[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4333-4345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
            FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL REFORM ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call 
up 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, 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 671, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Financial Services, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3340

       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 ``Financial Stability 
     Oversight Council Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Section 155 of the Financial Stability Act 
     of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5345) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``be immediately 
     available to the Office'' and inserting ``be available to the 
     Office, as provided for in appropriation Acts'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (2) in subsection (d), by amending the heading to read as 
     follows: ``Assessment Schedule.--''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2016.

     SEC. 3. QUARTERLY REPORTING.

       Section 153 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 
     U.S.C. 5343) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Quarterly Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each quarter, the Office shall submit reports on the Office's 
     activities to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       ``(2) Contents.--The reports required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       ``(A) the obligations made during the previous quarter by 
     object class, office, and activity;
       ``(B) the estimated obligations for the remainder of the 
     fiscal year by object class, office, and activity;
       ``(C) the number of full-time equivalents within the Office 
     during the previous quarter;
       ``(D) the estimated number of full-time equivalents within 
     each office for the remainder of the fiscal year; and
       ``(E) actions taken to achieve the goals, objectives, and 
     performance measures of the Office.
       ``(3) Testimony.--At the request of any committee specified 
     under paragraph (1), the Office shall make officials 
     available to testify on the contents of the reports required 
     under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIOD.

       Section 153(c) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 
     U.S.C. 5343(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Public notice and comment period.--The Office shall 
     provide for a public notice and comment period of not less 
     than 90 days before issuing any proposed report, rule, or 
     regulation.
       ``(4) Additional report requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (3), 
     the requirements under section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code, shall apply to a proposed report of the Office to the 
     same extent as such requirements apply to a proposed rule of 
     the Office.
       ``(B) Exception for certain reports.--This paragraph and 
     paragraph (3) shall not apply to a report required under 
     subsection (g)(1) or section 154(d)(1).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House Report 
114-489, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
be considered read and shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  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 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and submit extraneous materials 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 as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3340, the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council Reform Act, and I

[[Page 4334]]

would like to thank our colleague who authored this legislation, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer). He is certainly one of the 
hardest working and most thoughtful freshmen that we have on the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  As the American people know all too well, Mr. Speaker, over years--
not years, decades, in fact--Congress has ceded far too much power to 
unaccountable bureaucrats, Article I ceding power to Article II. At the 
same time, it has provided many unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats 
with access to money with no accountability for how that money is 
spent.
  The Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, as it is known by 
its acronym, typifies this misguided yielding of power to the 
unaccountable and unelected.
  Last month there was, however, a small victory for those who are 
alarmed by this ever-encroaching Federal Government and the shadow 
financial regulatory system that FSOC is a part of and that operates 
with little transparency or accountability to the American people. I 
speak of the recent judicial ruling that struck down FSOC's designation 
of MetLife as a too-big-to-fail financial institution. FSOC's decision 
was found to be ``unreasonable'' and the result of a ``fatally flawed 
process.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people can achieve yet another 
victory today, another step in restoring the rule of law in checks and 
balances, by reining in an administrative state run amok, by passing 
the important bill that is in front of us now. FSOC is clearly one of 
the most powerful Federal entities to ever exist and, unfortunately, 
also one of the least transparent and least accountable.
  First, the Council's power is concentrated in the hands of one 
political party, the one that happens to control the White House. All 
but one of FSOC's members is the Presidentially appointed head of a 
Federal agency, but, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the agencies 
themselves are not members, thus denying bipartisan representation. The 
structure clearly injects partisan politics into the regulatory 
process; it erodes agency independence; and it undermines 
accountability.
  Furthermore, FSOC's budget is not subject to congressional approval, 
removing yet another vital check and balance of its immense power over 
our economy and over our people.
  FSOC has earned bipartisan condemnation for its lack of transparency. 
Two-thirds of its proceedings are conducted in private. Minutes of 
those meetings are devoid of any useful, substantive information on 
what was discussed.
  Even Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of the left-leaning Better Markets, has 
said ``FSOC's proceedings make the Politburo look open by comparison. 
At the few open meetings they have, they snap their fingers, and it's 
over, and it is all scripted. They treat their information as if it 
were state secrets.''
  FSOC typifies not only the shadow regulatory system but, also, the 
unfair Washington system that Americans have come to fear and loathe: 
powerful government administrators, secretive government meetings, 
arbitrary rules, and unchecked power to punish and reward. Thus, 
oversight and reform are paramount, and that is why the gentleman from 
Minnesota drafted H.R. 3340.
  The legislation before us would bring much-needed accountability and 
transparency to two very powerful agencies birthed by the Dodd-Frank 
Act: the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of 
Financial Research.
  Currently, these two agencies are funded by assessments on financial 
institutions, money that ultimately comes out of the pockets of their 
customers. These funds flow directly from financial institutions into 
the Office of Financial Research coffers and are available immediately 
to be spent by both the Office of Financial Research and the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council.
  H.R. 3340 is a very simple, commonsense bill. Instead of allowing 
unaccountable bureaucrats to set their own budgets, the bill places 
these two agencies on the budget review viewed by the United States 
Congress, the elected representatives of we, the people. It says the 
Council and the Office should be funded through the normal, transparent 
congressional appropriations process to ensure accountability and 
transparency.
  Is it too much to ask that these two powerful government agencies 
actually be subject to congressional oversight and budget approval? 
This should be the rule for a growing number of Federal bureaucracies 
that are tossed into the alphabet soup of Washington regulators who 
have more power than ever over the financial decisions and the American 
Dream of our hardworking fellow citizens.
  Unfortunately, I have to pose this question often to my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle: How much more congressional authority do 
we wish to outsource to regulatory agencies? Why did people run for 
Congress if they didn't want to legislate? Why did they run for 
Congress if they didn't want to engage in oversight?
  Oversight is a fundamental congressional responsibility, and that 
includes budget oversight--most importantly, it includes budget 
oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, sooner or later the shoe is going to be on the other 
foot. Sooner or later the White House will be in different hands. 
Sooner or later Congress will be in different hands, so this should not 
be a partisan issue. This is about Article I of the Constitution. All 
Members on both sides of the aisle should care passionately about this 
issue, to hold agencies accountable for their spending, because we are 
not just writing legislation for one Congress or one administration.
  The bare minimum level of accountability to the elected 
representatives of we, the people, is to have Congress control the 
power of the purse. It is part of our quintessential and essential 
oversight responsibilities, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office 
or who resides in the Speaker's chair. If we are going to do our job, 
that means Congress must exercise its Article I responsibilities, and 
H.R. 3340 will help us do just that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 3340, which would impede the important 
work of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, commonly referred to 
as FSOC, and the Office of Financial Research, referred to as OFR, by 
subjecting their funding to the congressional appropriations process.
  This bill would also hamstring the OFR's ability to conduct impartial 
research by requiring the Office to solicit public comment before 
issuing any report, rule, or regulation.
  Just in case people don't understand who FSOC is, it includes the 
Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office 
of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union 
Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and independent members with 
insurance expertise, chaired by the Treasury Secretary.
  What you have is every representation from all of these oversight and 
regulatory agencies coming together, working together in the best 
interests of this country, identifying risk and where that risk is and 
what to do about it. But the changes that are now being suggested or 
being made in this bill will have serious adverse effects on financial 
stability in the United States.
  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act created FSOC to oversee and 
prevent threats to our financial markets, and the OFR was established 
to support FSOC's critical work with analytical research. Dodd-Frank 
specifically empowered both agencies with independent budgets, the same 
way our other banking regulators, like the Federal Reserve, the Office 
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, operate. The FSOC and OFR are funded outside of 
appropriations, through fees on large financial institutions. They

[[Page 4335]]

were meant to be funded by the institutions they oversee and be 
shielded from congressional politics.
  Republicans say they want accountability by overseeing regulators' 
budgets, but what they really want is control, so they can eliminate 
funding for these agencies altogether. This bill would prevent efforts 
to properly mitigate systemic risk, to the detriment of the entire 
economy; and in this Congress, it would subject the agencies to the 
uncertainty caused by the dysfunctional, failed Republican budget 
process.
  All we have to do is look at the struggles facing the Securities and 
Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They 
continue to be underfunded, despite dramatic changes in the markets. It 
is a struggle every year to secure adequate resources to supervise 
complex institutions to the benefit of industries, but at dramatic cost 
to our economy.
  Understandably, the administration opposes this bill, and the 
President's senior advisers would recommend a veto. The administration 
specifically says that subjecting these bodies to congressional 
appropriations would hinder their independence and would limit their 
ability to monitor and address threats to financial stability.
  In addition, this bill would interfere with OFR's work.
  Republicans also say they want transparency and cost-benefit analysis 
with regard to OFR's activities, but what they really want is to give 
industry a leg up on our regulators. In addition, by requiring the OFR 
to tell the industry what it is studying, the bill would corrupt OFR's 
findings and could have a chilling effect on its important work.
  For similar reasons, I also will be urging my colleagues to oppose an 
amendment by Mr. Royce that we will consider later on today that 
requires detailed disclosure of the OFR's research agenda and 
practices. This is not the norm of any research organization and would 
severely limit OFR's ability to conduct rigorous, impartial analyses.
  Our regulators need to act with certainty, impartiality, and position 
resources to conduct robust oversight of our financial markets so that 
we can properly detect and deter systemic risk. Unfortunately, this 
bill will be a step back in that effort, not forward, and it is further 
evidence that Republicans seek to dismantle Dodd-Frank and the 
improvements we have made in our financial markets, one bill at a time.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the sponsor of H.R. 3340.
  Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. I thank my colleague from Texas, Chairman 
Hensarling.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a believer in a transparent and accountable 
government; and if a Federal institution is failing to meet these 
fundamental criteria, Congress needs to act.
  Unfortunately, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, more 
commonly known in Washingtonspeak as the FSOC, and the Office of 
Financial Research, more commonly called the OFR, currently operate in 
the shadows, outside of congressional oversight and the democratic 
process.

                              {time}  1400

  This has led to nonsensical and heavy-handed abuse by the government 
of numerous financial companies that had absolutely nothing to do with 
causing the 2008 financial crisis.
  While I strongly believe that those who created the crisis must be 
punished, I can't stand by while businesses that had nothing to do with 
the crisis are being unjustly burdened with new regulations that force 
American consumers to pay higher prices for essential financial 
products like home mortgages and student, auto, and business loans.
  That is why I have introduced the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council Reform Act. Not only will the bill reduce mandatory spending by 
$1.3 billion over the next 10 years, it will make the FSOC and OFR 
accountable to the American people through their elected 
representatives.
  Over the years, Congress has given much of its power to unelected 
bureaucrats. This legislation returns the constitutional power of the 
purse back to Congress by subjecting FSOC and the OFR to the 
appropriations process.
  As you know, FSOC is authorized to identify risks to the financial 
stability of the United States. This authority allows the FSOC to 
designate nonbank institutions as systemically important financial 
institutions, or SIFIs, which, in turn, increases supervision and 
regulation of these firms by the Federal Government.
  The Office of Financial Research was created to provide the research 
and analysis necessary for the FSOC to carry out this statutory 
mandate.
  In a classic Washington fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario, the FSOC 
and OFR are currently funded through taxes or assessments, as we prefer 
to call them, that they collect from the very SIFIs they designate.
  These unelected bureaucrats then set their own budgets without any 
oversight or approval by Congress. Is it any surprise that the FSOC 
budget is already five times larger today than it was in 2010.
  Senator Dodd and Representative Frank both have acknowledged that 
they never intended that insurance companies be designated as nonbank 
SIFIs.
  Despite the stated intent by the authors of the Wall Street Reform 
Act, FSOC has already designated three insurance companies as nonbank 
SIFIs.
  Unfortunately, further complicating the problem, FSOC has failed to 
create a viable off-ramp for designated companies and has not shared 
with Congress how they make these designations in the first place.
  OFR has received its fair share of criticism, too. In 2013, their 
asset manager report wasn't only condemned by the industry, but the 
Federal Government Securities and Exchange Commission also expressed 
concerns.
  According to a Reuters report, the SEC was concerned that the people 
who conducted the study at OFR ``lacked a fundamental understanding of 
the fund industry itself'' and ``the Treasury's research arm failed to 
take a number of the SEC's critical feedback into account.'' Thus, the 
SEC created its own comment period for the report.
  Better Markets, a group that regularly advocates for increased 
government regulation, actually criticized the OFR for the inexplicably 
and indefensibly poor quality of the work presented in the report.
  Despite all of this and the fact that Congressman Frank has also 
condemned the idea of designating asset managers, many fear the FSOC 
will move next with an asset manager SIFI designation.
  For these reasons, I believe it is absolutely critical that we pass 
the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
  It is crucial for the FSOC and OFR to be more transparent and 
accountable to the American people. Subjecting these entities to the 
congressional oversight process, enhancing OFR quarterly reporting 
requirements and allowing Americans to weigh in on OFR rules and 
regulations gives Congress the tools it needs to provide the proper 
oversight of FSOC and OFR.
  Now, some may argue that Congress should just trust these 
bureaucracies. But our Constitution makes it abundantly clear that 
Congress and Congress alone has the power of the purse. And like one of 
our great leaders once reminded us: ``Trust, but verify.''
  I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership on this issue. 
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council Reform Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS from California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a strange day. I almost feel like we are 
existing in parallel universes. On the one hand,

[[Page 4336]]

today--today--is the deadline for the Rules Committee to meet to 
structure debate on a budget resolution. But it is clear by now that 
there will be no floor consideration of a resolution today or tomorrow 
or the day after or very possibly ever.
  Instead, the headlines in Capitol Hill news publication after 
publication are all about how the appropriations process has descended 
into ``chaos.'' ``Chaos.'' So we have that on the one hand.
  Then on the other hand we have a bill on the floor that subjects the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council to that very same chaotic 
appropriations process.
  On the one hand, the appropriations process is in chaos. On the other 
hand, this bill moves valuable, critical, and important economic 
regulators into that same chaotic appropriations process. Have you ever 
heard the expression: Does the left hand know what the right hand is 
doing?
  When the majority talks about putting agencies in the appropriations 
process, I hear a lot of high-minded talk and rhetoric--and 
appropriately so--about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
  How would Alexander Hamilton have funded the FSOC? Frankly, I think 
it is great to ask those questions. I ask myself those questions every 
day.
  Everyone who takes the oath of office and has the privilege to stand 
here ought to keep grasping for the answers to those questions. And how 
appropriate this week.
  Yesterday was Thomas Jefferson's birthday. So I was going back and 
rereading something about him, his philosophies and contributions. 
Absolutely. We should all do that.
  But we also have a responsibility to stay anchored in reality, to lay 
down laws for the country and the Congress we have--the Congress we 
have--not the country and Congress we all wish we had.
  We live in an era of huge, complex financial markets, and we have 
learned again and again and again that those markets fail, sometimes 
wiping out $13 trillion in net worth in this country in a month. That 
is devastating. Somebody has to be looking at the whole system and 
working to shore up its weaknesses.
  We live in an era of a broken appropriations process. It is chaotic. 
Today's Congress is not Madison's perfect vision.
  Regardless of the ideals of article I of the Constitution, the 
reality today is that moving an agency into a chaotic appropriations 
process is to subject that agency to that very same chaos, to uncertain 
funding, to the risk of shutdown and backroom deals.
  So let's find a budget resolution, fix the appropriations process, 
and then maybe, just maybe, we can talk about moving agencies into the 
appropriations process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 
an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up quickly. I thank 
the ranking member for the time.
  But, for now, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, FSOC is too 
important. The risk of financial crisis is too great. Have we not 
learned that lesson, what happens?
  To subject the only crisis prevention regulator to the dangers of a 
chaotic appropriations process--and that is what we have, it cannot be 
denied--is the last thing we can do.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is chairman of our Financial 
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3340, the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act introduced by my good 
friend, Representative Tom Emmer, from Minnesota.
  This is an important part. When I go back home and people hear about 
a bill that has been passed or new regulations that come out and they 
have a question about that--and particularly, I guess, under this 
administration, we have heard a lot of people say: What are you all 
going to do about that new rule that the administration pulled up? You 
all have the power of the purse. Why don't you do something about that?
  The Founders were very clear about having different branches of 
government. One of the things that creates a lot of consternation for a 
lot of people is that they see some of these agencies created in Dodd-
Frank, like the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, which has 
no accountability to anybody.
  They operate in an unaccountable and not very transparent way, and 
they have a huge amount of impact on markets. In fact, when they 
determined that MetLife was systemically important, a Federal judge the 
other day said that they reached that conclusion inappropriately, that 
they weren't transparent, they weren't open, and that they didn't 
actually follow their own rules in determining this entity being 
systemically important.
  So why in the world would we not want them to be accountable to the 
taxpayers? Because, ultimately, all of this money, Mr. Speaker, belongs 
to the American taxpayers and they are expecting this Congress to 
review the actions of many of these agencies.
  I am amused at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They 
kept talking about how important many of these entities are and what a 
great job they are doing, yet they are not willing to allow them to be 
accountable and to come forth and make a case why they should be 
spending the money they are spending or why they are taking the actions 
that they are taking.
  Talking about Mr. Jefferson, this is not the government that our 
Founders intended. In fact, they were really reluctant to form a 
Federal Government, to give a centralized government any power.
  But they did ultimately determine that there would be some good about 
that, primarily for the common defense. I don't think they intended to 
create agencies that had no accountability.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, how soon we forget. If the movie ``The Big Short'' made 
you mad--and I hope you have seen that movie--then what the Republican 
House leadership is proposing today should make you furious.
  After the financial crash in 2009, we acted. The Congress acted. We 
understood that we didn't have a wholistic picture of the risk across 
the financial markets before the crash.
  So we made a decision to create the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council, FSOC, as they call it, to police these too-big-to-fail 
companies and to rein in the risks in our largest financial 
institutions.
  Now some of the biggest banks want the oversight to stop so they can 
bring back their risky, anything-goes casino banking practices, the 
exact practices that tanked the housing market and destroyed retirement 
savings for millions of Americans in the 2008 Wall Street collapse.
  This bill, H.R. 3340, pushed by Republicans and their big bank 
patrons, will neuter this important oversight body, blindfolding our 
government again and making another economic meltdown more likely.
  I feel as though every couple of weeks the Republicans here in the 
House are giving us another memory test. They bring a bill up that 
tests whether we remember that just 7 years ago our financial markets 
crashed because of risky behavior on Wall Street.
  I remember that that happened. Democrats remember that that happened. 
The American people remember that that happened. Apparently, the 
Republicans in Congress do not remember that.
  But we are going to keep passing this memory test and pushing back 
against these kinds of efforts to water down the Dodd-Frank reforms.
  Let me ask this, Mr. Speaker: How many of your constituents--I know

[[Page 4337]]

none of mine--have asked to gut the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council, to strip critical oversight of our Nation's largest financial 
institutions, and to make another financial crash likely? Nobody is 
asking for that.
  Americans deserve better. They see day in and day out a Congress out 
of step with their priorities, and they want change. In fact, right now 
thousands of Americans are engaging in direct action on the Capitol 
Grounds asking for campaign finance reform and restoration of voting 
rights. Instead of voting once again to support the big banks and Wall 
Street, we should be listening to them and taking action to restore 
their voice in politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to push back against congressional 
amnesia and to oppose this bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of our Capital 
Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time. I want 
to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) for putting forth a 
piece of legislation that will shine the light of day on some of Dodd-
Frank's most secretive creations.
  We often hear our friends from the other side of the aisle and 
regulators talking about their concerns over the so-called shadow 
banking system.
  The FSOC and its members have used this sinister term on multiple 
occasions to strike fear in the hearts of the public in order to 
advance, basically, their growth-strangling regulatory regime.
  But the real threat is not from shadow banking. The real threat comes 
from the shadow regulatory system that basically operates outside of 
our system of checks and balances with absolutely no accountability to 
the public and with little or no input from the Congress to conduct our 
proper oversight. You see, the FSOC and the OFR are the embodiment of 
this shadow system.
  For years now, the FSOC has continuously denied our committee's 
simple request for some information about how it operates and about its 
proceedings. Really, all we know about these meetings are a few 
sentences that it drops into their press releases.
  Meanwhile, even though the OFR embarrassed itself with its asset 
manager report that was issued back in 2013, that office basically 
still operates largely outside of the public eye.
  So it is time to shine the light of day on both of these bodies, Mr. 
Speaker, particularly in light of the recent invalidation of MetLife's 
too-big-to-fail designation by FSOC.

                              {time}  1415

  The underlying legislation would restore Congress' Article I 
authority by putting Congress back in charge of funding both FSOC and 
OFR, by requiring OFR to submit regular reports to Congress that the 
American public can see.
  It is time to stop letting bureaucrats in this town run wild, let's 
put Congress back in charge, and let's put back the checks and balances 
for these troubling agencies.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
I thank her for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3340, a bill that would cause 
severe damage to the integrity of the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council and the Office of Financial Research. It is through these 
entities that the Dodd-Frank Act identifies risks in our financial 
systems and guards against another financial crisis.
  FSOC and OFR have been intentionally placed outside political 
pressure. They make our financial system safer and protect the American 
people from a future financial crisis. However, the bill we are 
debating today would cripple FSOC and OFR by subjecting them to 
unnecessary political influence, putting our financial system at risk.
  My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that FSOC and 
OFR have free rein to set and approve their own budgets, and are, 
therefore, agencies that have run amok. FSOC's budget is approved by a 
majority vote of its members. FSOC does not have unchecked budget 
authority. FSOC's budget is similar to, and modeled after, the FDIC's 
budget mode.
  The FDIC also sets its own budget. It has time and time again acted 
to protect the American people from financial collapse while setting a 
reasonable and prudent budget.
  No one is calling on Congress to rein in the FDIC. The bill is 
nothing more than an attempt by the majority to undo the progress made 
by Dodd-Frank and to eliminate the ability of FSOC to act on behalf of 
the American people by cutting its funding.
  As I listened to my colleague from Maryland a few minutes ago talk 
about the folks who are right outside this Capitol, complaining about 
Citizens United, people want to know that they have power. These people 
are very upset. They want to know that their democracy is not being 
taken away from them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and against all bills 
that seek to roll back our progress in making the financial system 
safer.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3340, the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support the creation of FSOC and OFR and do not 
think that 10 unelected agency heads should be able to have such 
influence over the U.S. financial system. But H.R. 3340 doesn't even 
curtail any of FSOC's or OFR's powers. It simply provides greater 
accountability by making their budget subject to the annual 
Congressional appropriations process.
  Strengthening congressional oversight would force FSOC and OFR to 
address questions and concerns from both sides of the aisle. Requiring 
OFR to report quarterly to Congress and provide the standard public 
notice and comment period before issuing any report or regulation is 
just common sense. In fact, it would ultimately serve the public 
interest to provide transparency and diverse perspectives on issues 
affecting the financial services industry.
  The FSOC has the authority to declare large companies as 
``systematically important financial institutions'' and then subject 
them to a new, costly regulatory regime that is designed for banks. I 
have serious concerns about their power, but this bill wouldn't even 
change that. It would only provide desperately needed transparency and 
accountability to the SIFI designation process, which was recently 
described by a Federal judge as ``fatally flawed'' and ``arbitrary and 
capricious.''
  2008 demonstrated that we need effective regulation of our financial 
system, but regulators need to be held accountable for their decisions, 
especially given the impact they have on the competitiveness of U.S. 
companies.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Emmer for his legislation.
  I strongly urge the adoption and passage of this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  My friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about 
accountability and what Congress' responsibility is and what the 
Constitution says we should do. But I find it very interesting, while 
they are claiming that OFR and FSOC should be given more oversight, 
they don't seem to really want to exercise the responsibility to do 
that.
  Republicans claim that only when OFR and FSOC are subject to the 
annual appropriations process, will these two entities be accountable 
to Congress.

[[Page 4338]]

  However, how many times has the Financial Services Committee 
requested the director of the Office of Financial Research to testify?
  Only one time.
  Section 153 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the OFR director 
testify before our committee annually, and yet, OFR Director Berner has 
only been invited to testify once in the last 4 years--the only time 
being in March of 2013. That means for more than 3 years, our 
committee, under Republican leadership, has shirked its duties to 
oversee the OFR. Any Member who has met Director Berner can attest that 
he has always stated his eagerness to update Congress on what OFR is 
doing.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not some valiant attempt to hold FSOC and 
OFR accountable, no. This bill is yet another attack on a Dodd-Frank 
financial reform by Republicans, who never supported financial reform 
in the very first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 3340, the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform 
Act.
  This bill represents another example of death by a thousand cuts from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. It is another Republican 
attack on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act.
  After the catastrophe of the financial crisis and the near collapse 
of our banking system, Republicans are, once again, jeopardizing the 
stability of our financial system.
  How many times will Republicans waste taxpayer dollars with these 
partisan and dangerous attacks on the independence of our financial 
regulators?
  Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the 
Office of Financial Research to bring independent regulators together 
to monitor risk across our banking system and address threats to the 
American economy. Prior to the creation of FSOC, no single entity was 
accountable for monitoring our Nation's financial stability--none. It 
was a mish-mash, disparate mess. Dodd-Frank filled that void.
  Similarly, OFR works to support consumers by conducting critical 
research on our financial system and whether our regulatory systems 
are, in fact, working.
  Of course, if we don't invite the person who is the head of the 
Office to actually testify in front of the Financial Services 
Committee, how would we know?
  Dodd-Frank ensured that important regulators like FSOC and OFR have 
the independence they need to protect consumers outside of the 
political turmoil of Congress. My House Democratic colleagues are 
serious about reining in our Nation's largest financial institutions, 
while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing 
political games at the expense of American consumers.
  I refuse to stand idly by and allow Dodd-Frank to be gutted and 
weakened. If this terrible bill got to his desk, President Obama 
wouldn't sign it. He would never allow it to become law. Nevertheless, 
congressional Republicans continue to waste taxpayers' time and money 
with this legislation that would peel back Dodd-Frank and hurt American 
consumers.
  House Republicans need to instead focus on our Nation's most pressing 
problems: public health crises like the Zika virus, which has ravaged 
my home State of Florida; the ongoing debt situation in Puerto Rico; 
and keeping Speaker Ryan's promises to the American people that this 
body would pass a budget.
  Our Nation's working families are keeping their fiscal houses in 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 
from Florida an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We need to make sure that we hold Speaker 
Ryan's feet to the fire and make sure that he keeps his promise to the 
American people that this body will pass a budget, which we have yet to 
do.
  Our Nation's working families are working hard to keep their fiscal 
house in order. It is long past time for the House Republicans to do 
the same, while also making sure that we protect American consumers.
  That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we got into the worst economic 
crisis and nearly crashed the banking system in the first place. If we 
leave policymaking to the Republicans who are in the majority here, 
they would take us back to a time when we had a Wild West of regulation 
that left consumers twisting in the wind and banks to be able to make 
any decision they wanted and run over consumers all across America. We 
saw how well that worked out in 2008.
  Now we have come through the worst economic crisis we have ever had 
since the Great Depression--73 straight months of job growth in the 
private sector. We need to continue that progress, not go backward.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this 
very important issue to the House floor.
  I am pleased to stand up in support of H.R. 3340, the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.
  I want to congratulate Congressman Tom Emmer of Minnesota for his 
tireless work on this bill to come up with a commonsense piece of 
regulation that helps create jobs in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to set the Record straight. There are some folks 
in this Chamber who continue to blame the economic problems we have had 
over these past years specifically on the financial services industry. 
Well, let's be honest here. There were D.C. regulators here in this 
town who put tremendous pressure on the banks to lend money at zero 
percent down and zero percent interest to folks who they knew could not 
afford these loans. When they were unable to repay these loans, the 
real estate market collapsed and brought the economy with it.
  Mr. Speaker, every business in America, every industry, should be 
fairly and predictably regulated. However, when the regulations are so 
intense and so complicated and so smothering that it kills jobs, then 
it is our responsibility to make sure that we give our small businesses 
in this country relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a little over a year and I realize 
there is a fourth branch of government. Now, we all know what the 
Constitution says. It is that Congress, the legislative branch, creates 
the laws. The administrative branch, the White House, implements the 
laws that we create. If there is a question, then we get the referee 
involved, the courts. However, there is a fourth branch of government 
that is unconstitutional. It is called the professional regulator.
  Now, what has happened over the course of these past years is that 
the administrative branch wants to send directions to their regulators 
to put more and more pressure on our business community that creates 
jobs and gives our families opportunities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maine an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. One of those agencies is the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council. Mr. Speaker, this organization has tremendous power 
on our economy to regulate financial institutions that pose no risk to 
the economy, like credit unions in northern Maine and small community 
banks in northern Maine that did not cause the problems that we have 
had over these past years.
  However, all I am asking and all this bill does is make sure that the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council's operations are funded by the 
people's representatives. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have the 
opportunity to fund that operation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maine an 
additional 10 seconds.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. POLIQUIN. We only want to make sure that there is enough time

[[Page 4339]]

for public comment. I ask everybody to support this bill. It is a great 
bill, and it keeps money flowing through the economy for our small 
businesses and job creators.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the chairman.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Representative Emmer, for 
offering this piece of legislation that is under consideration today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act 
places the FSOC and the Office of Financial Research under the regular 
appropriations process and will require the Office of Financial 
Research to submit activity reports to Congress. Bringing FSOC under 
the appropriations process ensures greater accountability for a council 
that has continuously failed to fully disclose its SIFI designation 
methodology and that has yet to provide concrete guidelines for 
designated entities to lose their SIFI status.
  Most importantly, this legislation will bring much-needed 
transparency to the Council. FSOC is intended to be a forum for 
discussion and analysis of financial regulator issues, but, 
unfortunately, the Council has continually failed to address the 
consolidation and failure of our Main Street banks. On its own, a 
single community bank failure will not pose a systemic risk to the 
financial system. However, losing these small banks at an accelerating 
pace is a clear warning signal that the financial system is not 
healthy, and losing community banks as a whole certainly qualifies as 
systemically risky.
  Instead of closed-door deliberations, the Council, which is made up 
of financial regulators who have been acknowledging this exact problem, 
should be working to address this pressing issue in a transparent 
manner before it is too late. This legislation is a logical next step 
in reforming the Financial Stability Oversight Council to ensure that 
it actually addresses threats to our financial system.
  I am happy to lend my support to this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this commonsense measure.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his efforts on this 
legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks with just a clarification 
of the argument of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Their 
argument is essentially this: that Federal regulators--banking 
regulators--cannot do their jobs if their funding is somehow held 
accountable to the American people. This argument ignores some 
important facts.
  While Dodd-Frank may well have been intended to protect consumers and 
end Big Government bailouts, FSOC's authority to arbitrarily designate 
nonbank financial institutions as systemically important undermines the 
original intent of the law. In fact, just last month, a U.S. court 
rescinded MetLife's SIFI designation. The opinion called FSOC's 
determination process ``fatally flawed,'' and it called the insurer's 
designation ``capricious and arbitrary.'' Again, those are not my 
words, those are a Federal judge's words. In effect, the judge 
confirmed what House Republicans have been saying for years--that the 
FSOC is out of control and requires additional congressional oversight.
  That is why I support this commonsense and, frankly, modest 
legislation, which subjects FSOC and the Office of Financial Research 
to the annual appropriations process and common practice reporting 
requirements.
  We all want to hold financial providers accountable to their 
customers. It is also Congress' responsibility to hold our government 
accountable to the American people. This bill helps make that happen, 
and we should all be able to agree to that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I would like to take a moment and talk about why we created the FSOC 
and the OFR in the very first place since my Republican colleagues seem 
to think that more regulatory cooperation and the overseeing of our 
financial system is such a bad thing.
  Simply put, we created FSOC to look across regulatory silos and 
detect, prevent, and mitigate systemic risk in the U.S. financial 
system so that we would never again be caught off guard when major 
financial firms, like AIG, fail.
  Recall that AIG created an entire business model that was designed to 
avoid regulation, which sent its major operations and risky credit 
default swaps to the London-based unit, AIG Financial Products, which, 
in turn, was guaranteed by the U.S. parent company. What is more, AIG 
was allowed to select as a regulator the Office of Thrift Supervision, 
OTS.
  According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is the 
FCIC, the OTS failed to effectively exercise its authority over AIG and 
its affiliates. It lacked the capability to supervise an institution of 
the size and complexity of AIG's. It did not recognize the risk 
inherent in AIG's sales of credit default swaps, and it did not 
understand its responsibility to oversee the entire company, including 
AIG Financial Products.
  As we all know, this regulatory arbitrage ultimately spelled failure 
for AIG because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made 
without putting up initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, 
or hedging its exposure--a profound failure in corporate governance, 
particularly in its risk management practices.
  In having just witnessed the takeover of Merrill Lynch by Bank of 
America and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers a mere 24 hours before, 
the U.S. Government stepped in and committed more than $180 billion to 
ensure that AIG's collapse didn't bring down the rest of the financial 
system to which it was so interconnected. From there, the Bush 
administration requested the authority to bail out the big banks.
  When the dust began to settle, Democrats in Congress worked to come 
up with a solution to eliminate this regulatory arbitrage and encourage 
our financial regulators to communicate with one another. Of course, 
the commonsense solution was to create a council on which each of our 
financial regulators had a voice and could meet to consider gaps 
between the agencies' interconnectedness within the financial sector. 
This council would also hold each regulator accountable to how the 
regulators as a whole were mitigating systemic risk to our economy.
  To help inform and support the council, we created the Office of 
Financial Research to research and report on potential systemic risk to 
our economy. Dodd-Frank ensured that the council of the OFR and that 
Congress would all be focused on emerging threats to our economy and 
would never be caught unawares by another AIG. H.R. 3340, however, 
undermines these reforms, and it should be opposed.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, many of the Members on the opposite side of 
the aisle are talking about our oversight responsibility, but they 
don't even exercise oversight responsibility or get the regulators in 
and have a real discussion with them about how it all works. AIG was 
complicated. None of the Members of Congress really understood how it 
operated, how it was formed, how it was set up, and what it was doing. 
We have learned our lesson from AIG, and I hope that the Members of 
this Congress will not forget it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Trott).
  Mr. TROTT. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak in 
support of the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act.

[[Page 4340]]

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is just one more step in our continued 
effort to rein in out-of-control regulatory bodies that are products of 
the Dodd-Frank Act. FSOC and the Office of Financial Research, which 
are both products of Dodd-Frank, have the power to obtain sensitive 
information and are tasked with the mission of monitoring the financial 
stability of the United States.
  With such a broad mandate and vast authority, it is appalling that 
these bodies are not subject to the congressional appropriations 
process and must satisfy only minimal reporting requirements. OFR 
states that its job is to shine light in the dark corners of the 
financial system, but it operates in the dark corners, itself, as it 
spends funds that have been obtained from fees on an ever-expanding 
workforce and budget, all outside of the appropriations process and all 
outside of the eyes of our citizens.
  The people of this great Nation deserve a transparent Federal 
Government that answers to them. Some here today have suggested that, 
in this bill, we want to put a blindfold on--stop oversight and ignore 
a future financial crisis. We have a blindfold on now. We are all in 
the dark. We don't want to stop oversight. We just want to exercise our 
responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution.
  Some here today have suggested that Congress is no longer capable of 
exercising its Article I powers and that, therefore, FSOC must be 
independent of the appropriations process. To them, I ask: Why should 
Washington bureaucrats have more power over the financial decisions of 
the American people than their elected Representatives?
  This legislation is a commonsense solution, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Under Democratic leadership, our country has made tremendous strides 
in creating jobs, in growing the economy, and in stabilizing the 
housing market since the depths of the 2008 recession. This was despite 
significant headwinds from both overseas crises and Republican 
intransigence. Instrumental to our achievements is the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which has bolstered our 
Nation's financial stability and has brought accountability to the 
entire system.
  Among its many accomplishments, such as protecting consumers from 
predatory practices, Dodd-Frank sought to address the excessive risk 
taking by the largest and most complex financial institutions by 
creating the Financial Stability Oversight Council--that is FSOC--and 
the Office of Financial Research, OFR. These two agencies were charged 
with looking at the big picture and identifying cracks in the system 
that could cause a breakdown in our economy. They oversee all aspects 
of the financial system and our largest institutions that can cause 
systemic risk.
  FSOC works to identify and to address systemic risk posed by large, 
complex companies and activities before they threaten the stability of 
the economy. It provides for the cooperation and information sharing 
between agencies in order to research and correct threats before they 
become crises. OFR helps to provide the necessary tools to FSOC by 
collecting and analyzing data on the health of our financial markets 
and by conducting research on potential sources of financial 
instability. It flags emerging threats and shares that information with 
other regulators so that they can intervene before a crisis occurs.
  Together, these two agencies have addressed the devastating, 
widespread failures in supervision and regulation that brought our 
economy to its knees in 2008. They fill the regulatory gaps to make 
sure that no institution, however powerful, can circumvent our rules 
and regulations.
  This crucial work is supported by a majority of Americans--
Republicans and Democrats--who favor Dodd-Frank and the reforms it has 
implemented. Yet, instead of recognizing the importance of these 
institutions and the interests of the American public, House 
Republicans are undermining our regulators' efforts to the benefit of 
the industries that are lining their own pockets. I am troubled by the 
amnesia that plagues my colleagues about the causes of the 2008 
financial crisis and why Wall Street reform was so critical.
  We created FSOC and OFR because our fractured regulatory system 
allowed firms to skirt the rules of the road. This behavior left 
millions homeless and unemployed, and it plunged us into the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. What is worse is that hundreds of 
communities across the country are still struggling to recover.

                              {time}  1445

  By cutting off FSOC and OFR's independent funding streams, H.R. 3340 
will subject the agencies to the volatility of the congressional 
appropriations process and the same funding uncertainty faced by the 
SEC and the FCFTC.
  Make no mistake. The bill before us today is part of a concerted 
effort by House Republicans to impede the progress of financial reform.
  Yesterday Republicans passed a bill in committee to repeal the only 
mechanism to unwind a megabank without destabilizing the economy as 
well as a bill to eliminate funding for the bureau tasked with 
protecting consumers from predatory loans.
  Earlier today and for much of this month, committee Republicans will 
depose public servants at the CFPB, Treasury, and FSOC, despite 
agencies providing thousands of pages of documents at the Republicans' 
request. Soon I expect my chairman to bring up bills repealing the rest 
of our reform.
  Democrats in the House are all too familiar with these attacks. Are 
we not? Republicans have proposed $6 trillion in cuts to initiatives 
like Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. They have prevented us from 
debating America's sacred right to vote. Most Republicans voted against 
upholding the full faith and credit of our Nation's debt. I could go on 
and on and on.
  So, to my colleagues, we have pulled the cover off of them, and we 
are pointing out to you in no uncertain terms how they are singularly 
focused on killing Dodd-Frank reforms.
  They are not exercising their oversight responsibility. They are 
determined that they are going to have their way, and they have it 
under the banner of overregulation.
  Well, that old argument is tired, ladies and gentlemen. 
Overregulation every time they want to do something for the big banks, 
et cetera.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this coordinated attack and vote 
``no'' on this harmful bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It has been a fascinating debate on a very, very simple bill. H.R. 
3340 from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) does one very simple 
thing.
  It says two Federal agencies--the Office of Financial Research and 
the Financial Stability Oversight Council--have to go through the 
budgeted appropriations process. It says nothing more. It says nothing 
less.
  Right now these agencies write their own budget. They can write a 
budget for $100 million. They can write a budget for $500 million. They 
can write a budget for $10 billion.
  Legally, they can write a budget for trillions of dollars. They can 
take money away from we, the people, and there is absolutely nothing 
Congress can do.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress who has come here has raised 
their hand and, in their oath of office, they solemnly swear to support 
and defend the Constitution of the United States. I wonder how many 
Members reflect upon that solemn oath.
  Because Article I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution says: 
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of 
Appropriations made by Law . . .''
  Yet, theoretically, what has happened here is this power of the 
purse, a

[[Page 4341]]

critical power of Article I of the Constitution, has been outsourced to 
Article II.
  It is fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure there is a more solemn 
responsibility of the Federal Government than to provide for the common 
defense.
  Yet, we don't allow the Pentagon to write their own budget. It has to 
go through the elected representatives of we, the people.
  The Justice Department: We don't allow them to write their own 
budget. It has to go through the elected representatives of we, the 
people.
  Even the Office of the President: The President is not allowed to 
write his own budget. It has to go through the appropriations process 
of the elected representatives of we, the people.
  So we have two incredibly important and powerful Federal agencies 
that get to write their own budget. They get to take money away from 
hardworking Americans to essentially do what they please. This is not 
Article I of the Constitution.
  Madison, in Federalist 47--I may not have the quote down perfectly--
essentially said that the common notion of legislative, executive, and 
judicial power in one hand is the absolute definition of tyranny.
  So we have in a Federal agency the FSOC, part of this shadow 
regulatory system that the American people have come to loathe, that 
has the ability to designate financial firms too big to fail and then 
allow them to be bailed out with taxpayer funds, to be functionally 
micromanaged by Federal agencies, essentially, a Federal takeover of 
the banking system so there can be a political allocation of credit, 
which is what led to the economic crisis in the first place: 
politicizing credit, mandating, forcing, suggesting, cajoling financial 
institutions to loan money to people to buy homes they couldn't afford 
to keep. Think Fannie. Think Freddie.
  So we believe on this side of the aisle, regardless of which party is 
in power in Congress, regardless of which party is in power in the 
White House, that Federal agencies ought to be funded through Article I 
of the Constitution and be accountable to we, the people. It is that 
simple.
  So the ranking member says: Well, we can't hold them to the 
volatility and uncertainty of this congressional appropriations 
process. Funny, the Pentagon is. Funny, the President is. Funny, the 
FBI is.
  You know, if you don't like democracy, maybe it is the worst form of 
government, save every other form of government, but it is our form of 
government. And our Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom and our 
prosperity, and these out-of-control agencies ought to be accountable 
and they ought to be transparent to we, the people.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), H.R. 3340, and bring accountability and 
transparency and fidelity to the Constitution back to this institution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). All time for debate on the bill 
has expired.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Royce

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL 
                   RESEARCH.

       Section 153 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5343), as amended by 
     section 3, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Additional Duties.--
       ``(1) Annual work plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director shall, after a period of 60 
     days for public notice and comment, annually publish a 
     detailed work plan concerning the priorities of the Office 
     for the upcoming fiscal year.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The work plan shall include the 
     following:
       ``(i) A unique alphanumeric identifier and detailed 
     description of any report, study, working paper, grant, 
     guidance, data collection, or request for information that is 
     expected to be in progress during, or scheduled to begin in, 
     the upcoming fiscal year.
       ``(ii) For each item listed under clause (i), a target date 
     for any significant actions related to such item, including 
     the target date--

       ``(I) for the release of a report, study, or working paper;
       ``(II) for, and topics of, a meeting of a working paper 
     group and each solicitation of applications for grants; and
       ``(III) for the issuance of guidance, data collections, or 
     requests for information.

       ``(iii) A list of all technical and professional advisory 
     committees that is expected to be convened in the upcoming 
     fiscal year pursuant to section 152(h).
       ``(iv) The name and professional affiliations of each 
     individual who served during the previous fiscal year as an 
     academic or professional fellow pursuant to section 152(i).
       ``(v) A detailed description of the progress made by 
     primary financial regulatory agencies in adopting a unique 
     alphanumeric system to identify legally distinct entities 
     that engage in financial transactions (commonly known as a 
     `Legal Entity Identifier'), including a list of regulations 
     requiring the use of such a system and actions taken to 
     ensure the adoption of such a system by primary financial 
     regulatory agencies.
       ``(2) Public reports.--
       ``(A) Consultation.--In preparing any public report with 
     respect to a specified entity, class of entities, or 
     financial product or service, the Director shall consult with 
     any Federal department or agency with expertise in regulating 
     the entity, class of entities, or financial product or 
     service.
       ``(B) Report requirements.--A public report described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       ``(i) an explanation of any changes made as a result of a 
     consultation under this subparagraph and, with respect to any 
     changes suggested in such consultation that were not made, 
     the reasons that the Director did not incorporate such 
     changes; and
       ``(ii) information on the date, time, and nature of such 
     consultation.
       ``(C) Notice and comment.--Before issuing any public report 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide a 
     period of 90 days for public notice and comment on the 
     report.
       ``(3) Cybersecurity plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Office shall develop and implement a 
     cybersecurity plan that uses appropriate safeguards that are 
     adequate to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the 
     data in the possession of the Office.
       ``(B) GAO review.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall annually audit the cybersecurity plan and its 
     implementation described in subparagraph (A).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 671, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment to 
the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act, which mirrors 
bipartisan legislation I have authored, the Office of Financial 
Research Accountability Act.
  A more open, collaborative, and cyber-secure Office of Financial 
Research would be better positioned to achieve its stated mission of 
promoting financial stability. So, basically, this amendment gets the 
Office of Financial Research on track with a few simple, reasonable 
reforms. There are three of them.
  First, it requires the OFR to submit an annual work plan that details 
the Office's upcoming work while making it available for public notice 
and comment.
  Second, it requires the Office to coordinate with financial 
regulators and agencies that have subject matter experience as it 
prepares public reports.
  Third, it also tasks the Office, which handles immense amounts of 
sensitive financial data, with formulating a cybersecurity plan.
  So this amendment strengthens the Office of Financial Research's 
ability to ensure a transparent, efficient, and stable financial system 
for the American people, the core objective of the Office.
  I thank Mr. Emmer of Minnesota for his work on this important issue. 
I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support both my 
amendment and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 4342]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Royce amendment, which the 
Financial Services Committee considered last November as H.R. 3738. The 
amendment is yet further evidence of the Republican plan to kill Dodd-
Frank with a thousand cuts.
  If adopted, the Office of Financial Research would have to disclose 
its research agenda at the beginning of each year, potentially alarming 
markets, just as the underlying bill, the Royce amendment, would mean 
that any study of the OFR would become corrupted.
  Our market actors would see that the OFR, an office that makes 
recommendations to the Financial Stability Oversight Council about 
systemic risks, was concerned about a particular topic.
  In response, those actors would begin to change their behavior even 
if the OFR might later conclude that there was never any risks to our 
economy.
  In addition, this amendment would require OFR to go into great detail 
when disclosing what it plans to study, something that is not done by 
any other research organization.
  Finally, I am troubled by the amendment's provisions requiring the 
OFR to disclose its consultations. Internal consultations and 
deliberations are explicitly excluded by the Freedom of Information Act 
and for good reason. Individuals would not likely participate in OFR 
studies if their offline, candid remarks were made part of the public 
record.
  Will this prevent industry lobbyists and trade associations from 
commenting? Of course not. They will continue earning their keep, and 
the amendment gives them even more opportunities.
  Why would independent researchers, academics, and scientists want to 
weigh in on a public fight? This amendment, the underlying bill, and 
many of the other Republican initiatives we have seen this year all 
share the same goal. They are aimed at undoing all of the progress the 
Obama administration and Democrats have made in the last 8 years.
  How many times are we going to find ways to kill financial reform? 
How many times are we going to vote to kill job-creating agencies, like 
the Export-Import Bank? How many times are we going to vote to get rid 
of ObamaCare and the health insurance of millions of Americans?
  There is important work to be done, passing a budget, for one, ending 
homelessness in America, funding the administration's requests to help 
combat the Zika virus, helping Puerto Rico to restructure their 
crippling debt so that the island can grow and prosper and create jobs.
  When are Republicans going to hear the cries of everyday Americans?
  I encourage Members to support their constituents by continuing to 
fight for these issues and oppose Republican attempts like this to 
simply roll back Democrat reform.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Royce amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend from California.
  The Office of Financial Research, the OFR, is an important entity, 
but its work so far has been very, very disappointing.
  It is so disappointing that a landmark study by OFR on asset 
management has been publicly criticized by a member of FSOC, the SEC, 
who took the unusual step of opening its own comment period on the 
report.
  We must make sure that OFR's research is done in the right way with a 
strategic plan and that OFR consults with experts and gives proper 
public notice and involvement.
  We don't want the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the FSOC, 
one of the most critical and sensitive creations in Dodd-Frank, relying 
on offhand work criticized publicly by institutions across this city 
and country.
  Further, their data collection requirements and responsibilities 
bring concern to all of our citizens. As we have seen with the IRS, the 
OPM, the CFPB, and now the OFR, rising concern over the importance of 
cybersecurity and data protection are noted in this act and are an 
important part of Mr. Royce's amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Many of our Federal agencies are the root cause of cyber breach and 
loss of privacy, and we don't want to see that extended here.
  I support the amendment and the bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague from California, chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, Congressman Ed Royce, for offering his amendment to the FSOC 
Reform Act.
  As we have seen time and time again, our government needs to improve 
security procedures in order to protect the privacy of the American 
people and integrity for business. The burden, Mr. Speaker, is on the 
Federal Government to provide a plan and to be transparent about what 
it does with the information it collects.
  This amendment accomplishes both of these goals at the Office of 
Financial Research. By mandating OFR to submit an annual work plan and 
allow for public notice and comment, the American people will have a 
greater voice in shaping the objectives of OFR. Perhaps most 
importantly, requiring Federal regulators to collaborate on data 
security will make the personal and financial information of all 
Americans more secure.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Royce for offering this amendment. I 
urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what this proposal does 
and does not do. Nothing in this amendment says that the Office of 
Financial Research must amend their work product because of public 
comments provided to them. The amendment here simply ensures that the 
public gets a chance to comment.
  I have asked eight--eight--FSOC members about their potential 
opposition to this idea. Not a single one has raised an objection to 
this. As to any rhetoric in opposition to this amendment, a lot of it 
has centered on the potential of opening up the Office of Financial 
Research to inappropriate influence. Nothing could be further from 
reality.
  Inappropriate influence is what happens when you labor long with 
little or no transparency, not when you provides more sunlight. What 
this amendment does is provides that transparency. It provides that 
sunlight by opening that up.
  There has been considerable, warranted criticism from those across 
the ideological spectrum about the quality of the OFR's research. We 
are taking a step today to improve the Office of Financial Research's 
research practices, something integral to FSOC reform as the Council 
makes designation decisions founded on the Office's work.
  Regulators making decisions on financial stability should do so with 
their eyes wide open. A more transparent, collaborative, and cyber 
secure Office of Financial Research accomplishes that end. For that 
reason, I urge Members from both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  The amendment 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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

[[Page 4343]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Moore moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3340 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:
       Sec. __  Upon enactment of this Act it shall be in order to 
     consider in the House of Representatives the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 
     and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2018 through 2026. All points of order against 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to 
     adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  Ms. MOORE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Clerk dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, today is April 14, and, by law, Congress must 
enact a budget resolution by tomorrow, April 15. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: 
by law, Congress must enact a budget resolution by April 15. That is 
tomorrow.
  After months and months and months of the majority promising regular 
order, the Republican House leadership has failed to meet this most 
basic measure of responsibility of bringing a budget to the floor. So 
today, Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit will help out my Republican 
colleagues with their responsibilities to this body.
  In my motion to recommit, I am offering up the Republican budget that 
was passed out of committee last month to allow my colleagues the 
ability to vote on their own budget and also to allow us to offer our 
alternatives.
  To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, the GOP budget resolution ends 
the Medicare guarantee, makes $6.5 trillion in drastic cuts, increases 
poverty, and erodes the economic security of all Americans.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as awful as Democrats think that this budget is, 
the Tea Party faction of the House GOP is demanding that we make even 
more draconian cuts and even deeper cuts, and they ought to have the 
right, as well, to offer their alternative on the floor.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I don't support this Republican budget, 
but I am offering this motion to recommit because, again, we cannot 
offer our alternative unless this budget is processed on this floor.
  The Republicans are abandoning their promise to restore regular order 
because they can't agree on a worse product, but hardworking families 
deserve a Congress that invests in their future, protects their safety, 
and creates a level playing field for them and their children to 
succeed.
  You know what they always say, Mr. Speaker: the majority gets its 
way, and the minority gets its say. Let's get to the ``have its say'' 
part.
  We are going to continue as Democrats to press for a budget that 
creates jobs, opportunities, and raises paychecks for the American 
people while reducing the deficit in a balanced and responsible way, 
Mr. Speaker.
  But, again, since the Republicans can't seem to get their act 
together by bringing their budget to the floor, my motion to recommit 
would bring that product to the floor. So that is why I am offering 
this motion to recommit today, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order because 
the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to 
which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule XVI, 
which requires an amendment to be germane to the measure being amended. 
Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I am 
afraid I must insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would just mention that I think it is 
germane because tomorrow is April 15.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no other Member wishing to be 
heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the instructions 
proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin are not germane.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI--the germaneness rule--provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an 
amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction of a 
committee not represented in the pending measure.
  The bill, H.R. 3340, as amended, addresses funding and other matters 
relating to the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of 
Financial Research, which are matters within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment 
consisting of a special order of business of the House, which is a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
  As the Chair ruled in similar proceedings on October 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 
9, 10, 11, and 14, 2013, the instructions in the motion to recommit are 
not germane because they are not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Accordingly, the motion to recommit is not germane. The point of 
order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, and the order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the 
motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of the 
bill, if arising without further proceedings in recommittal; adoption 
of amendment No. 1 to H.R. 3791; the motion to recommit H.R. 3791, if 
ordered; and passage of H.R. 3791, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 176, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               YEAS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson

[[Page 4344]]


     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Allen
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Delaney
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Lieu, Ted
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Payne
     Poe (TX)
     Sewell (AL)
     Simpson
     Tonko
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1532

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. RANGEL, LARSEN of 
Washington, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 179, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 146]

                               YEAS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind

[[Page 4345]]


     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Delaney
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Lieu, Ted
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     McMorris Rodgers
     Nadler
     Payne
     Poe (TX)
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Tonko
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1539

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 146, the vote on final 
passage of H.R. 3340, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform 
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________