[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1712-H1718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ALLEVIATING STRESS TEST BURDENS TO HELP INVESTORS ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 787, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4566) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain 
stress test requirements under such Act, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 787, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 115-65, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4566

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Alleviating Stress Test 
     Burdens to Help Investors Act''.

     SEC. 2. STRESS TEST RELIEF FOR NONBANKS.

       Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``and nonbank 
     financial companies''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``are regulated by a 
     primary Federal financial regulatory agency'' and inserting: 
     ``whose primary financial regulatory agency is a Federal 
     banking agency or the Federal Housing Finance Agency'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``Each Federal primary 
     financial regulatory agency'' and inserting ``Each Federal 
     banking agency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) SEC and cftc.--The Securities and Exchange Commission 
     and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may each issue 
     regulations requiring financial companies with respect to 
     which they are the primary financial regulatory agency and 
     that have total consolidated assets of more than 
     $10,000,000,000 to conduct periodic analyses of the financial 
     condition, including available liquidity, of such companies 
     under adverse economic conditions.''.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council under 
     section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5330).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 115-613, as 
modified by the order of the House of today, if offered by the Member 
designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall be 
separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4566, the Alleviating 
Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Poliquin), one of the most hardworking, enthusiastic, cheerful members 
of the House Financial Services Committee for all the work that he has 
done to advance this very strong piece of bipartisan legislation, 
which, incidentally, passed the Financial Services Committee again with 
another strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.
  Now, the financial crisis led to questions, both domestically and 
internationally, about how to address financial stability and create a 
regulatory framework to mitigate systemic risk, all the while ensuring 
robust economic growth.
  At the heart of this bill of the gentleman from Maine is a 
recognition that our economy can suffer when we get it wrong, when 
government attempts to dictate the business models and operational 
objectives of so many of our businesses. It is also a recognition that 
one-size-fits-all regulations can stifle economic growth and ultimately 
harm consumers and harm our constituents.
  Current bank-centric standards and assessments to nonbank industries, 
such as the asset management industry, have needlessly saddled Main 
Street investors with increased costs while they are trying to save for 
college or retirement or some other important need, and this is perhaps 
no clearer than in this stress testing regime.
  As a former SEC chief economist observed in 2016, who said that, in 
the current law, ``stress test the big banks; and, oh, you might as 
well go ahead and do the asset management companies.'' That is his take 
of what the law says.
  In other words, asset management firms that, again, our constituents 
depend upon for their retirement security or for their financial 
planning are now subject to bank regulations simply because they 
operate under the financial services umbrella, even though such firms 
plainly have legal, structural, and operational characteristics that 
make them very, very different from banks.
  By the way, none of the asset managers had anything to do with the 
financial crisis that brought about the legislation that we are 
debating in the first place. For example, unlike banks, asset managers 
do not have access to the deposit insurance fund or the Fed's discount 
window.
  If that is not enough for you, Mr. Speaker, here is more. Asset 
managers are legally separated--legally separated from the funds they 
manage, meaning that the asset and liabilities of the manager are 
distinct from the assets and liabilities of the funds.
  On the other hand, the bank business model directly subjects the bank 
to the risks and obligations of its assets and liabilities. Again, 
applying a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure--in this case, a 
bank-centric model--is not only bad for the asset management industry, 
but, far more importantly, for our constituents that they serve, who 
choose to save and invest.
  Registered funds are the investment vehicle choices for millions of 
Americans seeking to buy a home, pay for college, plan for financial 
security and retirement. Application of unnecessary, ill-suited, bank-
centric stress testing requirements to register funds

[[Page H1713]]

and advisers will undoubtedly increase cost for these funds and 
advisers, and, ultimately, this gets passed on to investors without any 
corresponding benefits that we can discern.
  The recent asset management and insurance report issued by the 
Department of Treasury confirms these concerns. The bill of the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) would fix this unequal regulatory 
structure by exempting certain nonbank financial institutions that have 
not been designated for supervision by the Federal Reserve Board from 
the act's stress testing requirement.
  Further, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for recognizing the 
underlying need for this relief and for working with Mr. Poliquin to 
offer an amendment during markup that allows the SEC and the CFTC to 
issue regulations to require certain financial companies they supervise 
to conduct periodic analysis of the financial condition of such 
companies under adverse economic conditions.
  The approach is common sense. It is not one size fits all. It 
recognizes that the primary regulator of nonbank financial companies is 
better suited than a bank regulator to determine whether these stress 
tests might be useful to address risk. And it recognizes that, as a 
general matter, stress testing asset managers is difficult and often 
needless.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this great 
bipartisan legislation. I believe we have an amendment forthcoming from 
the ranking member, which I expect our side of the aisle to support. I 
am led to believe that, with the adoption of her amendment, she would 
support the underlying bill. I hope that proves to come to fruition, in 
which case we can have a very strong bipartisan vote on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4566, the so-called Alleviating 
Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, which would make it harder 
for regulators to identify and mitigate hidden systemic risks at 
nonbank financial companies before they undermine our economy.
  Last Wednesday marked 10 years since global investment bank Bear 
Stearns imploded as a result of its failure to manage risk associated 
with its highly leveraged balance sheet and exposure to the subprime 
mortgage market. American taxpayers were forced to come to the rescue 
to prevent the firm's collapse from spreading to other overleveraged 
Wall Street institutions.
  The demise of Bear Stearns was the canary in the coal mine for the 
ensuing financial crisis, which ravaged the United States economy, 
destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, and put millions of Americans 
out of their jobs and their homes.
  Democrats responded to the 2008 financial crisis by passing the Dodd-
Frank Act, which, among other reforms, required rigorous stress tests 
of the Nation's largest financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act also 
gave the Federal Reserve Board the discretion to quickly intervene and 
stress-test firms that could pose financial stability risk.
  If regular stress testing had been conducted on firms like Bear 
Stearns from 2006 to 2008, it might have revealed major threats to the 
economy sooner, giving both the companies and Federal financial 
regulators a better chance to take remedial action to avoid a 
catastrophic near collapse of the global financial system.
  H.R. 4566 would eliminate the Federal Reserve's authority to stress-
test nonbank financial companies, even in situations where the firm's 
designation as systemically important is pending before the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council, FSOC.
  Additionally, the bill would weaken the Dodd-Frank mandate that large 
financial companies under the SEC and CFTC's purview conduct internal 
stress tests to determine the company's ability to withstand a 
recession.
  Combined, these rollbacks would allow the Bear Stearns of the world 
to take on increasing amounts of risk while regulators are tied up in 
lengthy administrative processes.
  As former SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated in a December 2014 speech: 
``Stress testing is an important tool routinely used by banking 
regulators. Implementing this new mandate in asset management, while 
relatively novel, will help market participation and the Commission 
better understand the potential impact of stress events.''
  I agree with Chair White's comments about the importance of stress 
testing and think that it simply does not make sound public policy to 
eliminate this tool.
  Members of the asset management industry have also recognized that 
stress testing is critical to effectively managing risk. In a 2015 
letter to the SEC, the Asset Management Group of the Securities 
Industry and Financial Markets Association, that is SIFMA AMG, whose 
members manage more than $30 trillion in assets, wrote: ``Stress 
testing is one part of an effective and coherent risk management 
process for asset managers, the objective of which is not to test for 
solvency or capital adequacy, but to complement other approaches in 
assessing investment risk.''
  In fact, in a 2015 survey of SIFMA AMG members, nearly two-thirds of 
the asset managers surveyed reported that they already stress-test 
their funds. It seems imprudent that Congress would repeal a 
requirement for large interconnected hedge funds that may have 15-to-1 
leverage to periodically determine whether they could withstand a down 
economy.
  Moreover, given how rapidly failures at large nonbank financial 
companies can spread across the highly interconnected financial system, 
regulators must be able to quickly identify problems that could 
undermine U.S. financial stability. The Federal Reserve should continue 
to have the discretionary authority to step in to identify and mitigate 
systemic risk at any financial company whose failure could pose a 
threat to our economy.
  H.R. 4566 appears to ignore that nonbank financial companies like 
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG played a central role in the 
financial crisis. When these firms collapsed as a result of their 
failure to mitigate their own internal risk, their losses sent 
shockwaves throughout the banking system.
  Stress testing these kinds of nonbank financial institutions provides 
a valuable early warning system for our economy and gives both the 
companies and regulators a chance to correct problems before they have 
catastrophic effects on our financial stability. That is why I intend 
to offer an amendment that, if adopted, would restore the Fed's 
discretionary authority to stress test any nonbank, provided that the 
test meet certain conditions, including approval by a majority of FSOC 
members. It would also allow the Fed to use alternatives to capital, as 
appropriate, when stress-testing systemically important nonbanks and 
broaden the SEC's and CFTC's authority to require internal testing for 
entities under their purview.
  This amendment would ensure that large financial institutions, like 
investment companies that manage trillions of dollars of hardworking 
Americans' retirement savings, can be appropriately evaluated for their 
ability to survive in a stressed economy.
  While I oppose H.R. 4566 in its current form, I would support an 
amended version of the bill that preserves the bill's ability to 
identify and mitigate future systemic risk at nonbanks before they lead 
to another crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time, and I thank the chairman for moving this very important piece of 
legislation through our committee, the Financial Services 
Committee, and onto the floor.

  This is a commonsense bill, Mr. Speaker, that I encourage everybody, 
Republicans and Democrats, to support, H.R. 4566.
  Throughout the great State of Maine and across America, Mr. Speaker, 
we have millions and millions of small

[[Page H1714]]

savers and small investors who are planning for their retirement or for 
the college education for their kids or their grandkids.
  The people of Maine, Mr. Speaker, are the most honest and hardworking 
folks you can find anywhere, and every week thousands and thousands of 
Maine families are setting aside small parts of their paychecks into an 
IRA or a 401(k) plan so they will have enough money for their 
retirement, or setting aside small amounts of money for their son or 
their daughter to attend a college, a community college, a university, 
or a technical school.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, almost 55 percent of all American families, about 
100 million of our fellow Americans, entrust these savings to mutual 
funds and other pension advisers such that they are able to grow and to 
provide them with a larger nest egg down the road.
  These asset managers, Mr. Speaker, are currently operating under the 
uncertainty of whether or not they will be subjected to very costly 
and, in many cases, unnecessary stress test regulations which are 
designed for large money center banks with very different functions in 
our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, when a bank takes in deposits from its customers, it is 
obligated to return those deposits and, hopefully, with interest. Now, 
it is important that those banks have enough reserves to make sure 
that, during a recession, they are able to meet those obligations. For 
many of these banks, stress testing does make sense.
  However, Mr. Speaker, mutual fund and other asset managers perform a 
very different function. If one invests for their retirement or their 
college savings, their goal is to grow that nest egg, but it is not 
guaranteed to be the case by the asset managers who are performing that 
job. In effect, Mr. Speaker, these asset managers of mutual funds serve 
as an agent for the investor and the small saver, with no liability to 
return these savings in full; but, of course, they take the risk for a 
better return down the road.
  Now, if you do have a huge money center bank with tentacles running 
throughout the economy and that bank fails, it could represent a 
systemic risk to our economy. But investors in a poorly performing 
mutual fund are simply able to switch their account to a better 
performing mutual fund house in order for a better return down the road 
with no systemic risk to the economy, in part, Mr. Speaker, because the 
assets themselves are held at a bank custodian. They are not even held 
at the mutual fund company or at the asset management firm.
  Now, my bill, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4566, exempts most nonbank financial 
institutions, like mutual funds, from costly stress test requirements. 
And this, Mr. Speaker, is so important to our small savers across the 
country because, when you have costly, cumbersome, and unnecessary 
regulations, they are paid for by the savers in these mutual funds and 
by these pension fund investors. And when they are paid out of their 
rate of return, their rates of return drop, and, therefore, the value 
of their nest eggs drop.
  Mr. Speaker, government should be in the job of helping our families 
live better lives with more financial security, and H.R. 4566 helps us 
do just that by removing one-size-fits-all regulations that fit for 
lots of banks but not for the asset management community.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, approximately 4 percent of the expenses of asset 
managers are for complying with regulations. If we do nothing, that 
number is expected to go up to 10 percent of their expenses, just on 
compliance, within 5 years. Now, that makes a big difference because 
the higher the expenses, the lower the rate of return, the smaller the 
nest egg for those who are saving for college or for retirement.
  To give support to my point, Mr. Speaker, for the past 10 years, 
economists at our own Securities and Exchange Commission and at our own 
Treasury have not been able to design a stress test for asset managers 
and for thousands and thousands of mutual fund companies across the 
country, and that is because it makes no sense to try to do so.
  Stress testing as a prudential regulation simply does not fit every 
participant in the United States financial services sector. There are 
intrinsic differences between banks and asset managers, and my bill, 
Mr. Speaker, recognizes that difference and properly exempts most 
nonbank financial institutions from stress tests. That, in turn, again, 
Mr. Speaker, will lower the cost and increase the rates of return for 
Main Street investors across our great State of Maine and across 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to address 
this very important issue, and I encourage everyone, Republicans and 
Democrats, both sides of the aisle, to please vote ``yes'' for H.R. 
4566, Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my colleagues on the opposite side 
of the aisle and my chairman, Mr. Hensarling, for indicating their 
acceptance of the amendment.
  I think it is extremely important for both sides of the aisle to 
appreciate the necessity and the importance of stress testing, and I 
think we both do that. The discretion that we afford to the Feds in 
this bill, I think, is very important. So this is one of those 
instances when both sides can come together and recognize that there 
were important indications of what is needed to understand what should 
be done to avoid another meltdown in our financial services industries 
and our banks.
  Again, I don't think there is any need for us to continue to talk 
about what we don't like about stress testing, but, rather, we are 
coming together to talk about how it is done and why it is important. I 
have a great appreciation for that, and I would like to thank my 
colleagues for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), who is the vice chairman of our Financial 
Services Committee and the chief deputy majority whip.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding time today 
on this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Alleviating Stress Test 
Burdens to Help Investors Act. It rolls off the tongue to some, maybe 
Bruce Poliquin's, the bill's sponsor, but it is an important thing for 
us to discuss here today.
  Now, hindsight bias is a very dangerous thing. It allows us to 
overstate our ability to predict an outcome, and it is something that 
lures us into creating a new system that while excellent at solving the 
last financial crisis or the last crisis, the last event, it fails to 
see the next event coming.
  Now, it is not something that just fortune tellers use. It is not 
something that just those with an NCAA pool would use to say that all 
along they knew UMBC would beat Virginia. It is not just used there. 
Here in Washington, it is done by bureaucrats that are susceptible to 
these same fallacies.
  So in the wake of the financial crisis, policymakers here in 
Washington raced to give regulators new tools to help predict future 
risks so that such a crisis would never happen again.
  One of those tools was stress testing. The idea was to provide a 
method to test financial firms to differentiate between solid 
institutions that can weather a financial storm and those that would 
need help. But this crystal ball has flaws. One of the biggest flaws is 
treating all large financial firms the same, a one-size-fits-all 
approach, and this includes lumping in nonbank financial firms that 
don't use leverage with financial firms--bank firms--that do use 
leverage.
  Despite this widely understood concept that capital adequacy 
standards do not fit neatly into assessing the risks of the asset 
management industry, for instance, regulators have instead stuck to 
their rigid methodology to try to square the circle, or circle the 
square, whatever that phrase is.
  Thankfully, Representative Bruce Poliquin has crafted a very solid 
bill to address this truth and bring it into reality legislatively. The 
stress tests built after the financial crisis do not work for nonbank 
financial firms. This is a security show rather than security in fact.
  Thus, in a world that constantly throws big and unexpected events our 
way, understanding the limitations of

[[Page H1715]]

predicting risk is one of the most important steps we can take to avoid 
future harm, and that is what this bill does. I encourage my House 
colleagues to vote in support of and in favor of it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that anybody from North 
Carolina, after being beaten by Texas A&M by 21 points, would make any 
allusion to basketball whatsoever. I trust our next speaker will not 
make that mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Luetkemeyer), who is the chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman can be assured that since 
my team was one and done, I will skip the bracket discussion here.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Poliquin) for his work on this very reasonable legislation.
  Stress tests are a good idea that should be standard practice in any 
company. What is not a good idea--and, quite frankly, not terribly 
helpful in promoting systemic financial stability--is the cryptic and 
arbitrary manner in which stress tests are handled today.
  Today, the Federal Reserve imposes these stress tests on all 
financial firms with more than $10 billion in consolidated assets. This 
doesn't apply just to banks, despite the fact that the Fed is a bank 
regulator. This requirement to submit information extends to nonbank 
financial firms as well.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to walk you through what one of 
these stress tests looks like. A financial firm is given cryptic 
instructions to run a number of scenarios to test the fortitude of the 
institution. That firm then submits tens of thousands of pages to the 
Fed. In some cases, that number can climb to more than 100,000 pages at 
a cost of millions of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of what 20,000 pages is, in our 
committee hearing, we had a visual aid there with a table about this 
size right here in front of me today, about 3 feet tall, and boxes all 
around. That is 20,000 pages. Some of these stress tests, Mr. Speaker, 
are 100,000 pages, five times that amount, hundreds of thousands--if 
not millions--of dollars to do these stress tests; and, quite frankly, 
there is very little evidence that the Fed actually reads all the 
paperwork. In fact, one day you will probably get a call from the Fed, 
and they will tell you whether you passed or not. It is a very 
subjective test. There is no real explanation offered if a firm fails. 
The message is just to try again and keep trying until you finally pass 
the test and guess what the model is. This is not a productive exercise 
for anyone.
  The truth of the matter is that the Fed has no business conducting 
and analyzing stress tests on nonbanks. Those firms have functional 
regulators, like the SEC and CFTC, which better understand the business 
models and performance of nonbanks and, as such, the risks those firms 
pose to the financial stability of the United States. The actual 
supervisor of these companies should be the only entity with the 
ability to require these sorts of activities, and Mr. Poliquin's bill 
allows for that.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about promoting thoughtful and 
effective legislation. It is about curtailing a one-size-fits-all--as 
the chairman mentioned earlier--approach to regulation, something 
Members from both sides of the aisle have claimed to support.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Maine for his 
leadership on this issue, and I urge support of this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who is the vice chairman of the Financial 
Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Maine, 
Bruce Poliquin, for sponsoring this bipartisan legislation.
  The Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act amends the 
Dodd-Frank Act to make some commonsense changes to stress testing 
requirements for asset managers and the investors whom they serve.
  Congressman Poliquin has worked very hard to make sure this bill is 
bipartisan. In fact, he was able to win the support of two-thirds of 
the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee.
  I believe this is one of the many bills that Chairman Hensarling has 
suggested be part of our negotiations with the Senate on their 
regulatory relief package. I agree. Why shouldn't a bill with such 
strong bipartisan support at least be part of the conversation?
  The idea behind the stress testing for financial institutions under 
Dodd-Frank is to make sure that they have enough capital on hand to 
cover losses in the case of a market disruption like the one that was 
encountered during the financial crisis. However, registered funds have 
a very different business model than banks. They do not guarantee any 
return to investors or promise that investors will get their principal 
back. Furthermore, these funds are not on the adviser's balance sheet.
  The idea that an asset manager should hold capital like a bank does 
not comport with its business model. Or in the words of Mark Flannery, 
a former chief economist of the SEC, there is a false parallel for 
stress testing asset managers: ``The parallel to bank stress tests is 
really extremely misleading. It is as if Dodd-Frank said `stress test 
the big banks, and, oh, you might as well go ahead and do the asset 
management companies.' ''
  Fortunately, Bruce Poliquin has sponsored commonsense legislation to 
provide some regulatory relief in a way that I think Democrats and 
Republicans should be able to agree.
  The Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act would 
eliminate the bank-like stress testing requirements in Dodd-Frank but 
would empower the SEC, the primary Federal regulator of the asset 
management industry, to require stress testing as it deems appropriate.
  In short, what this bill says is that we should only stress-test 
asset managers as their primary regulator determines is in the best 
interest of the investors instead of arbitrarily applying bank-like 
stress testing requirements as proposed by the Federal Reserve.
  It comes as little surprise that the SEC, including under the 
leadership of Mary Jo White, seems to agree. The SEC has not been able 
to come up with stress testing standards that are consistent and 
comparable with those of the Federal Reserve and other banking 
regulators, likely because there is no way to account for capital 
adequacy in these companies.
  Furthermore, this bill does nothing to undermine the significant 
regulatory authority to the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The 
FSOC would still be able to make recommendations to the SEC for 
additional regulation of asset managers.
  I am not necessarily endorsing this concept, but I would like to 
emphasize this in the hopes that it would encourage even more 
Democratic colleagues to join in support of this bill. This bill, 
again, is true to its name. It cuts costs that are borne by investors 
without subjecting our financial system to any additional risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in 
supporting this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams), who is the vice chairman of the Financial 
Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to 
commend my friend and colleague from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) for his 
leadership on this important issue. H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress 
Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, would help nonbanks not currently 
under supervision of the Federal Reserve from stress testing 
requirements.
  In addition to alleviating burdensome requirements, the bill allows 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission to issue regulations requiring financial companies 
with more than $10 billion in consolidated assets to conduct a periodic 
analysis of their

[[Page H1716]]

financial condition, including their liquidity.
  This legislation would properly tailor Dodd-Frank's stress test 
requirements in a way that is appropriately focused. This bill retains 
the SEC's ability to issue stress testing as it believes appropriate. 
The bill does not limit the Financial Stability Oversight Council's 
authority to request the SEC to adopt suitable requirements for 
advisers and funds.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the gentleman from Maine for his 
commitment to this important piece of legislation. I encourage all of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill on the 
floor.
  In God We Trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who is a hardworking member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, 
which was introduced by my colleague, Representative Poliquin.

  Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans rely on registered funds to invest 
and save for their future, and they rely on asset management advisers 
to assist them in making major financial decisions, such as paying 
college tuition, saving for retirement, or buying a home.
  However, too often these advisers have their hands tied complying 
with burdensome regulations that were not intended for the type of 
financial institutions that they serve. Following the enactment of 
Dodd-Frank, a framework was created to assess systemic risk posed by 
financial institutions, and this framework looked at the risk from a 
bank-centric approach.
  In addition, Dodd-Frank required all financial companies with total 
consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct various annual 
stress tests to comply with the law. Now, unfortunately, this broad 
definition sweeps in registered investment companies and requires that 
these nonbank institutions be held accountable for the same stress 
tests as banks.
  This particular stress test does not make sense for the asset 
management industry and only adds costs that will end up putting the 
burden on investors who rely on these funds.
  Again, the U.S. asset management industry is critical in promoting 
diverse investment and savings opportunities for individuals, for 
families, and for businesses. This important legislation would 
eliminate unnecessary costs for nonbank financial institutions that 
have not been designated as systemically important by removing Dodd-
Frank's bank-centric, mandatory stress test requirement.
  As we continue to explore new ways to help families save for their 
future or buy a new home, we should remain focused on improving their 
ability to invest. I want to thank Representative Poliquin and Chairman 
Hensarling for their important work on this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the work that staff has done on 
this particular legislation.
  I do believe that we all agree that stress tests are important; it is 
a matter of who, how, and when.
  Someone has likened stress tests to car testing, where, in the 
manufacture of new cars, you take them out on the road and you test 
them to see if they can withstand what they may be presented with in 
the terrain and with the kind of things that you would experience 
perhaps on the roughest roads that they test on. When they determine 
that there are weaknesses that can be corrected, that is what they do 
in order to make sure that this new vehicle that they are testing can 
withstand whatever the difficulties are that may be presented to them 
when they test a car.
  That is what this stress testing is all about. It all about whether 
or not, in the event of a downturn in our economy, you have the ability 
to withstand the downturn, whether or not you have the ability to not 
only withstand what you are presented with in a downturn of the 
economy, but how you can fix what you have determined is wrong with 
what you are doing.
  So I am, again, very pleased that we all agree that stress testing is 
extremely important and that we know what your concerns are about hedge 
fund and asset managers and all of that. But the discretion that we 
give to the Feds, I think, is very important. The fact that all of the 
businesses that we are concerned with will be doing their internal 
stress testing is extremely important.
  So, again, I am very grateful for the acceptance of my amendment, and 
I am hopeful that, with this amendment, it demonstrates that, when we 
work very hard to reconcile our differences, we can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that, with this amendment, all of the 
Members of the House vote for this legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues to 
support H.R. 4566, the legislation from the gentleman from Maine. I 
want to commend him once again. He is one of our most hardworking 
members on the committee, and he cares passionately about his 
constituents in Maine.
  I also want to commend him for once again working on a very 
bipartisan basis. He has managed to change his bill from its original 
concept many times to try to garner more support from the other side of 
the aisle.
  With the acceptance of the ranking member's amendment, again, I am 
hopeful that we will have a very, very strong vote in the House. Again, 
this came out of committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.
  Mr. Speaker, very often we debate regulation. I think that now, 
fortunately, we have a 3 percent growth Tax Code which has been passed 
by Congress, but, unfortunately, I do not believe we have a 3 percent 
growth of finance in the banking system.
  That is important. It is important to our constituents who still need 
credit to buy that first home, a factory worker who needs to get their 
transmission repaired so that they can go to work, some parent trying 
to send a kid to college, or people trying to plan for their 
retirement.
  Too often, I think we have a dichotomy between regulation and 
deregulation, when the real dichotomy is between smart regulation and 
dumb regulation. It is always incumbent upon us in Congress to look 
very carefully at these regulations. Sometimes they look very good on 
the chalkboard, but in reality, they don't quite render the results or 
benefits that we had hoped for. So we always have to take a look at 
what this is doing not just to consumer and investor protection, but 
what it is doing to economic growth as well.
  I agree with the ranking member. Stress testing is a good concept. It 
is one of the reasons why banks and other financial firms typically 
stress-test themselves daily, weekly, monthly, annually.
  What doesn't make sense, though, is that there be no recognition to 
the cost that it imposes, as the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman 
of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, was 
very articulate in reminding us that these submissions can cost us 
millions and millions of dollars. The reports are not measured in 
pages; they are measured by the pound. There can be 10- and 20-pound 
submissions of paper that we wonder if anybody ever reads.
  But what especially doesn't make sense is trying to apply a bank 
stress test to a nonbank financial institution, particularly an asset 
manager. I know the ranking member was talking a little bit earlier 
about using an analogy to auto inspections: It makes no sense to have 
the home inspectors inspect your auto; it makes no sense to have the 
auto inspectors inspect your home.
  The gentleman from Maine is ensuring that whatever stress test is 
applied, it is applied properly to the business model that needs to be 
tested for its potential stress of our financial system.
  So, again, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maine for his 
hard work, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of H.R. 4566 
because, indeed,

[[Page H1717]]

maybe it is not a catchy title, but it is an accurate title. As we 
alleviate stress test burdens, we do help investors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hudson). All time for debate on the bill 
has expired.


     Amendment No. 1, as Modified, Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of 
                               California

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1, as modified, printed in House Report 115-613.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at 
the desk made in order under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as 
modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 1, strike lines 8 and 9 and insert the following:
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (v) as clauses 
     (iii) through (vi), respectively;
       (B) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) may conduct the evaluation required by this 
     subsection utilizing alternatives to the capital adequacy 
     test described in subparagraph (A), as the Board may 
     determine appropriate;'';
       (C) in clause (iii), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     before the semicolon the following: ``, provided that such 
     tests of any nonbank financial company--

       ``(I) are requested by a majority vote of the Council;
       ``(II) are conducted in accordance with the company's 
     business model, including by utilizing alternatives to the 
     capital adequacy test described in subparagraph (A), as the 
     Board may determine appropriate; and
       ``(III) are not already required by the company's Federal 
     primary financial regulatory agency''; and

       (D) in clause (vi), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``clause (iii)''; and
       Page 2, beginning on line 10, strike ``and that have total 
     consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 787, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, 
H.R. 4566 eliminates the Fed's discretion to require stress testing on 
nonbanks that have not yet been designated as systemically important 
and weakens the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate that the SEC and CFTC require 
nonbank financial companies under their authority to conduct annual 
stress tests. Together, these repeals create a loophole that would 
allow large brokerage firms and mega insurance companies to ignore 
risks while regulators are tied up in lengthy rulemaking or the FSOC 
designation process.
  My amendment, if adopted, would restore the Fed's discretionary 
authority to stress-test any nonbank financial firm, provided that the 
test is requested by a majority vote of the FSOC, is conducted with 
consideration of the company's business model, and is not already 
required by the company's primary regulator.
  My amendment would also allow the Fed to consider alternatives to the 
existing capital adequacy test, where appropriate, when conducting 
stress tests on nonbanks, including those designated as systemically 
important.
  One of the key safeguards created by Dodd-Frank is the Fed's ability 
to identify and mitigate risks in the financial system before they 
undermine the U.S. economy. By preserving the Fed's ability to stress-
test nonbank financial companies on a discretionary basis, my amendment 
will give regulators a better chance of preventing the next Bear 
Stearns or Lehman Brothers from dragging down our financial system.
  Finally, my amendment would broaden the SEC's and CFTC's authority 
under the bill by striking the provision that would limit future 
company-run stress testing requirements to entities with more than $10 
billion in assets. This would ensure that the SEC and CFTC can require 
any financial company under their purview to evaluate their own ability 
to survive in a stressed economy.
  While I oppose H.R. 4566 as currently drafted, with this amendment, 
the bill would represent a truly bipartisan effort to strengthen Dodd-
Frank. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 20, 2018, on page H1717, the following appeared: Mr. 
HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. HENSARLING. 
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am not thrilled with the amendment, 
but in the spirit of compromise and the spirit of bipartisanship, we 
have worked with the ranking member and the sponsor of the legislation. 
It wouldn't be my preferred approach, but that is often what we do 
around here.
  I want to thank the ranking member for working with the majority side 
in order to advance this, again, as a very strong bipartisan vote in 
the House, which I hope and anticipate with the inclusion of this 
amendment.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, again, I am very happy. On the other 
side of the Capitol, they have recently advanced a number of kind of 
smart regulatory measures and capital formation measures. We look 
forward to negotiating with our friends in the Senate. I am hoping that 
an overwhelming vote on a bill like H.R. 4566 is one that could be in a 
final package before it goes to the President's desk.
  Again, I still think that, although we have all compromised a little 
something here, I think we all advance our principles. I think it is 
something that will help, actually, both financial stability and 
investor protection, including protecting their opportunities to have a 
better future.
  So again, I want to thank the ranking member for working with us, and 
I would urge the House to adopt her amendment and adopt H.R. 4566 by 
Mr. Poliquin of Maine.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, who says that a terrific Representative 
from one of the most urban areas in the country, Los Angeles, 
California, cannot get together with a Representative from one of the 
most rural parts of America up in the great State of Maine?
  I thank Ranking Member Waters for her extension of bipartisanship. I 
also thank Chairman Hensarling very much for brokering this. This is 
going to be a great day for America, a great day for Maine, and a great 
day for California.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for those kind words, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 19, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               YEAS--395

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capuano

[[Page H1718]]


     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                                NAYS--19

     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Clark (MA)
     DeSaulnier
     Ellison
     Espaillat
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Khanna
     Lee
     Pocan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Speier
     Visclosky
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barletta
     Black
     Chu, Judy
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Hoyer
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kelly (IL)
     Lipinski
     McSally
     Pingree
     Rush
     Thompson (CA)
     Walz

                              {time}  1543

  Messrs. KHANNA, ELLISON, and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. MATSUI, Messrs. GONZALEZ of Texas, GENE GREEN of 
Texas, NORCROSS, Mrs. TORRES, Mses. CLARKE of New York, ROYBAL-ALLARD, 
Mr. YARMUTH, Mses. SHEA-PORTER, CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. TONKO, 
ENGEL, TAKANO, and GALLEGO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________