[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19667-19671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     IMPROVED OVERSIGHT BY FINANCIAL INSPECTORS GENERAL ACT OF 2009

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3330) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
and the Federal Credit Union Act to provide more effective reviews of 
losses in the Deposit Insurance Fund and the Share Insurance Fund by 
the Inspectors General of the several Federal banking agencies and the 
National Credit Union Administration Board, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3330

       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 ``Improved Oversight by 
     Financial Inspectors General Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MATERIAL LOSS AND 
                   NONMATERIAL LOSSES TO THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE 
                   FUND FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTORS GENERAL 
                   REVIEWS.

       (a) In General.--Section 38(k) of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (U.S.C. 1831o(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Material loss defined.--The term `material loss' 
     means any estimated loss in excess of $200,000,000, occurring 
     after March 31, 2009.'';
       (2) in that portion of paragraph (4)(A) that precedes 
     clause (i), by striking ``the report'' and inserting ``any 
     reports under this subsection on losses'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (6);
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Losses that are not material.--
       ``(A) Semiannual report.--For the 6-month period ending on 
     September 30, 2009, and each 6-month period thereafter, the 
     Inspector General of each Federal banking agency shall--
       ``(i) identify losses estimated to be incurred by the 
     Deposit Insurance Fund during that 6-month period with 
     respect to insured depository institutions supervised by such 
     Federal banking agency;
       ``(ii) for each loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (as a 
     loss to such Fund is defined in paragraph (2)(A)) that is not 
     a material loss, determine the grounds identified by the 
     Federal banking agency or State bank supervisor under section 
     11(c)(5) for appointing the

[[Page 19668]]

     Corporation as receiver and whether any unusual circumstances 
     exist that might warrant an in-depth review of the loss; and
       ``(iii) prepare a written report to the appropriate Federal 
     banking agency and for the Congress on the results of the 
     Inspector General's determinations, including--

       ``(I) the identity of any loss that warrants an in-depth 
     review and the reasons why such review is warranted, or if 
     the Inspector General determines that no review is warranted, 
     an explanation of such determination; and
       ``(II) for each loss identified in subclause (I) that 
     warrants an in-depth review, a date by which such review, and 
     a report on the review prepared in a manner consistent with 
     reports under paragraph (1)(A), will be completed.

       ``(B) Deadline for semiannual report.--The Inspector 
     General of each Federal banking agency shall--
       ``(i) comply with the semiannual report requirements of 
     paragraph (A) expeditiously, and in any event within 90 days 
     after the end of the 6-month period covered by the report; 
     and
       ``(ii) provide a copy of the report to any Member of 
     Congress upon request.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The heading for 
     subsection (k) of section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act (U.S.C. 1831o(k)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Review'' and inserting ``Reviews''; and
       (2) by striking ``Material Loss'' and inserting ``Losses''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MATERIAL LOSS AND 
                   NONMATERIAL LOSSES TO THE NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 
                   SHARE INSURANCE FUND FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTORS 
                   GENERAL REVIEWS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (j) of section 216 of the 
     Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1790d(j)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Reviews Required When Share Insurance Fund 
     Experiences Losses.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Fund incurs a material loss with 
     respect to an insured credit union, the inspector general of 
     the Board shall--
       ``(A) make a written report to the Board reviewing the 
     Administration's supervision of the credit union (including 
     the Administration's implementation of this section), which 
     shall--
       ``(i) ascertain why the credit union's problems resulted in 
     a material loss to the Fund; and
       ``(ii) make recommendations for preventing any such loss in 
     the future; and
       ``(B) provide a copy of the report to--
       ``(i) the Comptroller General of the United States; (ii) 
     the Corporation (if the agency is not the Corporation);
       ``(ii) in the case of a State credit union, the appropriate 
     State supervisor; and
       ``(iii) upon request by any Member of Congress, to that 
     Member.
       ``(2) Material loss defined.--For purposes of determining 
     whether the Fund has incurred a material loss with respect to 
     an insured credit union, a loss is material if it exceeds the 
     sum of--
       ``(A) $25,000,000; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to 10 percent of the total assets of 
     the credit union at the time at which the Board initiated 
     assistance under section 1788 of this title or was appointed 
     liquidating agent.
       ``(3) Public disclosure required.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board shall disclose a report under 
     this subsection upon request under section 552 of title 5 
     without excising--
       ``(i) any portion under section 552(b)(5) of that title; or
       ``(ii) any information about the insured credit union 
     (other than trade secrets) or paragraph (8) of section 552(b) 
     of that title.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed 
     as requiring the agency to disclose the name of any customer 
     of the insured credit union (other than an institution-
     affiliated party), or information from which such a person's 
     identity could reasonably be ascertained.
       ``(4) Losses that are not material.--
       ``(A) Semiannual report.--For the 6-month period ending on 
     September 30, 2009, and each 6-month period thereafter, the 
     Inspector General of the Board shall--
       ``(i) identify losses estimated to be incurred by the Fund 
     during that 6-month period with respect to insured credit 
     unions;
       ``(ii) for each loss to the Fund that is not a material 
     loss, determine the grounds identified by the Board or the 
     State official having jurisdiction over a State credit union 
     for appointing the Board the liquidating agent for any 
     Federal or State credit union and whether any unusual 
     circumstances exist that might warrant an in-depth review of 
     the loss; and
       ``(iii) prepare a written report to the Board and for the 
     Congress on the results of the Inspector General's 
     determinations, including--

       ``(I) the identity of any loss that warrants an in-depth 
     review and the reasons why such review is warranted, or if 
     the Inspector General determines that no review is warranted, 
     an explanation of such determination; and
       ``(II) for each loss identified in subclause (I) that 
     warrants an in-depth review, a date by which such review, and 
     a report on the review prepared in a manner consistent with 
     reports under paragraph (1)(A), will be completed.

       ``(B) Deadline for semiannual report.--The Inspector 
     General of the Board shall--
       ``(i) comply with the semiannual report requirements of 
     paragraph (A) expeditiously, and in any event within 90 days 
     after the end of the 6-month period covered by the report; 
     and
       ``(ii) provide a copy of the report to any Member of 
     Congress upon request.
       ``(5) GAO review.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall, under such conditions as the Comptroller 
     General determines to be appropriate, review reports made 
     under paragraph (1), including the extent to which the 
     Inspector General of the Board complied with section 8L of 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978 with respect to each such 
     report, and recommend improvements in the supervision of 
     insured credit unions (including the implementation of this 
     section).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chief 
sponsor to this bipartisan legislation, a strong proponent in this 
Congress for tougher oversight, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman 
for all of his support in this legislation, and also my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle, Mr. Lee from New York, for his tremendous 
support.
  This is simply a good government bill, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3330 is 
about protecting the financial institutions but providing efficiency, 
efficiency when it comes to the Inspectors General.
  What we're dealing with today is material loss reviews, and right now 
we have a problem in the United States in that our Inspectors General, 
who are charged with conducting material loss reviews, can't keep up 
with the number of financial institutions who are experiencing these 
losses.
  So we have been requested by the FDIC to look at the threshold. And 
what this bill does is it increases the threshold in the case of our 
financial institutions from $25 million in losses to $200 million in 
losses. And in the case of our credit unions, from $10 million in 
losses to $25 million in losses.
  And if I might, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly from a 
letter dated July 17, 2009, from Jon Rymer, the Inspector General of 
the FDIC. And in this letter, Mr. Rymer says, As of today, my office 
has conducted and completed nine material loss reviews under section 
38(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. We now have an additional 
31 reviews in the planning or production phase.
  Based on publicly available projections alone, we believe the numbers 
of reviews that will be required under the law as it presently exists 
will continue to grow significantly in the foreseeable future.
  We require that the Inspectors General complete these reviews within 
6 months. And right now, given the threshold, they simply don't have 
the ability to do that. So this is a good government measure, a good 
government measure that without increasing spending, without increasing 
taxes, we make government more efficient. And it's simply increasing 
the threshold to allow the Inspectors General to do their jobs while at 
the same time allowing them to look at the smaller financial 
institutions if such reviews are warranted.
  Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I want to applaud my friend from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) for showing 
leadership on this very bipartisan bill that will have a very positive 
effect in helping to turn around very important agencies that provide 
oversight.

[[Page 19669]]

  I also want to thank the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee, Mr. Moore, and our ranking member, Mrs. Biggert, for 
holding that hearing and helping this legislation come to the floor.
  The IG for Treasury said, ``We have either shut down or indefinitely 
deferred nearly all critical audits in other Treasury high-risk 
programs.'' And as Mr. Driehaus pointed out, this is a significant 
problem.
  As a matter of comparison, Treasury is currently conducting 16 MLRs. 
Before 2007, the office had not conducted a review of this nature in 
almost 5 years. Meanwhile, the IG for the Federal Reserve said that 
these reviews make up almost 40 percent of her workload. The FDIC IG 
informed us that the 36 employees in his audit office are currently 
handling 20 reviews.
  At the end of the day, when you have these auditors focus solely on 
bank failures, that's time taken away from other aspects of this 
economic crisis, not to mention critical oversight areas like terrorist 
financing.
  The measure we are considering today, the Improved Oversight by 
Financial Inspectors General Act, raises the threshold for material 
loss reviews from $25 million to $200 million for banks and from $10 
million to $25 million for credit unions. This will help give the 
Inspectors General the leeway they need to hone in on the cases in need 
of the most attention, because it's through that work that we will find 
what actions need to be addressed to restore taxpayer and investor 
confidence in our financial system.
  I also want to note that this legislation is crafted responsibly and 
that it takes steps forward to ensure fraud does not go undetected. So, 
if the IGs see a need to conduct a review below the threshold, there is 
no problem. And when fraud is suspected, they will be able to move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, it's an easy fix we can implement right now to lend our 
financial watchdogs a hand and provide them with the tools and 
resources they need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to 
support the adoption of this important bipartisan measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  As a former district attorney for 12 years and chairman of the House 
Financial Services Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, one of my 
priorities is to make sure that our Inspectors General have all of the 
tools and the resources they need to continue and improve their 
important oversight work.
  In January, the IGs for the Treasury, Fed, and FDIC wrote to request 
that Congress raise the material loss review, or MLR, threshold so they 
could focus on other high-priority areas of potential waste, fraud, and 
abuse.
  The National Credit Union Administration IG later made a similar 
request, Mr. Chairman. In addition to a higher threshold, the IGs 
suggested adding a requirement that for failed banks falling below the 
new threshold, an initial assessment still be taken to ``ensure that 
unusual or potentially significant situations are not missed.''
  During an O&I hearing we held on this issue in May, I was disturbed 
to learn that without a modernized MLR system, the current system would 
limit the IGs' ``ability to effectively oversee many of the new and 
significant programs and initiatives that the Federal banking agencies 
are undertaking to address current economic conditions.'' We must 
address this problem.
  I commend Congressman Driehaus from Ohio, a member of our Oversight 
Subcommittee, for drafting a bipartisan bill that will do just that. I 
also thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Congressman 
Lee of New York and our O&I Subcommittee ranking member, Congresswoman 
Biggert of Illinois, for their hard work in drafting this bill. The 
improved oversight by the Financial Inspectors General Act will put in 
place a $200 million MLR threshold for bank IGs and $25 million for the 
credit union IGs with new, stronger protections that will ensure proper 
oversight is conducted of any failed institution that costs even a 
dollar.
  In a letter dated July 17, Jon Rymer, the FDIC's Inspector General, 
commented on the bill, writing: ``I believe this legislation is a 
reasonable and prudent compromise that will our workload but preserve 
meaningful, independent oversight by my office, as well as other 
Inspectors General tasked with similar reviews.''
  And I couldn't agree more, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
3330 to improve oversight of our financial agencies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady 
from the fine State of Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the improved Oversight by Financial 
Inspectors General Act of 2009. I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Mr. Driehaus and Mr. Lee, for introducing this bill and thank the 
chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Moore, 
for his work on this issue.
  H.R. 3330 makes technical corrections to the monetary thresholds that 
trigger Inspectors General to launch an investigation in the failure of 
a financial institution. Financial Inspectors General must dedicate 
resources and personnel to investigate failures like that of AIG 
because their finding can present critical evidence about what caused 
the financial crises. Congress, Federal regulators, and the 
administration can better target reform to our broken financial 
regulatory system.
  In May, the Financial Services Committee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing on the role of financial services 
Inspectors General. We heard from Inspectors General about their 
difficult task to tackle the waste, fraud, and abuse that is at the 
heart of our financial crisis.
  Fraud and abuse were two of many significant factors that contributed 
to the financial crisis, especially in Chicago. In March, the U.S. 
Attorney General in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald brought mortgage fraud 
indictments against two dozen players. They are brokers, accountants, 
loan officers, processors, and attorneys.
  Mortgage fraud comes in all shapes and sizes. Scam artists inflate 
appraisals, flip properties, and lie about information including income 
and identity on loan applications. Some use the identity of deceased 
people to obtain mortgages, and other desperate thieves bilked out of 
their homes and home equity the most vulnerable homeowners and seniors 
in dire financial straits.

                              {time}  1045

  To get the economy back on track and credit flowing again, we have to 
address what was at the root of the mortgage meltdown in the first 
place, and that is mortgage fraud.
  Inspectors General hold key positions to investigate mortgage fraud 
and really get to the bottom of the turmoil that plagues today's 
financial markets; what went wrong, who broke the law, were the laws 
enforced, were laws and regulations adequate. To restore confidence in 
our markets and address any failings in our system of regulation, 
including enforcement, we must determine the answer to these questions. 
The sooner we get to the root of these matters, the sooner we can get 
the financial institutions off the Federal dole and our financial 
markets and economy back on track. H.R. 3330 will help us get there.
  I applaud all of the Members who have worked so hard on this issue 
and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters 
from the Inspectors General on these issues.

                                                  January 9, 2009.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to request that the 
     Congress consider increasing the threshold for conducting 
     material loss reviews (MLR) on failed financial institutions. 
     The current $25 million threshold has been in effect for 
     about 25 years and, in light of the current economic 
     environment, is no longer serving as a reasonable measure of 
     materiality or a meaningful trigger point

[[Page 19670]]

     for an Office of Inspector General (OIG) review of the failed 
     financial institution. If this current threshold remains in 
     effect, we anticipate that the projected volume of MLR work--
     and the time and resources that this work demands--will limit 
     the OIGs' ability to effectively oversee many of the new and 
     significant programs and initiatives that the Federal banking 
     agencies are undertaking to address current economic 
     conditions.
       Section 38(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act mandates 
     OIG reviews of certain material losses to the Deposit 
     Insurance Fund (the Fund) when federally supervised banks 
     fail. In general terms, the purpose of the MLR is to 
     determine the causes for the institution's failure and 
     resulting loss to the Fund, and assess the banking agency's 
     supervision of the failed institution. A loss is considered 
     material if the loss is estimated to exceed $25 million or 2 
     percent of the institution's total assets at the time the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed 
     receiver. The Act further requires that the OIG report be 
     completed within 6 months after it becomes apparent that a 
     material loss has been incurred.
       As of today, the OIGs from the FDIC, Department of the 
     Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System are performing a total of 18 MLRs, with projected 
     losses ranging from $36 million to $8.9 billion. At the 
     current threshold and as economic conditions continue to 
     worsen, we anticipate the number of reviews to increase. As 
     we are actively conducting these reviews, we are discovering 
     that MLRs at the lower end of the threshold appear to provide 
     little, if any, new perspectives or insights regarding the 
     cause of the failure beyond what we initially discerned at 
     the closure. We are, nevertheless, bound by professional 
     standards to invest time and resources to conduct a thorough 
     review of each individual failure. Expending our scarce 
     resources on these reviews limits our ability to oversee the 
     new initiatives that the banking agencies are undertaking to 
     deal with the current economic crisis affecting open 
     financial institutions.
       We believe that increasing the MLR threshold would better 
     serve the Congress by providing the OIGs with increased 
     flexibility to refocus scarce resources to the wide-ranging 
     programs and initiatives that the agencies are now managing, 
     while continuing to ensure that significant failures receive 
     an appropriate, in-depth review. As such, we recommend 
     modifying the threshold for a material loss to an amount 
     between $300 and $500 million. The $500 million figure is the 
     materiality threshold used by the Government Accountability 
     Office (GAO) when conducting the Fund's financial statement 
     audit, and has proven appropriate for that purpose over the 
     years. Looking at the current inventory of 18 MLRs, only six 
     would have been required with a $300-$500 million threshold. 
     To ensure that unusual or potentially significant situations 
     are not missed, we also recommend language that would allow 
     the OIG to initiate an MLR of an institution with a projected 
     loss below the increased threshold, should circumstances 
     (i.e., indications of fraud) warrant.
       Last year, we participated in a discussion initiated by one 
     of your professional staff members on the merits of 
     increasing this threshold, and were encouraged to raise this 
     issue if circumstances warranted. We believe such 
     circumstances have arrived. We are sending a similar letter 
     to the Committee's Ranking Member and the Chairman and 
     Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing 
     and Urban Affairs to share our concerns.
       Thank you for considering our request to amend Section 
     38(k) to increase the MLR threshold. We would welcome the 
     opportunity to discuss our concerns and possible solutions 
     with you in more detail.
           Sincerely,
     Jon T. Rymer,
       Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
     Eric M. Thorson,
       Inspector General, Department of the Treasury.
     Elizabeth A. Coleman,
       Inspector General, Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System.
                                  ____

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 17, 2009.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing to thank you for your 
     support of the draft Deposit Insurance Fund Loss Review Act 
     legislation, which was provided to us by Subcommittee staff a 
     few days ago. I support the draft legislation as written and 
     want to take this opportunity to emphasize my view that 
     prompt action is needed.
       As I testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
     Investigations several months ago, our resources permit us to 
     conduct approximately 21 to 22 reviews at any one time, 
     consistent with the statutory requirement that the reviews be 
     completed within a 6-month period from the time it becomes 
     apparent that the Deposit Insurance Fund has sustained a 
     ``material loss.'' I reported to the Subcommittee that we 
     have stretched and leveraged our resources, but we 
     nevertheless recently issued one report, and anticipate 
     issuing two additional reports, outside of that 6-month 
     window. In order to forestall future reporting delays and 
     address the large increase in our workload, I have undertaken 
     a review of our current approaches to conducting our work and 
     am considering alternatives ranging from additional 
     contracting for external audit services to the potential 
     reorganization of the Office of Inspector General.
       As of today, my office has conducted and completed nine 
     material loss reviews under Section 38(k) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act. We now have an additional 31 reviews 
     in the planning or production phase. Based on publicly-
     available projections alone, we believe the number of reviews 
     that will be required under the law as it presently exists 
     will continue to grow significantly in the foreseeable 
     future.
       In raising the threshold for a ``material loss'' to 
     $200,000,000, as of March 31, 2009, the draft legislation 
     would reduce our current requirement from 31 to 7 reports. 
     The legislation would also require us to perform a shortened 
     review of all failures, thus ensuring that (1) the reasons 
     for even smaller losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund are 
     properly understood, (2) important lessons to be learned from 
     failures of financial institutions that do not rise to the 
     new threshold level are nevertheless captured to improve 
     future bank supervision, and (3) this information is duly and 
     regularly reported to the Congress. I believe this 
     legislation is a reasonable and prudent compromise that will 
     reduce our workload but preserve meaningful, independent 
     oversight by my office, as well as other Inspectors General 
     tasked with similar reviews.
       Thank you for your interest in this issue. We are sending a 
     similar letter to the Committee's Ranking Member, the 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
     and Investigations, and Representative Steven Driehaus of the 
     Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. We are also 
     sending a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 
     encouraging their support of this draft legislation. I 
     welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns with you and 
     other interested parties.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jon T. Rymer,
                                                Inspector General.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes and invite Congressman Driehaus 
to join me for purposes of a colloquy.
  Congressman Driehaus, to be clear, nothing in your legislation would 
change current law that requires all Inspectors General, at the 
Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC or NCUA, to post 
material loss review reports online within 3 days. That is what I 
understand. Is this your understanding as well, sir?
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Yes, that is correct. The purpose of H.R. 3330 is to 
increase and improve oversight conducted by the Inspectors General. 
Congress and our constituents will continue to learn important 
information from these material loss review reports, posted online 
within 3 days, so we can better understand why financial institutions 
failed. My bill will not change that at all.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Thank you for making that clear. Thank you for 
the colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of Mr. Driehaus 
from Ohio.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3330, the Improved Oversight by 
Financial Inspectors General Act. In the wake of the financial crisis, 
it is so important that we make sure that our Federal banking 
supervisory resources are deployed where they are best going to be the 
most effective, and the financial crisis and the increased number of 
bank failures that have followed have exposed some very outdated 
provisions in existing law that are now placing some onerous reporting 
requirements on the financial inspectors general.
  It is using precious time, and it is really diverting some really 
crucial resources. So this bill is going to update the standard that 
was first set 25 years ago that will trigger a material loss review for 
a failed financial institution.
  Now, the financial Inspectors General have assured us that this does 
not mean there will be insufficient review

[[Page 19671]]

of failures in the future, but rather there is now going to be a 
smarter review concerning large bank failures and any small bank 
failures that occur where there are special circumstances, and that is 
something that can be learned.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this very bipartisan 
legislation. It has been a pleasure working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle on this. We should put our focus and attention now, 
and that of the Inspectors General, where it can be most effective to 
protect taxpayers and financial institutions.
  Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, commonsense, 
bipartisan bill. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) to close.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good, commonsense bill. This is 
about helping our Inspectors General do their job and do it well. We 
have heard from both sides of the aisle how important the work they are 
doing is to the health and safety of our financial institutions and to 
our financial system. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support 
this good-government piece of legislation. I thank them for their 
support.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 3330.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________