[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4131-4134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3340, FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT 
   COUNCIL REFORM ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3791, 
RAISING CONSOLIDATED ASSETS THRESHOLD UNDER SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY 
                            POLICY STATEMENT

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 671

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3340) to 
     place the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the 
     Office of Financial Research under the regular appropriations 
     process, to provide for certain quarterly reporting and 
     public notice and comment requirements for the Office of 
     Financial Research, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill 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; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as 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 division of the question; and (3) 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. 3791) to raise 
     the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank 
     holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any 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; (2) the amendment printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as 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; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. 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. STIVERS. Mr. 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 Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for H.R. 3340, the FSOC Reform Act, and for H.R. 3791, 
the Raising Consolidated Assets Threshold Under Small Bank Holding 
Company Policy Statement. House Resolution 671 provides structured 
rules for both bills. The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of 
debate that is equally divided between the chair and the ranking member 
of the Financial Services Committee. Additionally, the resolution 
provides for the consideration of one amendment to each bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and the underlying 
legislation.
  The Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, 
which is dedicated to identifying threats to the stability of the 
American financial system. The FSOC is supported in this mission by the 
Office of Financial Research, which was also created by Dodd-Frank.
  The OFR is armed with subpoena power to compel vast amounts of 
nonpublic, sensitive information from institutions across the financial 
system. The OFR feeds this data to the FSOC, which is empowered to 
designate banks, as well as nonbank institutions, as ``systemically 
important financial institutions,'' or SIFIs. This designation 
significantly increases the regulatory burdens that are faced by these 
institutions, and they have far-reaching effects on the entire 
financial system. The impact of excessive regulation trickles down to 
customers, resulting in higher borrowing costs that may stop Americans 
from realizing their dreams of homeownership, of purchasing cars, of 
pursuing higher education, or other goals.
  Despite the vast power that the FSOC and OFR have, neither 
organization is subject to the annual appropriations process. The OFR 
is funded through assessments on banks, and it pays for the FSOC 
through these funds. As such, the FSOC is insulated from the 
transparency and accountability that Congress would give to normal 
organizations by virtue of this self-funding mechanism. This has, 
effectively, shielded the FSOC from any congressional oversight.
  The FSOC Reform Act would, simply, fix those problems. It does not 
reduce the FSOC's budget or the OFR's, but it would require that they 
be under annual appropriations. It would also require occasional 
reports to Congress on their expenses, objectives, and performance 
measures. Congressional approval of FSOC's budget would encourage 
transparency with regard to FSOC's methodology for designating SIFIs. 
It would also make it clear what their objectives are and what they see 
as concerns for our financial system. I believe this bill will actually 
increase the transparency of the process, and it will make sure that we 
look out for the financial security of the American financial system.
  The bill also requires the FSOC to engage in a public notice and 
comment period before issuing any new rules and regulations. These 
changes will put the FSOC in line with other agencies that have to 
engage in public notice and comment periods before they provide new 
rules and regulations.
  I thank the sponsor of H.R. 3340, Representative Tom Emmer of 
Minnesota, for introducing this important legislation that will 
increase the oversight and transparency to ensure we have a safe and 
competitive financial market in the United States.
  The other measure for consideration under the rule is H.R. 3791, 
which is a bill sponsored by Representative Mia Love of Utah.
  Last year, Congress passed and the President signed legislation 
providing relief to community banks by increasing the Federal Reserve's 
Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement threshold to include small 
bank holding companies with up to $1 billion of consolidated assets. 
This was in response to the small banks' difficulty in accessing 
capital as a result of significant changes in the regulatory landscape.
  This bill provides further relief by expanding the Fed's policy 
statement to include small bank and savings and loan holding companies 
with up to $5 billion of consolidated assets. This will provide needed 
relief for about 400 small bank and thrift holding companies. The $5 
billion level matches the threshold that was offered in the last 
Congress by the current ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, my

[[Page 4132]]

fellow Ohioan, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. He did that in S. 798, 
so this should not be controversial. It is bipartisan. Democrats and 
Republicans have been for this.
  Since the second quarter of 2010, around the time that the Dodd-Frank 
Act was passed by Congress, the community banks' share of U.S. 
commercial banking assets has declined at a rate that is almost double 
that experienced between 2006 and 2010. What is happening in our 
financial system is that the big are getting bigger, and the small are 
disappearing. That is why it is important to give regulatory relief to 
some smaller community banks that are caught in the middle. According 
to the FDIC, there were more than 18,000 banks in the 1980s as compared 
to just 6,400 in the first quarter of 2015, and we are currently losing 
community banks at a rate of one every day.
  Increasing the eligibility threshold to $5 billion will ensure that 
small bank and savings and loan holding companies will be able to issue 
debt and raise capital so that the community banks can continue to 
provide financial services to the customers they serve and increase 
their involvement in promoting economic growth in their local 
communities.
  It is important to note that this bill maintains the requirements 
that these holding companies meet regulations related to nonbanking 
activities, off-balance sheet activities, and publicly registered debt 
equity. The legislation also maintains a safeguard that allows the 
Federal Reserve to deny an increased debt level to any bank holding 
company it deems at risk of failure.
  Together, these bills will help ensure that powerful regulators act 
in a transparent manner and are accountable to Congress, and they will 
provide needed relief for community banks that are attempting to 
survive in a difficult environment.
  I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues, and I urge 
support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule that is providing for the 
consideration of both H.R. 3340, the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council Reform Act, and H.R. 3791, the Raising Consolidated Assets 
Threshold Under Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, and for 
other purposes.
  These partisan financial services bills, in my opinion, would weaken 
and politicize the institutions that were created after the financial 
crisis to identify and guard against systemic risk in our financial 
system; and they will allow even larger bank holding companies to 
leverage themselves with debt when financing the purchase of other 
banks.
  In reviewing this legislation, I have to ask myself: Are the memories 
of my Republican friends really so short that they do not remember the 
pain that our Nation went through only a few short years ago?
  The financial crisis of 2008, by everybody's statement, was the worst 
economic downturn that this great Nation has faced since the Great 
Depression. It left millions out of work and millions out of their 
homes. Yet, instead of supporting efforts to ensure that a collapse of 
this magnitude never happens again, the majority has chosen to weaken 
the very protections that are designed to prevent such a crisis. This 
is even more appalling when you consider that we are still dealing with 
the fallout from the crisis. Just this week, Goldman Sachs agreed to 
pay $5 billion to settle claims that it misled mortgage bond investors 
during the financial crisis. I was pleased to see that a portion of its 
repayment is going to go to low-income and moderate-income housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess we really shouldn't be surprised by the actions 
of my friends in the majority. With the kinds of bills that have come 
to the floor under this Republican Congress, whether they be to roll 
back environmental protections, 60-plus repeals of the Affordable Care 
Act, or to deny access to women's health care, I guess it is not a 
surprise that now my Republican friends are bringing up legislation to 
help the big banks and strip away the protections to prevent another 
financial crisis.
  I am also left wondering: Why are we debating a rule for these bills 
today at all? I would like to remind the majority--and I will now and 
twice again before I yield back my time--that, by law, this body must 
produce a budget resolution by Friday of this week. Despite this 
requirement, we still have no budget or a clear path to one. I ask the 
question: Where is the budget?
  I pause here to yield to my friend from Ohio if I could get his 
attention just for a moment. I know the gentleman is on the Committee 
on Financial Services. We serve together on Rules, but I am not in the 
majority and am not privy to what may happen this Friday. I am just 
curious: Since the gentleman is in the majority, what is the gentleman 
hearing, if anything, regarding our having a budget by this Friday?
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  I am hearing that negotiations are ongoing, and I am hopeful that we 
can have a budget by this Friday. There is a bit of disagreement, even 
inside our Conference, about how to move forward on the budget as far 
as the numbers. But there are a lot of discussions ongoing, and I am 
hopeful.
  I support passing a budget. I have voted for a budget since I have 
been here. We have passed budgets every year since I have been here. We 
have not passed the deadline yet for this budget. I am hopeful that we 
can get it done, but it is an ongoing negotiation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's response.
  I urged that yesterday in the Rules Committee. Aside from your 
subcommittee holding a hearing this Thursday at 3, we were advised by 
the chair that there would be no further business of the Rules 
Committee.
  So I assumed, if that is the case, that we won't be going back to the 
Rules Committee. And I am sure that the budget, if it were to be here 
by Friday, would require a rule.
  Despite all of these things, I empiricize the fact that it doesn't 
appear that we will have a budget by Friday.
  Mr. Speaker, here is how we got to this point: last fall Republicans 
and Democrats came together to pass a bipartisan budget agreement. Now, 
however, Republicans are refusing to support their party's own budget 
proposal.
  Now, I understand what my friend said about negotiations going on, 
and that is good. It would be helpful if those negotiations were going 
on with Democrats in the room as well.
  I was very optimistic, as I am sure all of us were and, to a relative 
degree, still are, when Speaker Ryan promised to end Republican 
obstructionism and return to regular order. I felt very optimistic 
about that.
  It seemed that the now-dubbed do-nothing Congress is back and, with 
it, total dysfunction on the Republican side of the aisle. The 
dysfunction is so bad that Republicans cannot even agree to a budget 
number that they have already agreed to.
  Now, Democrats don't want to weaken the financial protections keeping 
our economy stable and strong. Instead, Democrats are ready to pass a 
budget that creates and helps create jobs and grow the paychecks of 
hardworking Americans.
  We would like to work in a bipartisan way, and we would assuredly 
like to work in a way that would bring us to the work that is needed to 
be done in a positive manner.
  If only the Republican Conference could stand up to the extreme 
faction in their own party to work with us, then we could get this 
business done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no more 
speakers. If the gentleman from Florida

[[Page 4133]]

wants to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  These financial services bills are not what the American people want. 
These are bills that big banks want.
  Instead of debating and passing a budget, which we are required to do 
by law by the end of this week, as I have said, the majority has 
decided that we should spend what precious legislative time we have 
left debating bills that would roll back vital protections to the 
systemic health of our financial system.
  So now not only is the dysfunction in the Republican Conference 
putting one of this institution's most basic functions in jeopardy, 
which is passing a budget to fund the government, but, to add insult to 
injury, the majority has decided now is the best time to debate putting 
our entire financial system in jeopardy by rolling back measures 
designed to protect it.
  I might add that there is an appellate decision that is not on this 
measure, but on another that we dealt with earlier. I don't understand 
why we are going forward on these measures when we know, in fact, that 
they aren't going to go anywhere in the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, the American people deserve better.
  So since Congress is required to pass a budget by Friday of this week 
and there is absolutely little sign that the Republican majority 
intends to fulfill that responsibility, well, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
give my friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to end 
the obstructionism and meet their and our obligation to pass a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the Republican budget resolution and 
allow for the consideration of alternative budget proposals under the 
same process we use every year.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Huizenga of Michigan). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I can assure him we are 
working hard on a budget resolution. Although we cannot notify the 
committee of any upcoming meeting because we don't know when it will be 
because we don't know when the negotiations will be, I am hopeful that 
that will happen and we will actually end up having a budget that will 
be passed before the deadline.
  So, again, I am hopeful, but none of us can control that ourselves. 
The negotiations are ongoing.
  I would just say that these two bills and the rule don't do anything 
to undermine our financial stability. The first bill puts the FSOC and 
the OFR on budget. It requires that they have appropriations every 
year.
  You might be familiar with the appropriations clause of the U.S. 
Constitution: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .''
  So we just want the normal constitutional checks and balances that 
exist in every other agency to exist here, to increase the transparency 
and accountability for what these agencies do.
  So the first bill puts FSOC and OFR on budget. It requires 
appropriations to be passed. It also requires periodic reports on what 
their goals and objectives are and how their meeting goes. That is kind 
of a no-brainer.
  Again, Senator Sherrod Brown, the Democrat minority ranking member on 
the Senate Banking Committee, has a bill that--I'm sorry. It is the 
second bill. I apologize.
  It makes sense to do this, to put them on appropriations.
  The second bill is a bill that raises the limit for small financial 
institutions, community banks, up to $5 billion. We are talking about 
400 banks. It is not the biggest banks.
  In fact, the biggest banks in America are almost a trillion dollars. 
We are talking about $5 billion in consolidated assets in banks and 
savings and loans.
  These are community-based financial institutions. There are about 400 
of them. They are struggling right now. We are losing a community bank 
a day in this country. We need to make sure that we do everything that 
we can to help those community banks continue.
  I know that is a bipartisan effort to do that. This may not be the 
exact way that the other side of the aisle wants to move forward on 
that.
  I offered to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee 
yesterday in the Rules Committee that I would be happy to work with her 
on some other method.
  If she thinks she wants to use an activity test, if she wants to 
require some kind of loans to assets, if she wants to require some kind 
of capital in this, I would be happy to work with her because we have 
to help our community banks. I know that is a bipartisan feeling.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida that I know 
that the other side of the aisle feels the same way. We may have a 
tactical disagreement, but we all feel that way. So I would love to 
work on that.
  In the meantime, I hope my colleagues will support both these bills 
and the underlying rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 671 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, 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 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2018 through 2026. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 
     three hours of general debate confined to the congressional 
     budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 
     one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals 
     and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York 
     or their respective designees. After general debate the 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute. Each such amendment 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI 
     (germaneness). If more than one such amendment is adopted, 
     then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of 
     a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only 
     the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted. After the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall 
     not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
     resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto 
     to adoption without intervening motion except amendments 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget pursuant 
     to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     to achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent 
     resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question of its adoption.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 4134]]

     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 
     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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________