Blaine Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee chairman.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank the chairman for his tireless help and support in getting this bill to where it is today. Mr. Speaker, insurance serves as the backbone of financial independence for millions of Americans. It offers support when it is needed the most so that consumers can be assured that they are protected in the event of a loss. Our Nation has a history of thoughtful insurance regulation and strong consumer confidence. To ensure that, we need to make sure that foreign regulators don't do anything to jeopardize that. The Transparent Insurance Standards Act would establish a series of reasonable requirements to be met before our Team USA, if you will--the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office, the Federal Reserve, or any other party to international regulatory conversations--consents to the adoption of a final insurance standard. H.R. 5143 would also require Team USA to publish any proposed final standard for congressional review and public comment. Additionally, H.R. 5143 would institute a 90-day layover period, allowing Congress the ability to block any international agreement. It would also ensure State insurance commissioners a broader role in negotiations, thereby protecting our State-based regulatory system that has served policyholders so well. In doing so, the bill would not only help protect the best interests of U.S. insurance customers, but it would also be a step in restoring the powers vested to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, when the Financial Services Committee embarked on this journey, the intent was to craft a bill that not only respected the process, but that provided this body and the public with more opportunity. As such, H.R. 5143 has been drafted with the input of a wide variety of stakeholders, and it has generated broad support. This bill is not intended to bring the international process to a halt. Rather, it will serve as leverage for U.S. negotiators and will ensure that we are in a position to export domestic standards rather than import European-centric ones. The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that our constituents don't read about international insurance standards in the local paper or discuss them at the dinner table. However, these conversations and the negotiations at the IAIS have real implications on U.S. companies and, more importantly, on every American policyholder. Given that, consideration of this bill shouldn't be a partisan affair. Many of my friends across the aisle and their constituents would like to see more sunshine on this international process, and this bill does just that. It is imperative that the United States--that is, the States, the executive branch, and Congress--work cooperatively to signal to the IAIS and foreign governments that we will only lend our name to standards and agreements that benefit U.S. customers. We will lead and not be led, as our chairman just said. Again, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his support of this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 5143.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Esther Louise Hill. She celebrated her 100th birthday on Sunday, December 4th, 2016. Esther Louise Hill was born in Montgomery City, Missouri on December 4, 1916 to Roy and Emma Patterson. She has lived in Jonesburg, Missouri most of her life. Esther married Richard Hill, who is now deceased. She graduated from a three-year program in 1938 from Missouri Baptist Hospital School of Nursing as a registered nurse. Her work experiences were in various divisions of healthcare: hospitals, industry, and public health. Esther started her career as a private duty nurse and after a year decided to join the Barnes Hospital Nursing Staff. Before World War II started, Esther moved to Dallas, Texas. She utilized her nursing degree by working at a substation with North American Aviation during the war. After the end of the war, Esther moved back to Missouri and joined the staff at a local nursing home, Katy Jane, located in Warrenton, Missouri. Unfortunately, during her time at Katy Jane, there was a devastating fire which had a profound effect on Esther. Esther started working as a public health nurse through the state of Missouri, first in Warren County and then moving to Montgomery County. She was moved by the loss of life at Katy Jane and realized commonsense steps could have prevented that tragedy. Eventually, Esther obtained the position of Institutional Advisory Nurse, covering fifteen counties along the Missouri River. In this position, Esther taught nursing home caregivers the details of Missouri state law and procedures that should be part of nursing home care. The Institutional Advisory Nurse position led to a role with the Missouri Department of Health Licensure Program for Nursing Homes. With this position, she taught, investigated and inspected nursing home facilities, and enforced licensure laws. Esther worked for the Visiting Nurse Association for a few years but eventually returned to the Missouri Department of Health. She ended her nursing career with the Missouri Department of Health. Esther appreciates the opportunity she was given to have a career that came full circle; from her days at the Katy Jane Nursing Home where lack of structure allowed for a tragedy, to being involved with the adoption of solutions to protect the most vulnerable. In addition to her successful career in nursing, Esther also taught at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Esther has been a lifelong member of the Jonesburg United Methodist Church and during her time there has enjoyed participating in the Methodist Women organization. In her spare time, she enjoys reading, collecting antiques, cooking, and canning produce from her garden. She also has a passion for hybridized lilies and has even won prizes for them. Esther enjoys a good card game and has been a member of the Canasta Card Club for 50 years. Please join me in recognizing Esther Louise Hill on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to recap, the Dodd-Frank came into being as a result of the crisis. One of the solutions was to be able to fine systemically important financial institutions before they brought the economy down. Coming up with the SIFI definition was one way to do that. The problem was that the SIFI designation was too large and was being impacted in too many different and wrongful ways. Even Dodd-Frank's original author, Barney Frank, recognized that with his testimony this past week as well as in our committee. The metrics that we have in the bill are very simple. They are things that are used by the Financial Stability Board and by the Office of Financial Research when they look at global SIFIs. The CIT and OneWest merger that the ranking member keeps talking about are metrics that were used by the regulators to determine whether that was something they should be doing. We are not reinventing the wheel here. What we are doing is taking the burden off of the midsized regional banks, which is causing fewer products and services to be able to be provided to the customers at an increased cost; so I ask for the passage of the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) for his interest and for his authoring this amendment. Madam Speaker, the amendment makes clear that H.R. 6392 should not be construed to allow international standards to be imposed on U.S. institutions. The underlying bill, in two separate places, does rely on a similar framework that is utilized by the Basel Commission and that is used by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury in an effort to ensure that the largest U.S. banks maintain their SIFI designations. Beyond these provisions, however, it would be highly inappropriate for any international body to use H.R. 6392 to impose any standard on a U.S. entity. It is important to make the point, as we advocate today for risk-based supervision, that we avoid any sort of blanket approach that is so commonly seen out of international regulatory bodies. In the case of foreign banks in their doing business in the United States, for example, the $50-billion threshold and its interpretation by the Federal Reserve results in a huge number of banks being treated as SIFIs despite the fact that many of them have under $10 billion in assets. As we consider these designations, we need to avoid one-size- fits-all models and look at factors like comparable home-country standards before we move forward on enhanced prudential regulation. I hope we can address some of these issues in the next Congress and that we can work with international regulators, particularly those in the European Union, to avoid the escalation of the ongoing standoff on bank capital rules. We should work collaboratively to inject commonsense into financial regulation that will protect U.S. taxpayers and the financial system without constricting economic growth.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who brings a wealth of financial services background to the committee.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, 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 the designation of systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs. Under the current regulatory framework for the designation of SIFIs, any bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets is subject to enhanced regulatory supervision 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 firm. 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 of 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 what a G-SIFI is, a Global Systemically Important Financial Institution. 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 the legislation I introduced last year that attracted broad bipartisan support and garnered 135 cosponsors. Even Dodd-Frank's author, the former chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said this issue needs to be addressed. During a November 20 radio interview, Chairman Frank said: ``We put in there that banks got the extra supervision if they were $50 billion in assets. That was a mistake.'' Chairman Frank further went on to say: ``When it comes to lending and job creation, the regional banks are obviously very, very important. I hope that if we get some 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 agencies 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, this is a bill to take a more pragmatic approach to financial regulation. Mr. Speaker, it is 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, Mr. Hill, and Ms. Sinema, and ask my colleagues for their support today. And a special thanks to Chairman Hensarling for his tireless support for efforts on this bill. Just one moment, if I could, to address a couple of comments that were made earlier. We are talking about systemically important financial institutions, and the definition of a SIFI is it has got to be something that is going to cause the economy to go down. A $50 billion bank is going to be something that may be important to a local economy, but it is not going to be something important to the entire economy. This is what we are talking about. Big banks have big problems. Medium-sized banks do not affect the systemic concern that we should have about the economy, and this is where this bill is directed. Somebody who doesn't understand that, I think they are missing the point.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So I think even the ranking member made my point a while ago when she said 27 banks, a total of $4.6 trillion. We have got a half dozen banks over $1 trillion, so we are talking about some small banks that are really going to have a small impact with regard to if they went down or not. That is what the purpose of this legislation, Dodd-Frank, was about: to stop the big guys from bringing the whole economy down. The ranking member, with all due respect, misses the entire point of what Dodd- Frank is supposed to be and what the intent of this bill is.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, just to highlight some comments here with regard to the ranking member's last discussion on this point of order, we believe the motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with financial stability. Title 1 of the bill deals with operational standards of bank holding companies. This bill we are working with deals directly with how regulators deal with banks. A pending lawsuit has nothing to do with the financial stability of this bank. This may belong somewhere else in the Dodd-Frank bill, but it doesn't belong in here. With regards to the underlying bill as well, Madam Speaker, to reiterate some of the points that have been discussed already, we have a situation where the fix for the crisis of 2008 was Dodd-Frank, as was spoken to eloquently by some of my colleagues. Some of the fixes--no bill we put together around here is ever perfect. There are always problems with it. It always needs to be tweaked down the road. This particular issue we are talking about today, systemically important designation of institutions, was part of a solution to try and be able to identify banks, by definition, that would bring down the entire economy so this couldn't ever happen again. If we have a big bank go down, it could be of such a size and magnitude and connectedness that it would bring down the entire economy. One of the unintended consequences of this is that these regulations have rolled downhill to small, midsized banks. It was unintended, but they are a consequence. Barney Frank, the author of the bill, has said on numerous occasions--in fact, in our committee, he testified to the fact that this is an unintended consequence--it should be fixed. That is what this bill does. It fixes that problem. These unintended consequences of all these rules and regulations, which carry costs with them, are rolling downhill to these midsized regional banks; and even at that, they are rolling below that, below 50. If you are talking $10 billion to $50 billion banks, they will tell you that all of the things that the midsized banks above are dealing with, they are dealing with that as well. So these regulations that are supposed to be for the big banks--a trillion dollars and over or whatever--are rolling all the way downhill to the small banks, the small community banks. Now, they will argue about the fact that $50 billion is an arbitrary figure. It is something we need to keep. That is a big bank. I am sorry. Madam Speaker, I was a regulator in my former life, and I was a banker in a former life. I can tell you that is a big bank, but that is not something that is going to bring down the economy unless they are interconnected. The metrics in my bill say that if they are interconnected--they have got all sorts of other risky actions they are engaged in--$50 billion is not going to do it. Things that you have to look at are size and all these other criteria that we have in here. And these are not criteria pulled out of the air. These are criteria that the Federal Stability Board uses, that the Office of Financial Research uses when they look at G-SIBs, which are global SIBs. So these are analysis tools that are there and have been there for a long time. Why not give the examiners, the regulators, these tools? I can tell you, as a regulator, they already do this. A while ago, the point was made it takes the regulator about 12 months, in my bill, to come up with these designations. The regulators already do this. They have got the information in hand. There is no reason that they can't do this in a 12-month period. I have been there. I have done that. It is easy to do. They have the information. So what we are doing is taking existing criteria and asking them to look at the risk and the business model of this particular entity to see if it is something that is big enough and connected enough to go down. $50 billion is not someplace where a bank should be that it is going to cause the entire economy to collapse, no way. Common sense will tell you that. So, to close out here very quickly, I think that we have a situation where these regulations are costing money to the consumers, to the businesses that the banks lend to. One quick factoid is 75 percent of the banks before Dodd-Frank had free checking, now only 37 percent. Those are just some of the facts, as they roll downhill, that show that these regulations are having a negative effect on our economy and our local communities. The banks we are talking about are not the gigantic interconnected globals, folks. These are large community banks, which is basically what they all are, that serve communities and mom-and-pop shops. We want to keep them in business. We want to keep our communities growing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chair of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, who is set to retire shortly, and whose expertise and hard work we are going to miss; but his guidance over these years has certainly given us a lesson on how to get things done. And we certainly hope that he will have a great retirement.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), one of our hardest working members on the committee.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. He is one of our toughest guys on the committee. He has got one of the toughest committees to be able to go after some of the issues that we are working on.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. He is obviously one of the greater, deeper thinkers on our committee from the standpoint of being able to handle that sort of subcommittee. It is certainly an honor to have him with us today.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is one of our bright and shining stars on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love). Again, we have a good crop of young folks on our committee, and she is one of those bright stars for us.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), one of our most thoughtful members on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a veteran and small businessman in my district, Mr. Larry Horstdaniel as he celebrates his 63rd Anniversary as a barber and serving the Jefferson City community. Along with his entrepreneurial spirit, Mr. Horstdaniel served valiantly in the Korean War. After growing up in Westphalia, Missouri, Mr. Horstdaniel attended Moler Barber School in St. Louis, MO. In the 1950's he moved to Jefferson City, Missouri and began working as a barber. In 1971, Mr. Horstdaniel opened his own barber shop at 224 Madison Street, Jefferson City, Missouri. He has been located in the same location since 1971 and has become a staple of the local community. Mr. Horstdaniel says that he only does two things, ``cut hair and grass.'' At the age of 88 years old, he continues to work most of the week, but does take Wednesdays off, to mow his lawn, and also Sundays. In 2014, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon visited Mr. Horstdaniel for a haircut and to honor him for his service in the Korean War. Mr. Horstdaniel was awarded a Korean War Service Medal from Governor Nixon for his sacrifice to our nation. Mr. Horstdaniel says that his favorite aspect of his job is that he gets to meet a variety of people with great stories and backgrounds. He says that, ``Each day is different. It's what keeps me here. The politicians in town are what have kept me in business over the years.'' When asked what Mr. Horstdaniel's secret to life is, he said, ``Drink two scotches every evening before your meal, and you'll live to be 100!'' He also stated that he has just a few years left working in the barbering industry, as he plans to retire when he is 90 years old. As an honorable veteran of our armed forces, a successful businessman and a cornerstone of our community, I ask you to join me in recognizing Mr. Larry Horstdaniel as he celebrates this 63rd Anniversary of his business.