[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.

                          ____________________