Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1375, Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1375, FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - March 18, 2004)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 566
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1375) to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill (except those arising under provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 other than section 302(f)) are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a subs
titute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (except those arising under provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 other than section 302(f)) are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to the demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points
of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only.
The resolution before us is a structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. However, the only Budget Act waiver granted in this rule is for section 302(f).
It also provides that the substitute amendment provided by the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary is considered as read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
This rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the substitute, however, the only Budget Act waiver granted in this rule is for section 302(f). It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. These amendments shall be considered as read, and may only be considered in the order printed in the report, may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; not to be subject to amendment and not to be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the whole House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the rule for H.R. 1375, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act. This bill is commonsense legislation that will diminish or eliminate outdated statutory banking provisions to reduce the regulatory compliance burden faced by our Nation's financial institutions to improve their productivity, as well as to make necessary technical correction to current statutes.
America's banking laws are full of outdated and burdensome regulations, some dating back to the Great Depression, that have long outlived their usefulness. To address the problem of outdated rules and the rapidly advancing and highly competitive financial services industry, in 2001, Committee on Financial Services chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), asked the State and Federal regulators of our Nation's financial institutions to provide him with a list of regulations that they believed have outlived their usefulness.
The regulators answered the chairman's call, along with the rest of the financial services community, providing the chairman with a number of suggestions that, when enacted, will benefit consumers and regulators alike by lowering the cost of transacting financial services.
This wide-ranging list of proposals affecting banks, savings associations, and credit unions was first passed by the committee as H.R. 3951, but unfortunately the 107th Congress expired before it could be considered on the House floor. The bill that is being considered on the floor today is a new and updated version of that original legislation and remains true to the original vision of providing regulatory relief in financial services that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the bill's chief sponsor, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) had when they began this process more than 3 years ago.
This legislation accomplishes a number of important things, and in the interest of time I will only mention a few. For instance, for banks, H.R. 1375 removes the prohibition on national and State banks from expanding across State lines by opening branches. It eliminates unnecessary and costly reporting requirements on banks regarding lending to bank officials; and it streamlines bank merger application regulatory requirements.
For savings associations, the bill removes lending limits on small business and auto loans, and increases the limit on their business loans. It gives these institutions parity with banks with respect to broker-dealer and investment adviser SEC registration requirements; and it gives thrifts the same authority as national and State banks to make investments primarily designated to promote community development.
For credit unions, the bill expands the investment authority of Federal credit unions. It increases the general limit on the term of Federal credit union loans from 12 to 15 years, and it eases restrictions on voluntary mergers between healthy credit unions.
Finally, for the Federal financial regulatory agencies, the bill provides agencies with the discretion to adjust the examination cycle for insured depository institutions to use agency resources in the most efficient manner. It modernizes agency recordkeeping requirements to allow the use of optically-imaged or computer-scanned images. It clarifies that agencies may suspend or prohibit individuals charged with certain crimes from participation in the affairs of any depository institution and not only institutions for which that individual is associated.
By fixing these and many other technical and outdated problems, H.R. 1375 will allow financial institutions to devote more resources to the business of lending to consumers and less to the compliance with outdated and unneeded regulations. Reducing these regulatory burdens will lower the cost of credit for consumers and help our economy to grow and to provide more jobs even more quickly.
And while there are a number of things that Congress still needs to accomplish, like creating a uniform and cutting-edge national privacy standard for consumers, this legislation is a great step in the right direction. It will make all of our country's financial institutions more efficient, while balancing the additional regulatory burden they face each day as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act, and it will help our banks, savings associations, and credit unions to focus their compliance efforts on combating money laundering and terrorist financing, not on wasteful and duplicative regulations.
I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so. I would like to congratulate the members of the Committee on Financial Services who have made great contributions to this bill, including the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). These are the people who have helped to bring this bill to the floor today. I am proud of what they have done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker, but as I recall the testimony last night in the Committee on Rules, it was that the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services said that he had no problem making the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in order, but would defer to the Committee on Rules to make that decision. And, in fact, we did.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to go get the text of the hearing last night. I asked specifically whether or not either the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) had a problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, and the answer was no. There was no qualification.
So that is why I asked the question. And I repeated it several times during the hearing to make the point that even though they had some problems with the substance of the gentleman's amendment, they had no problem with him offering his amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and as part of that same openness to the gentleman from Davenport, Iowa, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, or perhaps it was the Committee on Banking and Financial Services at that time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Duluth, Georgia (Mr. Linder), from the Committee on Rules.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts does raise many very important points including that the distinguished chairman, former chairman, of the banking committee did appear before the Committee on Rules last night. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is a very valuable and important and thoughtful member of our conference. The fact of the matter is the Committee on Rules has, in our own judgment, a lot of things which we consider on a regular basis, and some of those things do deal with whether a person chose to have a vote in the committee of jurisdiction or not. The fact of the matter is that the gentleman did not request a vote in the committee of jurisdiction that he came from.
And we felt like that in the interests of us moving things on the floor, that it would be best in this circumstance to let the committee of jurisdiction speak on that matter. They chose not to; the gentleman chose not to. We do not always feel that bringing it to the floor is the correct place.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure all of this out because, in the past, the Committee on Rules has used the excuse that Members have brought amendments up in their relevant committees of jurisdiction and they have not passed, so therefore we should make them in order. Now you are saying that because he did not, the gentleman from Iowa did not bring his amendment up in his committee of jurisdiction, that it should be made in order. So I do not understand.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as a matter of fact, the gentleman is correct. But there are circumstances many times related to how close a vote is, whether it is controversial; there are a number of things which identify that as what we might call or term a jump ball. It is important at various times for the Committee on Rules to look at and to weigh those things which we believe are important to the efficiency of the use of this time on the floor.
In this case, we made a determination as to what we were going to do. We have made 3 Democrat amendments in order, we have made 2 Republican amendments and a manager's amendment in order. I believe that the time which we took yesterday in the Committee on Rules was appropriately done by the young chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I am very proud of what we have done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source