastructure
bill.
Even President Donald John Trump's infrastructure plan faces an
obstacle: his own budget cuts.
President Trump claimed the Federal Government was investing $1.5
trillion to our infrastructure, but, in reality, the White House's plan
actually only proposed $200 billion in Federal funding. At the same
time, he proposed slashing critical infrastructure funding to the
Department of Transportation by nearly 20 percent, and the Army Corps
of Engineers' budget by 22 percent.
How does that work, Madam Speaker?
The truth is, it doesn't.
Madam Speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long and
an ocean wide. I suggest the following: that we stop being forced to
spend our time checking off items on the wish lists of powerful
corporate special interests, and we turn to the business of the
American people--Republican and Democrat, independent, conservative,
and liberal American people.
For starters, we could work together to end our country's gun
violence epidemic, bring relief to DACA recipients, and bring thought-
out and serious legislation to the floor that will invest in our
infrastructure.
{time} 1245
Now, I am sure that my friend is either thinking or likely to say
that we are here about financial services measures, and he is correct.
That is what these rules call for. But what these rules are about, in
the final analysis, is a diversion from things that we know are more
critical.
Why, then, are we not dealing with prioritized matters that we know
that the American people want, rather than those that the corporate
greedy, needy, big old businesses want?
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Zeldin), the sponsor of H.R. 4293.
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck) for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important rule and in
support of the two underlying bipartisan bills that will improve our
banking system and help grow our Nation's economy: H.R. 4293, the
Stress Test Improvement Act of 2017; and H.R. 4061, the Financial
Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017.
These are two essential pieces of legislation that cleared the
Committee on Financial Services with bipartisan support.
I am the sponsor of the Stress Test Improvement Act, alongside the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), my Democratic colleague.
Stress tests are one of the aspects of current law that are
contributing to the climate of legal and regulatory uncertainty because
the Federal Reserve has failed to provide the necessary transparency
around this process.
This bipartisan bill will inject transparency, consistency, and
fairness into the stress testing process. Without needed reform, rather
than ensuring financial stability, the Federal Reserve's stress tests
are likely missing real risks while constraining the competitive flow
of financial services that is critical to increasing economic
opportunity.
While a valuable resource, stress test results may be creating a
false sense of security, while at the same time sowing the seeds of
financial instability. In order to succeed, a stress test must build
from an accurate forecast of the next macroeconomic storm; and even the
best forecasts tend to be wrong.
This is a bipartisan bill that was amended in the committee markup
with unanimous support of every committee member, including the ranking
member. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David
Scott) that we accepted focused
[[Page H1621]]
the bill on core reforms to the stress testing process that will make
the rules more transparent, effective, and fair.
We are not gutting standards, but making them work for the real
world. This bill is a bipartisan team effort to accomplish those goals.
So is the other bill covered by this rule, the FSOC Improvement Act.
Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I urge the passage
of both of these important bills.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it has been one month since the tragic events at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The district
that I am privileged to serve is adjacent to that school, and I have
two of my remaining cousins in life that live in Parkland, and I live
within 30 minutes of where that school is situated.
A gunman killed 17 innocent students and teachers. Since that
heartbreaking day, Americans from coast to coast have raised their
voices and said: Enough is enough.
Yesterday, thousands of students from across our country walked out
of their classrooms to protest this body's inaction. Two days ago, as I
said earlier, 7,000 empty pairs of children's shoes were laid on the
Capitol lawn to commemorate all the children who have been tragically
killed by gun violence since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting. I might add, not only at schools, but in Nevada, in
California, in Texas, in South Carolina, in churches, in Orlando bars,
these mass shootings are occurring. People don't think it is an
epidemic.
My friends on the other side of the aisle did bring a bill to the
floor yesterday that I voted for that was also cojoined by my friend,
Ted Deutch, whose district is where the Parkland school is. He, too,
was involved with that legislation, but it was done to improve school
security. Much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.
So, today, I offer my colleagues yet another opportunity to show the
American people that they value their safety and the safety of their
children over the lobbying of the National Rifle Association and the
gun manufacturers.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the
Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464,
the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence
Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research 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, ensure that people who are a danger to
themselves or to others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and
lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on
causes of gun violence.
Let me send a message to gun owners in this country. I own a gun. I
believe in the Second Amendment. I don't want anybody to take anybody's
gun; but nobody can persuade me that anybody, other than military and
police officers, are deserving of having in their possession automatic
weapons. I believe every American feels the same way.
Madam 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my very good friend that I knew before we
came to Congress together, and the distinguished assistant Democratic
leader.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, this rule fails to make in order four significant
measures to address the gun violence epidemic that is plaguing our
Nation.
In addition to closing the gun show and internet sale loopholes in
the background check system, lifting the prohibition on Federal
research into gun violence, and creating a process to prevent dangerous
individuals from having firearms, the amendment includes my legislation
to close the Charleston loophole, which allows gun sales to be
completed even if FBI investigations are still going on to determine
the outcome of a background check.
The tragic consequences of this loophole were demonstrated on June
17, 2015, when a hate-filled gunman opened fire at the historic Emanuel
A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine and injuring
three others. In that fateful instance, the shooter attempted to buy a
firearm on April 11 and was initially delayed due to possible red flags
in his criminal record.
Despite the investigation not being completed in 3 days, he was
allowed to purchase the weapon. The FBI later discovered the shooter
would not have been allowed to purchase the firearm due to his
documented history of drug abuse had they been able to complete the
background check.
Madam Speaker, the consequences are too great to allow loopholes like
these to persist. We have laws on the books to prohibit dangerous
individuals like the shooter in Charleston from buying weapons, but
these loopholes prevent them from being enforced. Thousands of weapons
are sold each year through the Charleston loophole alone. In fact, I
read that over 6,000 such weapons have been sold through this loophole.
I appreciate that many of my colleagues have signaled they are
supportive of improving the background check system, but no amount of
improvement will protect the American people if all the loopholes are
allowed to exist.
For almost 3 years, the people of Charleston, South Carolina, and
across the country have been demanding a vote from this House on
closing the Charleston loophole. They have yet to get one.
I urge my colleagues to allow this body to take a vote on closing
this loophole and giving the American people the protections they need
and deserve. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no''
vote on the rule.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Ross), the sponsor of H.R. 4061.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and my underlying
legislation, H.R. 4061, the Financial Stability Oversight Council
Improvement Act of 2017.
Madam Speaker, when folks back home save for retirement, college, or
a down payment on a house, they expect that the system is both safe and
geared towards maximizing their benefit.
A beautiful thing about America's free enterprise system is how
anyone can participate in the marketplace, strengthen the economy, and
earn a dividend of the American Dream. That opportunity, however, is
not guaranteed, and, as lawmakers, we have a duty to protect it.
My bill will help us do just that by improving the Financial
Stability Oversight Council's process for reviewing nonbank financial
institutions for potential systemic threats. We must be clear that
simply designating more companies as systemically important financial
institutions doesn't make our system safer.
The FSOC can better serve the American people by working with
prudential regulators and the private sector to address threats to our
economy before they transform into calamities.
Would you say it is sufficient for firefighters just to identify a
house that is on fire?
Of course not. The key is preventing the fire in the first place.
This is the problem that we face with the FSOC's oversight of nonbank
financial institutions. The FSOC may be able to identify tinderboxes,
but fails to explain how they might be made less flammable, and,
instead, the Council defaults to what should be the heavyhanded
regulations of last resort.
To be sure, the FSOC has begun to recognize the benefits of
leveraging the expertise of prudential regulators, as well as providing
increased transparency. In recent years, they have taken steps to
improve the designation process, including the February 2015 guidance
providing increased transparency in the nonbank SIFI designation
process.
These 2015 reforms were welcome, and this legislation will codify
many of
[[Page H1622]]
them into law, as well as provide a path for a nonbank financial
company to eliminate risk rather than be designated.
Importantly, our legislation will ensure a company's primary
regulator has a meaningful role in the SIFI designation process. After
8 years, if we don't take steps to address the obvious shortcomings of
the FSOC, like the nonbank designation process, the regulator intended
to protect financial stability could very well become a liability.
The American Action Forum has found that additional capital
requirements resulting from a SIFI designation of asset management
firms could affect American retirees in the amount of at least $100,000
in potential savings over the lifetime of their investments.
That is why these reforms included in H.R. 4061 are critical to the
more than 90 million investors who rely on the services of asset
management firms to achieve their most important financial goals.
Companies must have a chance to de-risk before the FSOC can saddle
their customers with such extraordinary losses. This bill will give
them that opportunity. I am proud to have worked with my colleague and
friend across the aisle, Representative John Delaney, on this strongly
bipartisan piece of legislation. I want to thank Chairman Hensarling
for his support and leadership in moving this bill through our
committee and onto the House floor.
This bill has 58 original cosponsors: 29 Democrats, 29 Republicans.
Our bill demonstrates that there can be broad bipartisan support for
increased transparency of the FSOC designation process.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and
the underlying bill.
{time} 1300
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Carbajal), a member of the Armed Services and Budget
Committees of this House of Representatives.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the
bipartisan Gun Violence Restraining Order Act.
After the Parkland, Florida shooting tragically took the lives of 17
students and educators, students across the country have stood up and
said: Enough is enough. They have demanded that Congress act to prevent
these horrific acts of violence.
Since Parkland, NRA officials, Republican lawmakers, and even the
President have repeatedly said that we need to disarm individuals who
pose a threat to themselves or their community--those posting on social
media or telling friends and family that they plan to take lives with a
gun.
GVRO laws do just that. That is why California passed these
protections after the shooting at UCSB's Isla Vista. And now Florida is
considering similar legislation in the wake of the Parkland shooting.
Only a handful of States currently have legal processes to
temporarily remove those firearms. The GVRO Act encourages other States
to follow their lead to empower family members or law enforcement
officials to petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from an
individual in crisis. No one law will be a panacea, but that is not an
excuse for inaction.
Since its introduction, the GVRO Act has gained significant support
from my colleagues in the majority. Madam Speaker, we are calling on
Speaker Ryan to bring the bipartisan GVRO Act to the floor for a vote.
Our children's lives depend on it.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my colleague who represents my home area
that I was born in, a member of the Armed Services and Small Business
Committees.
Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, America has always been a nation of problem-solvers.
When our country is confronted with a seemly impossible challenge, we
tackle it head-on. We conduct research, we examine evidence, and we
perform studies, and we don't quit until we have made meaningful
progress.
From reducing automobile and aviation deaths to eradicating deadly
diseases, we always rise to the challenge. In each case, a serious
problem was claiming too many lives; and American determination, based
on rigorous research, helped solve or mitigate that problem.
However, there is one place where we have deviated from this proud
American tradition and abandoned an evidence-based approach to
addressing our Nation's most pressing challenges, and that is when it
comes to the problem of gun violence.
Homicides in this country occur as a part of the daily drumbeat of
violence in our communities. They also take place in the context of
mass shootings, like the recent tragedies at Pulse and Parkland, where
a single individual transformed a place of life into a war zone.
Let me be clear. Gun violence is a plague upon this Nation and must
be treated like the public health crisis it is.
Instead of confronting this problem with courage and candor, Congress
has cowered in fear. For over 20 years, a single sentence, known as the
Dickey amendment, has been added to the annual bill that funds the CDC
and other Federal agencies.
We can debate the exact meaning of the Dickey amendment, what it does
and does not allow, but the reality is that federally sponsored
research on ways to reduce gun violence has come to a grinding halt.
I introduced a bipartisan bill to repeal the Dickey amendment, and it
currently has 170 cosponsors. There are many steps that we can take
right now to protect our communities and our children, while respecting
the Second Amendment.
One of these steps should be to empower our Nation to fund
independent, unbiased gun violence research that will lead to policies
that save lives. It is the right and patriotic thing to do.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I would advise the previous speaker that I knew Jay
Dickey, I served with him here, as did many other Members; and my
understanding is that, before his death, he indicated that he thought
that his measure that has carried forth was a mistake.
Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle have clearly demonstrated
where their priorities lie. And for the benefit of the American public,
if it looks like we are ships passing in the night, then doubtless we
are when it comes to priorities.
I would ask anyone in this country and anyone in this House: Which do
you think should be a priority? Addressing the gun epidemic in this
country or bailing out big old banks with more opportunities to
potentially carry us to yet another financial disaster by simply
disallowing them having to undergo the stress test that they need?
I listened to my friend when he talked about stress tests, that they
don't know how they are going to be tested or what part they are going
to--well, my goodness gracious. Kids in school don't know what is going
to be on the test; so why should the bank know what is going to be on
the test?
But in the deal, when it goes down, whether they know or not, they
still are making a ton of money; and, therefore, the regulations aren't
affecting them in the way that we make it sound here. And there again,
I ask the question: Which is your priority, America? Whether we address
gun violence in this country and the epidemic that it is or whether we
address these financial services regulatory measures that are more for
corporate America than they are for you?
Americans working hard to make ends meet need answers--working hard
to get their kids off to school, working hard to make sure they can put
food on the table at the end of the day, working hard to ensure that
they can put a little money aside for their child's education, working
hard to ensure that they can put some retirement money aside.
Footnote there. What are we doing to protect the pensions of people
in this country? We are not addressing that. We are addressing big
banks.
[[Page H1623]]
That they don't have to keep working two or three jobs for the rest
of their lives, that is what Americans are looking for.
Well, if they are working hard, then we need to be working hard, and
we need to be working hard for them. It is with their interests in mind
that we are sent here, and we do a disservice to them and to our
country when we abandon that responsibility and consider bills like
those put before us today rather than addressing the many, many needs
that this country has.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his support of the STOP
School Violence Act yesterday, along with 406 of our colleagues; that
passed overwhelmingly.
Madam Speaker, Dodd-Frank unleashed a torrent of regulation on our
financial institutions. While it is understandable that people reacted
strongly after the 2008 crisis, most of the Federal response heaped
needless red tape onto our banks and credit unions.
Much of this red tape has, at best, done nothing to improve the
security of financial customers and, at worst, deprived Americans of
crucial capital and financial products.
It is important that we rein in the Federal Government and allow our
financial institutions to invest their resources in our communities.
These two bills today continue the regulatory reforms that the House
has advanced since last year.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Sessions for
bringing these bills to the floor today. I urge support of the rule and
the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 780 Offered by Mr. Hastings
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. Immediately after the disposition of H.R. 2598, 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.
1478) To repeal the provision that in practice prohibits the
Department of Health and Human Services from sponsoring
research on gun violence in fiscal year 2017, and for other
purposes. 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
Energy and Commerce. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4240, H.R. 3464, H.R. 2598, or H.R.
1478.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
[[Page H1624]]
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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Walorski). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam 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.
____________________