[House Report 115-647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress    }                                   {         Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                   {        115-647

======================================================================



 
          COMMON SENSE CREDIT UNION CAPITAL RELIEF ACT OF 2017

                                _______
                                

 April 24, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hensarling, from the Committee on Financial Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4464]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 4464) to repeal the rule issued by the National 
Credit Union Administration titled ``Risk-Based Capital'', 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    Introduced by Representative Bill Posey on November 28, 
2017, H.R. 4464, the ``Common Sense Credit Union Relief Act of 
2017,'' repeals the October 15, 2015, National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA) Final Risk-Based Capital Rule (80 FR 
66626).

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is the 
independent federal agency created by the U.S. Congress to 
regulate, charter, and supervise federal credit unions. The 
NCUA operates and manages the National Credit Union Share 
Insurance Fund (NCUSIF), which insures the deposits of the 
account holders in all federal credit unions and the majority 
of state-chartered credit unions.
    Beginning in 1934 with the passage of the Federal Credit 
Union Act (FCUA), the NCUA, through its predecessors, engages 
in the supervision and regulation of federal credit unions. The 
NCUA is responsible for the regulation and supervision of 5,696 
federally insured credit unions with approximately 109 million 
members and more than $1 trillion in assets across all states 
and U.S. territories. In 1970, this supervision of federal 
credit unions evolved to include the addition of the NCUSIF, 
which provides to credit union accounts the backing of the full 
faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Administered by the 
NCUA, provides members with at least $250,000 of insurance at a 
federally insured credit union and the NCUA's overview of the 
NCUSIF states that ``Credit union members have never lost a 
penny of insured savings at a federally insured credit 
union.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See: Share Insurance Fund Overview, available at: https://
www.ncua.gov/services/pages/share-insurance.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 23, 2014, the NCUA issued a proposed rule to 
amend its risk-based capital requirements for credit unions. 
Known as the ``Risk-Based Net Worth Rule,''' the proposal 
generated significant controversy and garnered over 2,000 
comment letters, including more than 300 from members of 
Congress. In response, the NCUA withdrew its original proposal 
and on January 15, 2015, the NCUA issued a revised risk-based 
capital rule. The 2015 revised proposal did not extinguish the 
concerns of interested commentators, as shown by the 2,147 
comment letters received by the NCUA after re-issuance. Yet, on 
October 15, 2015, the NCUA Board voted 2-1 to approve a final 
risk-based capital rule, which will take effect January 1, 
2019.
    Many commentators are concerned that risk-based capital for 
federal credit unions is unnecessary, because, as former NCUA 
Chairman Matz noted in a December 2011 letter to the Government 
Accountability Office, ``consumer credit unions performed very 
well during the worst financial crisis since the Great 
Depression and NCUA was highly successful overall in mitigating 
failures and losses for consumer credit unions.''\2\ While the 
NCUA must ensure that credit unions remain sound to withstand a 
range of economic conditions, there is a notable absence of 
comprehensive research, dialogue, and due diligence as part of 
its rulemaking efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\https://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587409.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, there are concerns that the 2015 final rule 
exceeds NCUA's statutory authority, as current law does not 
expressly permit the NCUA to establish a two-tiered risk-based 
capital system. As a result, several legal opinions were 
commissioned to determine whether the NCUA has legal authority 
to do so. The law firm of Paul Hastings, LLP, found that the 
(FCUA is both ambiguous and susceptible to differing 
interpretations, including that of the NCUA. Another law firm, 
Venable, LLP, concluded that the FCUA does not permit the NCUA 
to establish a higher risk based capital component for ``well-
capitalized'' credit unions than what is required for 
``adequately capitalized'' credit unions, and therefore the 
rule would violate the FCUA.
    In 2015, then NCUA Board Member, and now-Chairman, Mark 
McWatters, an attorney and former law professor, voted against 
the final risk-based capital rule. Board Member McWatters 
argued that the Paul Hastings legal opinion was not a strong 
enough basis on which to justify the NCUA's legal authority to 
implement a two-tier risk-based net worth system. In his 
October 15, 2015, dissent, now-Chairman McWatters stated:

          Since I am of the view that the NCUA Board does not 
        possess the legal authority under the FCUA to adopt a 
        two-tier RBNW standard, and based upon other major 
        concerns with the rule I have addressed in this 
        statement, I will not support the RBNW regulations as 
        currently drafted. Further, I would find it problematic 
        to support a single-tier RBNW standard unless the rule 
        permits the inclusion--or at least acknowledges a good 
        faith undertaking to investigate the viability--of 
        properly structured supplemental capital in the 
        calculation of the RBNW ratio to the fullest extent 
        permitted by applicable law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/Pages/speeches/2015/october/
McWatters-Statement-Final-Risk-Based-Net-Worth-Rule.aspx.

    Furthermore, now-Chairman McWatters has indicated his 
intent to revisit the risk-based capital rule as part of a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``thoughtful loosening'' of regulations, because:

        just as regulatory relief designed for the entire 
        credit union community may not help an individual 
        credit union, overall performance does not mean every 
        institution is doing well. That is why I support and 
        wish to enhance the NCUA's regulatory and supervisory 
        approach to focus on the problem areas and allow well-
        managed credit unions to get about the business of 
        serving their members with minimal interference.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/Pages/speech-2017-feb-remarks-of-
chairman-mcwatters-gac.aspx.

    The rule was both unnecessary and poorly conceived from its 
inception. Even though the NCUA took unprecedented actions to 
rewrite the rule for a second time, the revised rule garnered 
even more comments than the initial version. As stated in 
testimony before the Financial Services Committee on December 
7, 2017, by Brian Ducharme, President and CEO of MIT Federal 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Union:

        [e]nacting H.R. 4464 would stop the outdated NCUA risk-
        based capital rule from being implemented and, instead, 
        allow the agency to craft a new RBC rule that considers 
        recent developments and better reflects the needs of 
        the credit union system.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-115-ba15-
wstate-bducharme-20171207.pdf.

    As such, by repealing the NCUA's final rule, H.R. 4464 will 
provide much needed regulatory relief for credit unions that 
have only become more stable and resilient since the NCUA 
originally proposed this rule some four years ago.

                                HEARINGS

    The Committee on Financial Services held a hearing 
examining matters relating to H.R. 4464 on April 26, 2017 and 
April 28, 2017.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 
December 13, 2017, and ordered H.R. 4464 to be reported 
favorably to the House as amended by a recorded vote of 33 yeas 
to 25 nays (Record vote no. FC-132), a quorum being present.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A 
recorded vote was requested on a motion by Chairman Hensarling 
to report the bill favorably to the House. The motion was 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 33 yeas to 25 nays (Record vote 
no. FC-132), a quorum being present. An amendment offered by 
Ms. Waters, no. 1, was not agreed to by a recorded vote of 25 
ayes and 33 nays (Record vote no. FC-131).


                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of 
the Committee based on oversight activities under clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

                    PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 4464 
will repeal the National Credit Union Administration's Risk-
Based Capital final rule (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 66626 
(October 29, 2015).

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 26, 2018.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4464, the Common 
Sense Credit Union Capital Relief Act of 2017.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4464--Common Sense Credit Union Capital Relief Act of 2017

    Summary: H.R. 4464 would prevent a rule issued by the 
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) from going into 
effect. That rule would make changes to NCUA's capital 
requirements for credit unions. Such changes can affect the 
probability that a credit union fails and must be resolved by 
the Share Insurance Fund (SIF). As a result, CBO estimates that 
enacting the bill would increase net direct spending by $50 
million over the 2018-2027 period.
    Because enacting H.R. 4464 would affect direct spending, 
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not 
affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4464 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $2.5 
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 4464 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    Additional fees levied by the NCUA on credit unions would 
increase the cost of an existing private-sector mandate as 
defined in UMRA. However, CBO estimates that those costs would 
fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for 
private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 4464 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 
(advancement of commerce).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027  2018-2022  2018-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              INCREASES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Increased Costs to the NCUA to Resolve Failed Credit Unions.
    Estimated Budget Authority..............................      0     14     10     10      6      2      2      2      2      2        40         50
    Estimated Outlays.......................................      0     14     10     10      6      2      2      2      2      2        40         50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: Enacting H.R. 4464 would reduce the 
amount of capital that certain credit unions would be required 
to hold and would change how credit unions account for the risk 
profile of their assets to federal regulators. Enacting the 
bill would permit credit unions to hold less capital than they 
will be required to hold under the rule, which becomes 
effective in January 2019. Reducing the amount of capital 
credit unions hold increases the probability that a credit 
union could fail and also increases the federal cost of 
resolving credit union failures. Failed credit unions are 
resolved through the SIF, which is administered by the NCUA. 
That spending is recorded in the budget as direct spending.
    Under the rule, Credit Unions will be required to have a 
ratio of risk-weighted assets to capital of 10 percent. Under 
H.R. 4464, that ratio would be 7 percent, the ratio in place 
before the rule was finalized. The rule sets the level of 
capital credit unions must hold and also requires credit unions 
to account for the risk profile of their assets in a way that 
is commensurate with the way that banks must account for their 
risk profile. Under the bill, credit unions would return to 
using a measure of risk called the net worth ratio that was 
primarily intended to capture interest rate risk.
    CBO's baseline projection for the SIF's gross cost is $1.2 
billion over the 2018-2027 period. Using information from the 
NCUA, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase those 
gross SIF costs by about one-third (or about $400 million) over 
the 2018-2027 period.\1\ CBO expects those costs would increase 
because failed credit unions would have less capital, and as a 
result, costs to the SIF to resolve them would increase. 
However, the NCUA has the authority to collect premiums and 
fees from insured institutions to offset its costs; those 
premiums and fees are recorded as offsets to direct spending. 
Because of the time it would take for the NCUA to set its 
assessments to recoup those costs, CBO expects that there would 
be a one-year delay in collecting premiums and fees from credit 
unions. As a result of that lag, CBO estimates that enacting 
the bill would lead to a net increase in direct spending of $50 
million over the 2018-2027 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See National Credit Union Administration, Risk-Based Capital 
Final Rule Impact Summary (October 2015), https://go.usa.gov/xnHtm 
(PDF, 128 KB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

     CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4464, THE COMMON SENSE CREDIT UNION CAPITAL RELIEF ACT OF 2017, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
                                                  COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES ON DECEMBER 13, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027  2018-2022  2018-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact..............................      0     14     10     10      6      2      2      2      2      2        40         50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 4464 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits by more than $2.5 billion in any 
of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    Mandates: H.R. 4464 contains no intergovernmental mandates 
as defined in UMRA.
    Additional fees assessed by the NCUA to offset the costs 
associated with implementing the bill would increase the cost 
of an existing mandate on federally chartered credit unions 
required to pay those fees. CBO estimates that the additional 
cost of the mandate would total $19 million in 2020 and would 
remain below the annual threshold established in UMRA for 
private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted 
annually for inflation) in subsequent years.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Sarah Puro; Mandates: 
Rachel Austin.
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    This information is provided in accordance with section 423 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
    The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain 
Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has 
determined that the bill does not impose a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of the section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                         EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

    With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed 
the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of 
the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the 
rule.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no 
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report 
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant 
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related 
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 
98-169).

                   DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULEMAKING

    Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, (115th Congress), 
the following statement is made concerning directed 
rulemakings: The Committee states that the bill requires no 
directed rulemakings.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title

    This section cites H.R. 4464 as the ``Common Sense Credit 
Union Capital Relief Act of 2017.''

Section 2. Repeal

    This section repeals the National Credit Union 
Administration's ``Risk-Based Capital'' final rule (published 
at 80 Fed. Reg. 66626 (October 29, 2015).

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    H.R. 4464 does not repeal or amend any section of a 
statute. Therefore, the Office of Legislative Counsel did not 
prepare the report contemplated by clause 3(e)(1)(B) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                             Minority Views

    H.R. 4464 would repeal the final rule on risk-based capital 
that was promulgated by the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA) in October 2015 and takes effect on 
January 1, 2019.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/29/2015-
26790/risk-based-capital and https://www.ncua.gov/About/Pages/board-
actions/bulletins/2015/october/BAB20151015.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That rule was the culmination of a multi-year rulemaking 
process that involved considerable study and input from 
stakeholders. NCUA's Board explained that the rule satisfies 
several legal requirements that it is required to fulfill. 
According to NCUA, nearly 75 percent of all credit unions are 
exempt from the rule, and only one percent of credit unions are 
likely to have to make adjustments to come into compliance with 
the rule. While the bill would repeal the final rule, it would 
not make any changes to the underlying statutes that the rule 
addresses, meaning the statutory rulemaking requirement 
remains.
    NCUA's risk-based capital rule has been closely scrutinized 
by the Committee in terms of how the agency proposed and then 
finalized the rule. For example, on October 6, 2015, Members of 
our Committee wrote a bipartisan letter to former NCUA Chairman 
Debbie Matz, urging the agency to voluntarily undertake the 
study and report proposed by a bipartisan bill introduced in 
the 114th Congress,\2\ before finalizing the risk-based capital 
rule. Chairman Matz replied on October 8, 2015, that NCUA had 
already closely studied each of the factors mentioned in the 
study under the proposed bill, but she still committed to 
issuing a report to the Committee. In November 2015, NCUA 
submitted to the Committee a 220-page report entitled, ``Report 
to the House Financial Services Committee on the Final Risk-
Based Capital Rule,'' that was also published on NCUA's 
website.\3\ In this report, NCUA laid out the statutory 
authority for the rulemaking along with the extensive analysis 
and engagement with stakeholders in crafting and finalizing the 
proposal. NCUA emphasized that, ``The Federal Credit Union Act 
requires the NCUA Board to prescribe, by regulation, a system 
of prompt corrective action that is: `consistent with' section 
216 of the Federal Credit Union Act; and `comparable' to the 
system of prompt connective action prescribed in the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act. . . . Because of the statutory 
requirement for NCUA's prompt corrective action system to be 
comparable--and the fact that credit unions are exposed to 
credit risk like all depository financial institutions--NCUA's 
general approach was to defer to the capital treatment used by 
the other banking agencies and the Basel Committee on Banking 
Supervision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\H.R. 2769 (114th Congress), the Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 
2015, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/2769. The 
bill was not enacted into law, so NCUA was not required to conduct the 
study or report.
    \3\https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/Documents/RBC/final-
risk-based-capital-rule-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCUA's rule updates regulations on prompt corrective action 
requiring credit unions that take certain risks must hold 
capital commensurate with those risks. The rule only applies to 
federally-insured credit unions with assets over $100 million. 
At the time the rule was adopted, it was estimated that 76 
percent of credit unions would be exempt. Furthermore, among 
the 24 percent of credit unions covered by the rule, only 1 
percent would experience any change in their capital category, 
based on balance sheets of covered credit unions at the time. 
Nearly 99 percent of the 1,489 covered credit unions, would 
continue to be categorized as ``well capitalized.''\4\ The rule 
is set to go into effect on January 1, 2019, which coincides 
with the full phase-in of risk-based capital rules at federal 
banking agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Federally insured credit unions have substantially increased 
membership, assets, net income, and loans since 2011. Credit union 
membership has expanded by 16.5 million since 2010, an increase of 18 
percent, which now stands at more than 108 million members nationwide. 
See https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/Pages/publications/annual-
reports.aspx.
    \5\https://www.ncua.gov/About/Pages/board-actions/bulletins/2015/
october/BAB20151015.aspx. For more information about the rule, also see 
https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision /Pages/policy-compliance/
resource-centers/risk-based-capital.aspx, https://www.ncua.gov/
newsroom/Pages/speeches/2015/october/Matz-Statement-on-the-Risk-Based-
Capital-Final-Rule.aspx, https://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Documents/RBC/RBC-
Impact-Analysis.pdf, https://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Documents/RBC/RBC-
Final-Rule-FAQs.pdf, and https://www.ncua.gov/About/Documents/
Agenda%20Items/AG20151015Item4a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the final rule was adopted, then Chairman Matz 
explained the rule is tailored to address the high-risk outlier 
credit unions that pose significant potential risk of losses to 
NCUA's Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). In the event of losses to 
NCUSIF, all federally insured credit unions would have to pay 
to recapitalize the fund. As Dr. Marcus Stanley explained in 
testimony before the Committee, ``This is not just a 
theoretical danger. During the financial crisis dozens of 
credit unions failed, and the Federal government was forced to 
place large `wholesale' credit unions into public 
conservatorship due to large unexpected losses on subprime 
mortgage securities.'' Dr. Stanley went on to recommend that 
``Congress work with the NCUA to investigate means of assisting 
credit unions that are less extreme than simply repealing new 
risk based capital rules.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-115-ba15-
wstate-mstanley-20171207.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We oppose H.R. 4464 because it would repeal a risk-based 
capital rule that fulfills a statutory mandate that federally-
insured credit unions be held to comparable capital standards 
as federally- insured banks. Furthermore, this tailored 
rulemaking was adopted after a thoughtful and deliberative 
rulemaking process. Rather than a wholesale repeal of the rule, 
a less drastic policy approach would be to identify any 
specific problems with the final rule, seek more information, 
and determine whether any regulatory or legislative changes may 
be necessary to address them. Furthermore, while credit unions 
are required to have comparable capital rules that banks have, 
we believe credit unions should also have a comparable amount 
of time banks had to adjust to new capital rules.
    To that end, Committee Democrats offered a substitute 
amendment to replace H.R. 4464's repeal of the risk-based 
capital rule with a two-year extension, giving the few credit 
unions that will have to adjust their balance sheet until 2021 
to come into compliance with the rule. The extension would also 
give NCUA, Congress, and stakeholders additional time to more 
closely scrutinize various components of the risk-based capital 
rule, and make administrative or legislative changes as 
necessary. Unfortunately, Republicans rejected this sensible 
alternative and continue to insist on completely repealing the 
rule even though the law requires NCUA to have comparable 
capital rules as banks have.
    For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4464.

                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Nydia M. Velazquez.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Joyce Beatty.
                                   Keith Ellison.

                                  [all]