tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN December 1, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
the younger generation, the x generation on down, it won't be there for us if we stay on the current path. so we have to d things to fix this program so we can guarantee that it's there, intact for current seniors but also that there's something there for us when we retire. the kinds of reforms we have been advocating here are nothing different than what federal employees have. you get to choose among plans that are comprehensive and guaranteed to meet your benefits or if you want to stick with the current, traditional program, you can do that as well. that is good reforms. that's what c.b.o. tells us is a good way of improving costs, lowering prices and expanding choices. medicare advantage is a program that medicare works pretty darn well that seniors like. so obviously you've hiten an issue i care a great deal about, because i care a great deal about this program. i want to make sure it's there for current seniors. as far as what our plans are with respect to reforming and preserving, that's something we haven't discussed yet with the
administration and we'll do it as the year goes on. >> about the c.r., there's some concern now that it might need to go later or could get jammed up because of the senate and so on. could you just step back for a minute and give us an explanation as to why when earlier leadership such as mcconnell has said, let's finish the budget this year, let's get it done, why was there this push to have a c.r. and why does the administration, incoming administration, favor that approach? mr. ryan: getting jammed up and senate in the same sentence is something i think we'll hear a lot this year. they move slower than the house does, their system is different than ours is, and they've got to stand up to government. they have to do all these votes and hearings on cabinet and subcabinet officers, probably a supreme court court pick -- a
supreme court pick coming sooner or later. that takes a lot of time that we don't have here in the house. there's a concern about literally the calendar. in the housing we can have a shorter c.r., it's not a problem for us. it's a question of managing the senate's calendar. that's what this discussion about the end date of the c.r. is all about. with respect to why we wanted a c.r., we didn't want to have -- we wanted to bring in the new republican government in place so we could negotiate appropriations with that government which we think is going to be much better negotiations than with the existing government that we have a will the of problems with the way they spend money. just that simple. >> couldn't you admittedly now, couldn't the c.r. become a problem given what the senate's calendar is? >> i don't think so. we're working with leader mcconnell on their calendar to make sure we can accommodate their concerns, which i think are legitimate because they have different concerns than the house does. that's why we're going to work with them on proper timing of
the c.r. and finish the job there. we want to make sure we have a smooth transition from one administration to the next. >> the education secretary, you wrote in a better way about the idea of reverting things from federal control back to states and local governments and things. this obviously is a push for charter school, school choice. there's a question about the performance of these charter schools. you're a parent, have kids in grad school but do you have reservations about maybe going too far because of some of the mixed reports we have gotten about charter schools? mr. ryan: no, because of the word you just used, parent. i'm a parent, i'm going to send my kids to the best school i can. who cares more about your kid than you do? i do believe that, and this debate becomes an air gatt, paternalistic notion that washington knows better or best
how your children should get educated. i think parents know best. care the most. and so that is why we so deeply believe in not just esen -- decentralizing power but decision making back to the states and opening up competition. education reform should be about results. what educates kids, today's kids, not tomorrow's kids, today's kids the best. open it up so we have different competitive molds, choice, charter, everything in between. let that be done in the states. this is something we do in wisconsin quite a bit. i can take you to milwaukee and show you extremely successful charter schools, choice schools and public schools. and that's something we're excited about moving on. his is our future. >> back to the carrier deal. mr. ryan: i don't know much about it, there's not much i can say. >> you met with vice president
elect pence yesterday, i imagine there was some conversation. mr. ryan: we were talking about 2017 legislative calendars, how to hit the ground running, and make sure we're on the same page with legislative priorities. >> if there are tax breaks being given to get them to stay there, is that a federal strategy or sit a one off? mr. ryan: i don't know the answer, because i don't know what this is. whether it's indiana competing for jobs like wisconsin does but what i can tell you about the tax code with respect to businesses, this is what tax reform is all about. comprehensive tax reform, which you can go to better.gop, and see what we've written, is about making it better for businesses to stay in america. i don't know the contours of what carrier is experiencing,
but we tax our businesses at a much righter rate than other countries. our successful small businesses which is, you know, most of our businesses, eight of 10 businesses file as individuals, subchapter s corporations, their effective tax rate is 44.6%. we're killing jobs and competitiveness because of our tax code. tax reform is central to fixing this problem. look, the tax foundation looked at our tax bill, said it could add about 1.7 million new jobs. 9.1% added to the economy. raising wages. capital restoring and returning to america. that's what we're talking about with respect to reforming our tax code. not just carrier or one-offs but all american businesses making them more competitive. >> last question. -- r. speaker, on january 1 sorry. >> you guys expect to do two
budget resolutions next year, seems to be the plan. a, the use of general timeline and b, to expect premium support. mr. ryan: i don't know a and b. we haven't written the budgets, let alone the reconciliation that follows from it. this is our intention to use every tool we've got to make progress for the american people, to make good on the promises that were made. we believe obamacare, you have to remember, obamacare is hurting families. obamacare is giving families yet again another double digit premium increase, really high deductibles and fewer choices. so many people in this country have one choice, which isn't a choice, it's a monopoly. we -- the worst is yet to come with obamacare. we see higher premiums come, more debt spirals and more pull outs. united pulled out, aetna pulled out. we need to give american people relief from oba pa -- obamacare.
with respect to other issues, reconciliation is the proper budget tool you use for budget legislation. health care, tax, these are budget issues that will be dealt with in that way. >> you've been talking premium support for several years. mr. ryan: i don't know the answer to your question because these are ongoing discussions with the transition team and something we're going to work on together in congress. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. >> the house taking a break before returning for votes around 5:00 eastern time. members today working on a range of issues, including 2017 defense programs an changing parts of the dodd 46 frank financial -- dodd-frank financial regulation law. votes on the dodd-frank changes are expected when members
return. here's a look at some of today's debate on that bill. 6392, the systemic risk designation improvement act, which is a very important bill co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of members of the house. the text of which was approved by our committee with a strong bipartisan support of 39-16. i want to thank chairman luke myer, chairman of our housing and insurance subcommittee, one of the key leaders on our financial services committee, for his leadership and for introducing this legislation. he has led these efforts valiantly to reform a flawed and arbitrary framework used by regulators to deg -- designate so-called system pli foreign financial institutions, also known as sifis, designation, mr. speaker, anoints these institutions as too big to fail. meaning that today's sifi designations are tomorrow's tax
funded bailouts. it is clear that this issue has found, again, a fair amount of consensus on both sides of the aisle. and this legislation represents a very good-faith effort by the gentleman from missouri to forge a bipartisan piece of legislation that at the very least, at the minimum, would get rid of a totally arbitrary and static threshold currently used to designate institutions as systemically important. mr. speaker, i and i speak for many on this floor, i, for one, do not believe in the sifi architecture at all. i think it is harmful. i think it is dangerous. clearly it should be replaced by high levels of loss absorbing private capital. but that is not what we're debating today. today in the 114th congress we continue to try to find a bipartisan consensus to support needed reforms, again, that's what this bill is.
bipartisan. it recognizes that regulations should consider different components of risk and not simply a washington one-size-fits-all definition. the current approach, this is very important, mr. speaker, the current approach as the co-author of the dodd-frank act himself admits is a mistake. it is a mistake because it fails to take into differences in the various business models or systemic risk institutions pose to our financial system. in fact, it is indisputable that the asset threshold used in dodd-frank is not based on logical formula on research or any evidence at all. instead, it is simply a random number picked out of thin air. concerns with this arbitrary number have been recognized as i just mentioned by none other than former financial services committee chairman barney frank himself. as i recall, he's the frank of dodd-frank. and in testimony before our
committee, mr. speaker, former chairman frank agreed that the threshold he wrote into law was, quote, arbitrary. and he expressed support for adjusting it. then just last week he stated the asset throshe hold was quote, a mistake. i hope all members on the other side of the aisle take careful note. federal reserve board member, dan, has also expressed skepticism as has the comptroller of the curn. even the ranking member -- currency. even the ranking member of the senate banking committee, senator brown, stated, quote i do not agree -- rather i do agree that some banks above $50 billion should not, not be regulated like wall street megabanks, unquote. so what we're trying to do here today with this bipartisan bill is trying to profile a solution to try to fix a generally recognized mistake in dodd-frank. those oppose the bill are trying to do is to preserve
that mistake in law. perhaps again, mr. speaker, my colleagues, some of my colleagues, need to be reminded that small banks on main street, even our regional banks, did not cause the financial crisis. arbitrarily painting big banks and small and mid-sized banks with exactly the same broad brush is wrong, it's bad polcy, and it is bad for our economy. so the discussion today, mr. speaker, should instead focus on the appropriate measure of systemic importance and the regulatory burden imposed by the so-called enhanced prudential standards once an institution has been designated. by focusing exclusively on asset size, you ignore other factors that may be morel vant in determining whether financial institutions -- more relevant in determining whether finance institutions should be subject to the standards. an asset-based approach does not capture this. the types of risk that enhance
prudential standards are designed to mitigate in the first place. by determining risk under an activity-based standards, no matter how flawed these standards may be, our regulators would be better equipped to differentiate between stable activities and those that may pose a threat to financial stability. it would allow more precision in identifying systemic importance while also providing flexibility for institutions in gauging in more prudent lending activities. so, mr. speaker, it's just so important that we know that the effect of these regulations today on the u.s. economy, it is harming our economy. instead of helping to capitalize small businesses leading to more jobs and opportunity for people who still lack both, financial institutions are having to expend capital on compliance, compliance that even the co-author of dodd-frank admits is a mistake.
mr. speaker, i regrettably need not remind us that we remain stuck in the slowest and weakest economic recovery since the end of world war ii. the economy simply is not working for working americans. they can't get ahead. and they fear for the future of their families. their paychecks have remained stagnant. their savings have declined. the american people deserve better. so i urge the adoption of this measure. thank chairman luke myer -- luket myer for forging this bipartisan solution. and i urge us to correct this dodd-frank mistake and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 6392. this is the first step in the trump agenda to deregulate wall
street despite candidate trump's pledges to hold elite bankers accountable. in fact, as we debate this bill today, trump towers' revolving door is spinning with wall street insiders. yes, in a skyscraper in midtown manhattan, trump and his transition team are plotting their agenda to weaken financial reform and bring us back to the precrisis while -- wild west days when bank could gamble with taxpayer money. bank stocks are up on news of gifts to come, and newspaper headlines are already documenting republicans' aggressive plans. in fact, president-elect trump just announced that he will ominate steven new shin -- nmuchin, a former goldman sachs executive who now sits on the board of the megabank, c.i.t.,
to be his treasury secretary. his bank is just one of 27 banks that stands to benefit directly from this legislation. though c.i.t. crashed, that's the bank, and went bankrupt during the crisis because of high risk commercial lending nd subprime loans, somehow mr. mnuchin still managed to sign an employment deal handing him $4 million a year in 2016. i suppose passing this legislation is just the republican congress' way of giving him a signing bonus for coming into government. we enacted wall street reform in response to the stunning greed and regulatory failures of our financial system.
and yet with this bill the republicans are displaying a staggering degree of historical amnesia. this bill is the epitome of the dangerous agenda with h.r. 6392 gutting our banking regulations ' oversight of $4.5 trillion in banking assets, or approximately 30% of the industry currently subject to enhanced rules. make no mistake, this bill is not about helping the community banks, because 99% of our country's community banks and credit unions are already exempt from most rules in dodd-frank. i don't want anybody to come out here saying oh, we're helping the community banks. this has nothing to do with the community banks. . this is about deregulating the
big banks. it is also not about tailoring regulations for regional banks. wall street reform already required that and the federal reserve is already taking steps to do so. no. this bill is about a wholesale regulatory exemption for just 27, 27 of the biggest banks in america. banks with $100 billion, $200 billion and even $400 billion in as the -- assets. many of the types of banks that would benefit from this bill failed spectacularly during the financial crisis. in fact, large bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets received twice as much bailout money per dollar than banks with less than $50 billion in assets. contrary to the talking points from the other side of the aisle , these megaregional banks are
not just big community banks. no. these regional banks are some of the worst players in predatory, subprime lending, leading up to the financial crisis. they have preyed on minority communities and rural communities and they have passed the buck on to taxpayers when their bets failed. remember countrywide? remember countrywide? a $200 billion 2015, they were the number three subprime mortgage originator and number one issuer of subprime mortgages bonds in 2006. they a crisis. remember washington mutual? with $300 billion in assets, whose hometown paper, the seattle times d, -- the "seattle times" described as predatory. remember wachovia with their exotic pick a payment mortgage loans, remember in october of
2008 when they posted a $24 billion quarterly loss and the fdic had to facilitate a midnight acquisition by wells fargo. remember new century? or aameriquest or option one? this bill would enable more employeeups like these. h.r. -- blow justice-ups like b. h.r. 6392 would make sure banks are subblet to closer regulatory scrutiny and prevent the federal reserve board from regulating these banks. instead, it would hand over that responsibility to what is known as fsoc, the financial stability yore sight council, in order -- stability oversight council, in order to -- they say, regulate the banks. the fsoc would have to go through a process of designation which takes two to four years to complete, this would give them plenty of time to go back to
their old ways that dodd-frank is trying to prevent. even if a potential treasury secretary, mnuchin, decided to regulate his former employer by the time he got around to it, the damage would likely already be done. it's also significant to note that republicans have repeatedly tried to dismantle the fsoc. and its existing designation authority for large nonbanks. they have called the council unconstitutional, introduced bills to make it harder for the fsoc to do its job. and help companies like met life fight its designation in court. what's more, chairman hensarling 's sweeping wall street de-regulation bill, the wrong choice act, would repeal this exact same designation authority altogether. why is the majority even considering this bill today? when the chairman's wall street reform repeal package would render this bill moot.
it is clear that this is just the first act in a long, dangerous play that will continue well into next year. i therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this harmful bill. members of congress, as i said when i took the floor to debate this bill, this is the first act in trump's promise that he's going to de-regulate, his promise that he's going to get rid of dodd-frank, his promise that he's going to get rid of the consumer financial protection bureau, his promise that he's going to in essence turn all of this back over to wall street. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself five seconds just to say, if the ranking member believes this is the first act in getting rid of dodd-frank, she ain't seen nothing yet.
now, mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house rules committee and thank him for his leadership in helping bring this bill to the floor, the gentleman from dallas, texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized for two minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i thank my dear colleague from dallas also, for not only yielding but i want to commend him and working with his committee, including mr. luetkemeyer, from missouri, for this awesome legislation. mr. speaker, the point is simple. washington has once again gotten in the way of legitimate business and is harming the american people, the american economy and job growth in this country. by imposing unnecessary and burdensome compliance costs on medium-sized banks all across america. asset threshold, regardsless of how high or low, are
disincentives to growth. they will always be an institutionalized somewhere that's slightly above or below some threshold, but the bottom line is that arbitrary numbers tell us very little about risk that is actually involved. and it is the risk to institutions in america that we should be talking about. so, simply put, the designation is arbitrary. it simply suggests smaller banks to the same standards as trillion-dollar globally systemic organizations, which is something that would only make sense here in washington. the bottom line is, it is an impediment to free economic growth and it is an impediment that is burdening not only our banks, but consumers also. i commend congressman luetkemeyer for advancing this
important, commonsense regulation. oh, by the way, it's taken several years to get here. we now understand that the american economy can move in the right direction. the american economy, with good and proper leadership, not only in washington, but by the rules and regulations that are balanced, will help united states families, small businesses and, specifically, smaller banks to be more competitive, to aufert services that are necessary -- offer the services that are necessary. i commend the young chairman of the financial services committee, mr. hensarling, for allowing this bill to come here today. i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. democrats, smalltown, america, rustbelt, america, you just heard what he said. mr. hensarling just said, you ain't seen nothing yet.
you heard it coming out of his mouth. as they stand here and defend de-regulation of these big banks. i yield to the gentleman, my friend from texas, mr. green, a member of the financial services committee, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the ranking member, the honorable maxine waters. mr. speaker, i think it appropriate to reflect for just a moment on what the crisis was like in 2008. because in 2008, when this crisis hit, and it started to blossom, started to blow up, banks would not lend to each other. the crisis was so serious that banks would not bail each other out. we had a circumstance such that people were losing their homes and they were losing their homes because of the so-called exotic
products that allowed them to buy homes that they could not afford, homes that would allow them to have a teaser rate, that would coincide with a prepaid penalty such as that they couldn't get out of the rate that was to follow, which was going to be higher than they can afford. mr. speaker, this bill, h.r. 6392, should be appropriately creation systemic risk act. because that's what it does. it creates the opportunity for systemic risk to exist. and it puts us back where we were before dodd-frank, such that these various banks and lending institutions and other institutions of great. a finance would be in a position to -- great amount of finance would be in the position to fail without having the opportunity to immediately act upon them, as was the case with a.i.g. there was no system in place to
deal with the a.i.g.'s of the world. dodd-frank allows us to do this in a systemic way, a systemic way, an orderly way. it allows us to, if we need to, wind down these huge institutions, wind them down such that they don't create harm to the broader economy. i want you to know, mr. speaker, for those who think that these are all small banks, let me just give you some indication as to how small they are. i'm looking now at the top five of the 27 in question. the top five, number five is $217 billion. number four, $255 billion. number three, $278 billion. number two, $350 billion. number one, $433 billion. only in the congress of the united states of america would this be considered small change.
we must not allow this de-regulation to take place such that we put the economic order at risk again. this bill, dodd-frank, of what i speak now, this bill, dodd-frank, when it passed, allowed us to look at the entire economic order and to determine whether or not there were institutions that were a systemic risk to the economic order. prior to dodd-frank they were all siloed. prior to dodd-frank we had long-term capital, long-term capital was the first canary in the coal mine and long-term apital had its demise in 1998. ms. waters: i yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. green: long-term capital had its demise in 1998. it was a canary in the nth coal mine. bear stearns followed as well as
indy mack, countrywide and wami. they followed in 2008. we didn't have a system that allowed us to recognize these canaries in the coal mine and take affirmative action. this is what dodd-frank does. this is what fsoc does. tanned would be a severe mis-- and it would be a severe mistake for to us vote for legislation to repeal these bills. we're going to live to regret this vote. those who vote to repeal will live to regret. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 10 seconds just to say i appreciate the passion of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. and their concern for taxpayers and systemic risk. so i certainly look forward to their co-sponsorship of our legislation to get rid of dodd-frank's taxpayer-funded bailout fund. at this time, mr. speaker, i am very, very pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to a real leader on our committee and the author of
h.r. 6392, the systemic risk designation improvement act, mr. luetkemeyer, again, i yield 3 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. today the house will consider h.r. 6392, the systemic risk designation improvement act of 2016. legislation to address an inefficient regulatory structure by accounting for actual risk rather than asset size alone in designation of systemically important financial institutions or sifis. under the current regulatory framework, any bank holding company with more than 50 $50 billion assets is subject to enhanced regulatory and special assessments. this approach fails to take into account differences in business models or risk imposed to the financial system. it has real world implications too. stunting economic growth and limiting access to credit. the risk of a traditional bank is not the same as an internationally active complex
irm. h.r. 6392 would remove the completely arbitrary approach and replace it with analysis of actual risk imposed to the financial system. more specifically, my legislation would require regulators to examine not just size, but also interconnectedness, the extent to readily available substitutes, global cross-jurisdictional activity and complexity of each bank holding company. these are metrics that are presently being used by the financial stability board and the office of financial research to determine when a global sifi, is. this bill number may be new. but the concept is not. with the exception of the offset language contained in section 6 of this bill, h.r. 6392 is identical to h.r. 1309, which was legislationed -- legislation introduced last year that garnered 135 co-sponsors and bipartisan support. even dodd-frank's author, the former chairman of the financial services committee, barney
frank, said this issue need to be addressed. during a november 20 radio interview, chairman frank said, and i quote, we put in there that banks got the extra supervision if they were 50ds billion assets -- $50 billion assets, that was a mistake. chairman frankfurt went on to say, and i quote, when it comes to lending and job creation, the regional banks are obviously very, very important. i hope that if we get regulatory changes we give some regulatory relaxation to those banks. . chairman frank testified to that effect and this is a picture of him in front of our committee and expressed support for our bill back in 2014. this week we have the opportunity to remedy this oversight. this legislation will not impact the authority of the regulatory to oversee institutions. it will however encourage enhanced and more appropriate oversight of institutions that could actually have a greater impact on the overall economy, financial system, and most importantly consumers. mr. speaker, to take a more pragmatic approach to financial -- this is a bill to take more
pragmatic approach to financial regular ligse. mr. speaker, it's time to actually manage risk and limit threats to our financial system. i want to thank my colleagues for their work on this legislation, namely mr. murphy, mr. stivers, mr. scott, mr. williams, ms. sewell, ms. sinema, and ask my colleagues for their support today and special thanks to chairman hensarling for tireless support for this bill. just one moment if i could to address a couple of comments made earlier. we're talking about system pli important finance institutionest, the definition of a sifi is it will cause the economy to go down. a $50 billion bank will be important to the local economy but not something important to the entire economy. this is what we're talking about. big banks have big problems. medium sized banks do not affect the systemic concern we should have about the economy. this is where this bill is directed. someone who doesn't understand we're missing the point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: even the
ranking member made my point a while ago when they said 27 banks, a total $4.6 trillion. we have half a dozen banks over $1 trillion. we're talking about small banks that will have a small impact with regard if they went down or not. that's what this purpose of dodd-frank was about to stop the big guys from bringing the economy down. the ranking member with all due respect misses the entire point what dodd-frank is supposed to be. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. while the other side fights for the big banks and we over here fighting for the consumers, let me say mr. frank has not supported 6392, and you need to stop saying that. i will now yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, a member of the financial services committee, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member. i have a little different take on this.
i oppose this bill. in fact strongly oppose it, but i don't exactly oppose the idea at all. let me explain that. the dodd-frank legislation was written as we all know during a period of financial crisis. legislators and regulators had to act quickly. sometimes when you have to act quickly you take short cuts to get the financial system stabilized. but today the difference we have the luxury of time to go back and replace those short cuts with some more deliberative decisionmaking. dodd-frank said that every bank holding company over $50 billion gets heightened supervision. well, frankly, back then for stabilizing a financial crisis, that was a great way to move quickly. and to get it done. and bring about the intended result. but again for making policy over the long term, that don't make sense because it is arbitrary size threshold. it was a short cut that made sense at the time and i joined
with you in supporting a re-evaluation of that particular threshold level. that's the idea of this bill. i support the bill. and again urge -- support the idea. again, i don't support this bill. at all. because instead of taking the luxury of time to make good policy, frankly it acts like we're still back in that crisis and taking another short cut. the bill says fsoc should determine which banks need heightened supervision, and that's a great idea. that's what they are there for. and then it says, fsoc has to complete all of its work on all of the banks within 12 months. that's a terrible idea. that's a terrible idea. the last determination that fsoc took lasted 16 months. and they were working on one company at the time. and it took 16 months. even then the judge said you took 16 months and you acted too rashly and should have
deliberated more. but this bill says only 12 months are allowed. and it's not just one company they would be looking at, it could be up to 40 companies. with over $50 billion in assets. so i would say to my friend from missouri, i think you have a good idea. wish you would have brought a bill reflecting that idea out here. let's remember that bear stearns was $400 billion it contributed. washington mutual, $300 billion it contributed. all of those banks are going to be in one pot that have 12 months to be looked at. we're, in fact, gutting dodd-frank and no, i do not agree with my friend, the chair of texas, that that is a gad idea at all. the authors kind of recognized this, which is why they said banks get heightened supervision if fsoc says so or the financial stability board in switzerland says so. i don't know why we would cede sovereignty. i have been working with the
gentleman from missouri on that issue as it relates to insurance companies. were are we ceding our sovereignty to a regulatory entity in another country? i do take a different view of this bill. i actually urge -- miss water: yield 30 additional seconds. mr. heck: i urge my colleagues to support this idea but rejecting this bill which will not achieve the intended result, because it can't work. but the idea can. go back. put in a reasonable time frame. drop that crazy f.s.b. provision. let the regulators get to work looking for risk that devastated the economy a decade ago so we don't have to relive that. if we pass this bill, we very well may. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. without objection, the gentleman from missouri will control the remainder of the time of the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr.
speaker. with that we recognize the gentleman -- i know the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, who is set to retire shortly whose expertise and hard work we're going to miss. but his guidance all these years has given us a lesson on how to get things done. we welcome him and hope he will ten to have a great retirement. at this moment recognize him for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech for two minutes. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman for those kind words. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6392, offered by my good friend from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer. 6392, known as the systemic risk designation improvement act is a bipartisan legislation that ensures that the federal government takes a thoughtful and comprehensive approach when evaluating the financial stability concerns posed by u.s. bank holding companies. under 6392, the bank holding companies will no longer be measured by their size alone when evaluated for the application for heightened prudential standards.
instead the financial stability oversight council will use metrics based approach that takes into consideration the totality of the bank holing company's operations. using the framework, bank holing companies will be measured on size, complexity, their interconnectedness, cross jurisdictional activity, and available substitutes. this is similar to the framework used by the international body known as the financial stability board which designates globally systemic important banks. further, it is the framework already being used by the federal reserve when it evaluates the financial stability concerns stemming from bank mergers. mounting evidence coming from regulators and academics have highlighted the flaws in using a size only approach to measuring systemic risk. further, several democratically regulators have noted without the flaws of franc's presh hreshold of $50 billion.
it results in restricted lending, decreased services to customers, and inefficiencies in the marketplace. we must strive to ensure the government policy is thoughtful and properly calibrated. h.r. 6392 is absolutely necessary to assure we meet those principles. i urge my colleagues to vote yes for h.r. of 3 -- 6392. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, a member of the financial ervices committee, mr. foster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. foster: i rise in opposition to h.r. 6392, the systemic risk designation improvement act of 2016. although many aspects of this bill have sound arguments behind them, it contains fatal flaws which should preclude our support. the financial crisis taught us many things about our markets and overturned some fairly
fundamental assumptions that were widely held prior to it. one of the things we learned was the extent to which systemic risk could be -- could build up in a regulatory paradigm that was focused entirely on entity risk. it was quickly evident that the failure of a large institution posed a greater threat than previously believed. at the same time, the phrase, too big to fail, became public short-handed for some of these firms. economists and other experts talked about another important aspect, too interconnected to fail. asset size is a quick and useful metric for determining whether a firm is potentially so large that that a failure to have a massive impact on system wide stability. and evaluating the risks of that single institutions can pose to the system, often requires a more nuanced approach. the exposure of counter parties to a failing firm or exposures of other institutions to the same risks are systemic risk
factors that would -- should rightly be considered. also, as the economy grows, many fixed thresholds such as $50 will shrink in importance, at the very least the importance given to any asset size threshold needs to be periodically reconsidered in the scope of an economic indicator like g.d.p. wherever the line is drawn, it should reflect the ma crow economic factors of that -- macroeconomic factors that the bank is nes t'd in. firms will avoid growth, meaning cutting back lending as they approach any fixed threshold. i see this as a market distortion that reflects risks of increasing concentration rather than freudent risk management. i see this concern with any fixed threshold for being deemed acy ofy. however i think a nuanced way to process that gives difference to the expertise of regulatory agencies is appropriate. drawing lines to determine
which firms warrant additional scrutiny will always be a difficult process. to the extent that we consider that the bill we consider today looks to other factors that a strong financial stability oversight council with adequate resources and leadership should consider, i believe this is a good stamplet do i think there are improvements to be made in the designation threshold. i think this bill has two core problems that prevent my support. first, legislation to chaping the threshold should give sufficient specific direction that it would not move with changes to the political leadership of the fsoc. the concentration of an effective veto power in the hands of a single politically -- political appointee basically aggravates that concern tremendously. and second, although thorough analysis of the institutions presently categorized as civvies but not g-sibs -- ranking member, 30 seconds? ms. waters: 30 seconds.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. foster: secondly, thorough analysis of the institutions presently categorized as sifis but not g-sibs requires more than a year. the bill today writely looks to characteristics that are important in assessing systemic risk, but it does not provide predictibility or adequate transition period. the most recent financial crisis saw the failure of institutions of a variety of sizes, but, for example, the savings and loan crisis was simultaneous failure of many smaller firms. i support an approach that looks at many different factors and gives discretion to a strong well resourced fsoc to designate firms based on an objective characteristic of the firm so we can prevent another crisis. however, i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 6392 because -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. foster: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: could i inquire as to the amount of
time remaining on our side? both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has 15 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has 10 3/4 minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you very much. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, who is the monetary policy chair. obviously one of the greater, deeper thinkers in our committee from the standpoint of being able to handle that committee. and i yield to him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huizenga: i appreciate my fellow subcommittee chairman who has written a great piece of legislation here. we all have been talking about dodd-frank creating this financial stability oversight council, or fsoc, which was charged with monitoring systemic risk in the u.s. financial sector and coordinating regulatory responses by its member agencies. a good goal and idea gone bad, unfortunately. fsoc designates these banking companies with over $50 billion
in assets. they are automatically considered systemically important financial institutions. the act subjects those institutions to enhanced regulatory standards. here's the issue, mr. speaker, this is not about wall street banks, this is really affecting and hitting main street banks. . the sifi designation is an arbitrary and it suggests these companies with those assets which, don't get me wrong, $50 billion is a lot of money, folks. however, if you look at the totality of our financial institutions, it's actually quite small. it suddenly says, they are globally now systemically important that if this particular bank or company went out of business, we could take down the whole economy. it's just ludicrous. the propro-sess fsoc uses to designate these institutions is flawed in its current design and lacks the transparency and
accountability that the american taxpayers deserve and, frankly, expect. in fact, the former financial services committee chairman, barney frank, under which dodd-frank is named, even agreed that the $50 billion sifi threshold that he wrote into law and that the senate wrote into law was, quote, arbitrary. maybe $75 billion was too big and 25ds billion was too small, so they settled on $50 billion. there's no reason that number was picked. i couldn't agree more. is a bipartisan bill that passed out of our committee 39-16. with eight democrats joining the majority. and it would require, instead, that fsoc use an indicator-based measurement that has five different operational indicators. >> i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. those five operational indicators, size,
interconnectedness, complexity, cross-jurisdictional activity, and available substitutes, you know, therefore what is happening is we're seeing fewer products and services available to bank customers because these banks are having to pour more additional resources that could go towards servicing those customers into a regulation that isn't doing anything to protect our economy. and that ultimately needs to be our goal. our goal here needs to be that we restore transparency by allowing regulators to review all of the circumstances surrounding that, and not have a washington, d.c.,-driven one-size-fits-all approach. and urge my colleagues to support this important bill. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. it was just sad that this has affected main street, it has not. all that passion you see on the other side is about the big banks, not about community
banks. i will yield to the gentleman from maryland, a member of the energy and commerce committee, and a strong advocate for the protection of wall street reform, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: how much time is yielded? ms. waters: three minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i rise today to pose -- oppose legislation but i also want to speak to the millions of americans of all political stripes who want washington to change. who want to reclaim their voice and their democracy and who long , actually, for the interests of main street to be ahead of the interests of wall -- to be put ahead of the interests of wall street. unfortunately washington hasn't heard you, america. the system is still rigged. and the swamp is only getting deeper. special interest lobbyists are sharpening their naives in advance of the new congress -- knives in advance of the new congress and president-elect trump's administration is getting ready to carve up the tax code for their benefit and eliminate the oversight of wall
street. bank stocks are surging now with wall street giddy at the prospect of tossing out critical rules and regulations designed to prevent another financial collapse and taxpayer bailout. as one wall street age list put it immediately after the -- analyst put it immediately after the election, quote, everything is in play. maybe we should just use mr. hensarling's words, you ain't seen nothing yet. if you need further proof that special interests and the wall street elite will be empowered in the new congress and new administration, look no further than president-elect trump's nomination for the treasury department, steve mnuchin. a billionaire hedge fund manager, former goldman sachs executive, and bank c.e.o.. president-elect trump, a supposed champion of the working class, now seeks to appoint a financier like trump who specialy profited on the financial ruin of hardworking americans. what does this have to do with the bill we have before us, you may ask. well, a lot.
today before the new president is even seated and steve mnuchin is even confirmed, h.r. 6392 will dramatically upend sensible oversight of some of the nation's largest banks. many of whom were directly imple indicated in the financial -- implicated in the financial collapse of 2008. taxpayers lose under this legislation. but guess who stands to benefit from it? steve mnuchin. he serves op the board of the bank c.i.t., receiving a salary of $4.5 billion and c.i.t. is one of only 27 banks in the country that will benefit from this terrible legislation. whose more, under this legislation, mnuchin, if confirmed, will be in charge of overseaing the -- overseeing the replacement designation process for c.i.t. and the other 26 large regional banks rewarded think about legislation. mr. speaker this legislation and the nomination of steve mnuchin is a direct rebuke of president-elect trump's promise to, quote, drain the swamp. the only thing cleaner about the
swamp is that the alligators will be wearing suits and ties. millions of americans of all political stripes are hurting. they want a more representative democracy, they want public policy designed for the public interest, not the special interests. they want a fair shake. let's show them we're still fighting for them. let's defeat this wall street giveaway. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with that we'd like to -- with that, we'd like to recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, chairman of the oversight committee, one of our toughest guys on the committee, he's got one of the toughest committees to be able to go after some of the issues that we're working on. with that he's recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank you, chairman luetkemeyer, for all your hard work on what i think is an excellent bill. it's fascinating to sit in this
chamber and listen to the debate and the fear mongering that takes place. before i get into that, let's take just a little trip down memory lane. we had to look at the financial crisis and what the democrats chose to do. the idea that you can't let any good crisis go to waste, the financial crisis. so we go to our file cabinets, we open them up and every progressive liberal idea we take out and put them into dodd-frank. a 2,300-page bill. a bill that was written before the financial crisis inquiry commission even came out with their report on the cause of the crisis. so this is a very, very simple tweak. right now we have designations for systemically risky banks at a set asset threshold of $50 billion. let me tell what you, i have banks in wisconsin that are small, regional banks, not wall street banks. that are getting crushed by these new rules and regulations.
so all we're saying is, my friends across the aisle, you love the regulators. you think the regulators are awesome. we're trying to empower the regulators to look at the facts on the ground. to look at the interconnectedness and the complexity to determine risk. not just have a one-size-fits-all mentality. it's not one size fit all. we're more complex, banks are as different as people. let's look at the complexity at every bank and make sure they can operate within their communities in a way that fits the risk to the financial system. and this gets back to the american people. why does this matter? why is this not just about financing complex rules? because if banks can't lend or if they lend, you're driving up the cost of the lending, that has a real impact on the small businesses in my community. the families in my community that can't get a loan. or the loans they do get that costs are going through the roof
because of all the new compliance costs. the bottom line is, why do we want to have increased regulatory burdens on banks that aren't risky? let's focus the regulatory focus like a laser on the banks on wall street who do need the increased regulation, but not the ones that don't. one size doesn't fit all. let's work together, let's modify dodd-frank. this isn't holy text, this isn't holy scripture. it didn't come down from the heaven on high. it can be fixed. it's not perfect. again, we're going to say this all day, barney frank even thinks the threshold is too low. it can be fixed. i look forward to working with my good friend and ranking member. commonsense reform that looks, take a solid look at risk profiles and then decide what kind of regulatory regime is necessary for the risk that's presented by each of these banks. with, that mr. chairman, thank you for your work. i encourage everyone, i know on
both sides of the aisle, to support this commonsense bill that supports small businesses and american families, to make america great again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, the gentleman from wisconsin has the audacity to come to this floor and talk about, we're crushing these pitiful little banks with $50 billion or more. no, you're crushing the average person who gets up every morning, who goes to work, who's trying to take care of their families and get ripped off by these financial institutions. i yield to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. waters: from hawaii. a member of the foreign affairs committee, ms. gabbard. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? ms. waters: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prizing -- rising today in strong opposition to h.r. 3692. it's a dangerous bill that puts the economic security of millions of americans at risk. let's not forget that just eight short years ago the lives of americans all across the country were shaken and devastated by
the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the livelihoods of hardworking feamings were put at risk -- families were put at risk. millions of americans lost their homes and saw their life savings wiped out. all because of risky banking practices and the overgrown quote-unquote too big to fail banks. at that time republicans and democrats railed against the traffic esty that these banks exacted on the american -- travesty that these banks exacted on american people. this bill threatens to unravel the protections that were put in place to revent a repeat of this economic crisis. it would gut the higher capital requirements on 27 banks that together hold over $4 trillion in assets. nearly 1/4 of all banking system assets in the united states. and waterdown the independent authority of the federal reserve to regulate large bank risk. eight years ago the failure of large regional banks like countrywide, washington mutual,
and wachovia, major subprime mortgage lenders leading up to the crisis, created shock waves throughout our financial system. and hurt the american people. this bill would scale back the federal reserve's ability to regulate these banks, placing greater risk and burden on the backs of the american people. i urge my colleagues to stand with the people and vote against this dangerous legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with that we would yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, one of our bright shining stars on the financial services committee, three minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 6392, the systemic risk designation improvement act and i applaud your excellent work on this bill. the ranking member, my friend, said that this is not about main street. well, let me talk about what this bill is trying to fix. the problem we're trying to
solve here. dodd-frank, the legislation that my friends on the other side of the aisle are defending, has produced this. small business lending from banks is at the lowest level it's been in 20 years. more than 75% of corporate treasurers in this country say that federal regulations are stifling access to financial services. as a result, new business formation in this country is at a 35-year low. this bill is about main street, because main street cannot access financial services because of dodd-frank. this bill is about fixing an arbitrary provision in the dodd-frank law that harms consumers and does absolutely nothing to stabilize markets. dodd-frank directs the financial stability oversight council to designate banks as systemically important financial institutions
or sifis. they're subject to additional regulation and an implicit taxpayer bailout. that's right. their bill is what gives wall street a bailout. what we're saying is, let's focus our attention on wall street, but let's give regional banks some regulatory relief so that they can serve their customers on main street. the primary test for systemic importance is this arbitrary threshold of $50 billion. above that line an institution is designated systemically important. or too big to fail. below that line, regardless of the institution's risky activities, it's exempt. this bill that we're supporting does away with this blunt threshold and direct it's fsoc and its constituent agencies to consider the institution's actual activities, to determine if it actually is risky, if it's not it deserves relief. so that it can serve its customers better. size is not the only issue, it's interconnectedness, it's risky activities, and many of these regional banks that serve my
constituents in central and eastern kentucky, not wall street, central and eastern kentucky, farmers, small business owners, homeowners in kentucky are being crushed and denied access to capital because of one-size-fits-all regulation from washington. unlike dodd-frank's arbitrary approach, this will better promote financial stability because it actually targets the enhanced regulation to where it belongs and not on wall street. . the bottom line is we're hearing from regional banks around the country that the eblingts spence of complying with these enhanced regulations and the sifi surcharge means less capital for employment in mortgages and automobile loans, small business loans. it means higher credit card rates. it means fewer customer rewards. tim pacts these institutions' ability to engage in if i lan throw at this pi and community development activities. treating these regional banks s complex wall street firms is
illogical. these are traditional banks -- the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: we recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, one of our more thoughtful members on the committee. yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6392. this bill, the systemic risk designation improvement act offers a commonsense approach to the process of designating systemically important financial institutions. in doing so, it addresses a problem that republicans and democrats have complained about for some time. dodd-frank's $50 billion threshold for identifying sifis is a crude and arbitrary way to desigh which firms pose a risk to the stability of the financial system. it's important to remember that sifi designation isn't trivial.
when the financial institution is labeled as a sifi, it faces supervision and costs without regard to the nature of the bank or the bank's accordingly, sifi designation impacts a firm's lending ability and therefore the firm's customers in their -- and their customers' ability to thrive. if we care about protecting financial stability and having a healthy financial system, we have a responsibility to pursue a fairer, more transparent, and more accurate process. the approach set forth under h.r. 6392 represents a more rational process for evaluating financial institutions as opposed to the washington tradition of one-size-fits-all. under this bill the financial stability oversight council would be required to look at not only the size of a financial institution, but also it's interconnectedness, complexity, cross jurisdictional activity, and the availability of substitutes. keep in mind that banks designated as sifis today may still be designated as sifis
under this new approach. this bill's reforms will inject the fsoc's sifi designation process with greater clarity and fairness and it will result in more appropriately targeted regulatory efforts. i commend chairman luetkemeyer for his work on this important issue and proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill in its original form. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. to the s: i yield gentleman from texas an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker, and madam ranking member. mr. green: let's look at this question because $50 billion was selected for a reason anti-reason is this. if you don't have a threshold, we knew at the time as we know now that you won't get any banks designated because the banks are going to sue and they
are going to tie you up in court. maybe some will not, but you're going to have a real fight on your hand getting them to be designated and it can take two to four years to get it done. looking at the banks that are covered, only three of the banks covered are in the $50 billion range. the top 15 are over $100 billion, and the top bank is about half trillion dollars. again, only in washington, d.c., would this kind of monny, a half trillion for one bank, be considered small change. we cannot allow the banks to dominate the process. we put the process in the hands of the banks when the regulators have to take them on one at a time. finally, what's wrong with telling a bank you have to tell us how to eliminate you if you become a systemic risk? that's what dodd-frank does. this bill eliminates the ability of fsoc to determine and tell banks that they must give us living wills.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, madam speaker. with that we want to recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, one of our hardest working members on the committee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague from missouri, representative luetkemeyer, for offering this important piece of legislation under consideration today. the bipartisan systemic risk designation improvement act replaces an arbitrary asset threshold with indicator-based approach that will better assist financial stability oversight council in determining the true systemic risk of a financial institution. it is a mistake for regulators to continue regulating a $50 billion bank in the same way they regulated a $1 trillion globally systemic important institution. in fact, this view is shared among regulators and legislators. comptroller curry, federal reserve board members, senator brown, and former chairman
barney frank have made public comments agreeing that the $50 billion sifi threshold is not the best determination for imposing heightened prudential standards. this bill introduces a better anna list driven approach requiring the council to consider metrics considered established by the committee on banking supervision when it identifies globally systemically banks. the designation improvement act will stop the current regulatory model of needlessly increasing compliance costs and forcing institutions to decrease financial services. by ensuring that the sifi designation process takes into account indicator factors, finance institutions not the cause of the financial crisis, will once again be able to fully serve their communities. not, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk
received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 1, 2016, at [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] 629. with best wishes. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and order of the house of today, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 933, adoption of house resolution 933, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 937, adoption of house resolution 937, if ordered, adoption of the motion to recommit on h.r. 6392, and passage of h.r. 6392, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution
933 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 158. house resolution 933, resolution providing amounts for further expenses for the committee on commerce for the 114th congress. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234 and the nays are 18 -- 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 937 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 161, house resolution 937, resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill, senate 2943, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of
the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235 and the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. byrne: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. ordered.rded vote is
members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 277 and the nays are 139. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, and the order of the house of today, the unfinished business is the question on the otion to recommit on h.r. 6392
on which the yeas and nays recorded. the clerk are redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit on h.r. 6392 offered by ms. maxine waters of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]