TRANSPARENT INSURANCE STANDARDS ACT OF 2016; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 176
(House of Representatives - December 07, 2016)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H7313-H7324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              TRANSPARENT INSURANCE STANDARDS ACT OF 2016

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 944, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5143) to provide greater transparency and 
congressional oversight of international insurance standards setting 
processes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 944, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the

[[Page H7314]]

text of Rules Committee Print 114-68, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5143

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transparent Insurance 
     Standards Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The State-based system for insurance regulation in the 
     United States has served American consumers well for more 
     than 150 years and has fostered an open and competitive 
     marketplace with a diversity of insurance products to the 
     benefit of policyholders and consumers.
       (2) Protecting policyholders by regulating to ensure an 
     insurer's ability to pay claims has been the hallmark of the 
     successful United States system and should be the paramount 
     objective of domestic prudential regulation and emerging 
     international standards.
       (3) United States officials participating in discussions or 
     negotiations regarding international insurance standards 
     shall support standards designed for the protection of 
     policyholders.
       (4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall seek advice and 
     recommendations from a diverse group of outside experts in 
     performing the duties and authorities of the Secretary to 
     coordinate Federal efforts and develop Federal policy on 
     prudential aspects of international insurance matters.
       (5) The draft of the Higher Loss Absorbency capital 
     standard adopted in 2015 by the International Association of 
     Insurance Supervisors, notwithstanding the concerns of U.S. 
     parties to the International Association of Insurance 
     Supervisors, unequally affects insurance products offered in 
     the United States, an issue that must be addressed.
       (6) Any international standard agreed to at the 
     International Association of Insurance Supervisors is not 
     self-executing in the United States for any insurer until 
     implemented through the required Federal or State legislative 
     or regulatory process.

     SEC. 3. OBJECTIVES FOR INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE STANDARDS.

       The objectives of the United States regarding international 
     insurance standards are as follows:
       (1) To ensure standards that maintain strong protection of 
     policy holders, as reflected in the United States solvency 
     regime.
       (2) To ensure, pursuant to enactment of the Insurance 
     Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-
     279), standards that are appropriate for insurers and are not 
     bank-centric in nature.
       (3) To promote a principles-based approach to insurance 
     supervision, in which capital adequacy is assessed using 
     risk-based capital requirements for insurance combined with 
     qualitative risk assessment and management tools.
       (4) To consider the most efficient and least disruptive 
     approaches to enhancing regulatory assessment of the capital 
     adequacy of insurance groups, including tools that are 
     already in place.
       (5) To ensure that any international insurance standard 
     recognizes prudential measures used within the United States 
     as satisfying standards finalized by international standard-
     setting organizations.
       (6) To support increasing transparency at any global 
     insurance or international standard-setting organization in 
     which the United States participates, including advocating 
     for greater stakeholder public observer access to working 
     groups and committee meetings of the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors.
       (7) To ensure that there is a sufficient period for public 
     consultation and comment regarding any proposed international 
     insurance standard before it takes effect.
       (8) To ensure that the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System achieve 
     consensus positions with State insurance commissioners when 
     the Secretary and the Board are United States participants in 
     discussions on insurance issues before the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors, Financial Stability 
     Board, or any other international forum of financial 
     regulators or supervisors that considers such issues.
       (9) To consider the impact of any such standard on the 
     availability and cost of products to consumers.
       (10) To avoid measures that could limit the availability 
     and accessibility of risk protection and retirement security 
     products that are essential to meeting the needs of aging 
     populations.
       (11) To ensure that the merits of existing State-based 
     capital standards are recognized and incorporated in any 
     domestic or global insurance capital standard.
       (12) To advocate for insurance regulatory standards that 
     are based on the nature, scale, and complexity of the risks 
     posed by the regulated insurance group and entity or 
     activity.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSENT TO ADOPT INTERNATIONAL 
                   INSURANCE STANDARDS.

       (a) Publication of Standards; Adoption of Capital and 
     Prudential Standards.--The United States may not agree to, 
     accept, establish, enter into, or consent to the adoption of 
     a final international insurance standard with an 
     international standard-setting organization or a foreign 
     government, authority, or regulatory entity unless the 
     requirements under both of the following paragraphs are 
     complied with:
       (1) Publication.--The requirements under this paragraph are 
     complied with if the conditions under one of the following 
     subparagraphs have been met:
       (A) By federal reserve and treasury.--The Chairman of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury have caused the proposed text of 
     the proposed final international insurance standard to be 
     published in the Federal Register and made available for 
     public comment for a period of not fewer than 30 days (which 
     period may run concurrently with the 90-day period referred 
     to in subsection (b)(3)).
       (B) By state insurance commissioners.--The State insurance 
     commissioners have caused the proposed text of the proposed 
     international insurance standard to be published in a similar 
     form and manner that provides for notice and public comment.
       (2) Capital standard.--In the case only of a final 
     international insurance standard setting forth any capital 
     standard or standards for insurers--
       (A) such international capital standard is consistent with 
     capital requirements set forth in the State-based system of 
     insurance regulation;
       (B) the Board has issued capital requirements for insurance 
     companies supervised by the Board and subject to such 
     requirements, which shall be issued through rulemaking in 
     accordance with the procedures established under section 553 
     of title 5, United States Code, regarding substantive rules, 
     under which the periods for notice and public comment shall 
     each have a duration of not fewer than 60 days; and
       (C) to the extent that such international capital standard 
     is intended to be applied to a company or companies 
     supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, is consistent with the capital requirements of the 
     Board for such companies.
       (b) Submission and Layover Provisions.--The Secretary and 
     the Board may not agree to, accept, establish, enter into, or 
     consent to the adoption of an international insurance 
     standard established through an international standard-
     setting organization or a foreign government, authority, or 
     regulatory entity unless--
       (1) the Secretary and the Board have--
       (A) conducted an analysis under subsection (c) of the 
     proposed international insurance standard; and
       (B) submitted to the covered congressional committees, on a 
     day on which both Houses of Congress are in session, a copy 
     of the proposed final text of the proposed international 
     insurance standard and the report required under subsection 
     (c)(2) regarding such analysis;
       (2) the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board have 
     determined, pursuant to such analysis, that the proposed 
     standard will not result in any change in State law;
       (3) with respect to a capital standard under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board certify 
     that the proposed international capital standard is designed 
     solely to help ensure that sufficient funds are available to 
     pay claims to an insurer's policyholders in the event of the 
     liquidation of that entity; and
       (4) a period of 90 calendar days beginning on the date on 
     which the copy of the proposed final text of the standard is 
     submitted to the covered congressional committees under 
     paragraph (1)(B) has expired, during which period the 
     Congress may take action to approve or reject such final 
     standard.
       (c) Joint Analysis by Chair of the Federal Reserve and 
     Secretary of the Treasury.--
       (1) In general.--An analysis under this subsection of a 
     proposed final international insurance standard shall be an 
     analysis conducted by the Secretary and the Chairman of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in 
     consultation with the State insurance commissioners, of the 
     impact of such standard on consumers and markets in the 
     United States and whether any changes in State law will 
     result from such final standard.
       (2) Report.--Upon completion of an analysis under this 
     subsection of a final international insurance standard, the 
     Secretary and the Board shall submit a report on the results 
     of the analysis to the covered congressional committees and 
     the Comptroller General of the United States. The report 
     shall include a statement setting forth the determination 
     made pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding any changes in State 
     law resulting from such final standard.
       (3) Notice and comment.--
       (A) Notice.--The Secretary and the Chairman of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall provide notice 
     before the date on which drafting the report is commenced and 
     after the date on which the draft of the report is completed.
       (B) Opportunity for comment.--There shall be an opportunity 
     for public comment for a period beginning on the date on 
     which the report is submitted under paragraph (2) and ending 
     on the date that is not fewer than 60 days after the date on 
     which the report is submitted. Nothing in this subparagraph 
     shall affect the authority of the Board to issue the rule 
     referred to in subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Review by comptroller general.--Upon submission of a 
     report pursuant to paragraph (2) to the Comptroller General, 
     the Comptroller General shall review the report and shall 
     submit a report to the Congress setting forth the conclusions 
     of the Comptroller General's review.
       (d) Limited Effect.--This section may not be construed to 
     establish or expand any authority to implement an 
     international insurance standard in the United States or for 
     the United States or any representative of the Federal 
     Government to adopt or enter into any international insurance 
     standard.
       (e) Treatment of State Law.--In accordance with the Act of 
     March 9, 1945 (Chapter 20; 59 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et 
     seq.), commonly referred to as the ``McCarran-Ferguson Act'', 
     this section may not be construed to preempt State law.

[[Page H7315]]

  


     SEC. 5. REPORTS.

       (a) Reports and Testimony by Secretary of the Treasury and 
     Chair of the Federal Reserve.--The Secretary and the Chairman 
     of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall 
     submit to the covered congressional committees an annual 
     report and provide testimony, not less often than every 6 
     months, to the covered congressional committees on the 
     efforts of the Secretary and the Chairman with the State 
     insurance commissioners with respect to international 
     insurance standard-setting organizations and international 
     insurance standards, including--
       (1) a description of the insurance standard-setting issues 
     under discussion at international standard-setting bodies, 
     including the Financial Stability Board and the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors;
       (2) a description of the effects that international 
     insurance standards could have on consumers and insurance 
     markets in the United States;
       (3) a description of any position taken by the Secretary 
     and the Board in international insurance discussions or on 
     any international insurance standard;
       (4) a description of the efforts by the Secretary and the 
     Board to increase transparency and accountability at the 
     Financial Stability Board with respect to insurance proposals 
     and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, 
     including efforts to provide additional public access to 
     working groups and committees of the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors; and
       (5) a description of how the Secretary and the Board are 
     meeting the objectives set forth in section 3, or, if such 
     objectives are not being met, an explanation of the reasons 
     for not meeting such objectives.
       (b) Reports and Testimony by State Insurance 
     Commissioners.--The State insurance commissioners may provide 
     testimony or reports to the Congress on the issues described 
     in subsection (a).
       (c) Report on Transparency.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Congress a report and provide testimony 
     to the Congress on the efforts of the Chairman and the 
     Secretary pursuant to subsection (a)(4) of this section to 
     increase transparency at meetings of the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors.
       (d) GAO Report on Transparency of Outside Organizations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the covered congressional committees a 
     report, and provide testimony to such committees, identifying 
     and analyzing the transparency and accountability of any 
     organization acting as a designee of, or at the direction of, 
     the head of a State insurance department on issues related to 
     international insurance standards, which is not employed 
     directly by the State.
       (2) Content.--The report and testimony required under this 
     section shall include a description and analysis of--
       (A) the role, involvement, or relationship, of any 
     organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1), of, with, 
     or to the State insurance departments' activities as 
     authorized by, directed by, or otherwise referred to in this 
     Act, including a description and analysis regarding such 
     organization's participation in policy and decision-making 
     deliberations and activities related to international 
     insurance standards;
       (B) any financial support provided by such organization to 
     any State insurance department personnel in furtherance of 
     their activities related to international insurance 
     standards, the nature and amount of such support, and any 
     understandings between the organization and the State 
     regarding travel protocols and State laws governing State 
     officials' receipt of, benefitting from, or being subsidized 
     by, outside funds;
       (C) the budget, including revenues and expenses, of any 
     organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1) relating to 
     participation in international insurance discussions on 
     issues before, involving, or relating to the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors, the Financial Stability 
     Board, or any other international forum of financial 
     regulators or supervisors that considers such issues, and how 
     the organization collects money to fund such activities;
       (D) whether each such budget of such an organization is 
     developed under a process comparable in its transparency and 
     accountability to the process under which budgets are 
     developed and appropriated for State departments of insurance 
     and Federal executive branch regulatory agencies, including--
       (i) an identification of any bodies independent of the 
     organization that set standards for and/or oversee that 
     organization's budgeting process; and
       (ii) a description of the extent to which and how the 
     organization, in funding its operations, uses or benefits 
     from its members' ability to compel entities subject to its 
     members' regulatory authority to use the services of the 
     organization or any of its affiliates; and
       (E) the extent to which the work product of any 
     organization identified pursuant to paragraph (1)has the 
     effect of establishing any self-executing national standards, 
     and in what way, and whether such standards are developed 
     under processes comparable in their transparency and 
     accountability to the process under which national standards 
     are developed by the Congress or Federal executive branch 
     agencies.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors 
     of the Federal Reserve System, or the designee of the Board.
       (2) Covered congressional committees.--The term ``covered 
     congressional committees'' means the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (3) International insurance standard.--The term 
     ``international insurance standard'' means any international 
     insurance supervisory standard developed by an international 
     standards setting organization, or regulatory or supervisory 
     forum, in which the United States participates, including the 
     Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally 
     Active Insurance Groups, the Financial Stability Board, and 
     the International Association of Insurance Supervisors.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee.
       (5) State insurance commissioners.--The term ``State 
     insurance commissioners'' means the heads of the State 
     insurance departments or their designees acting at their 
     direction.

     SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF COVERED AGREEMENTS.

       Section 314 of title 31, United States Code is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States 
     Trade Representative have caused to be published in the 
     Federal Register, and made available for public comment for a 
     period of not fewer than 30 days (which period may run 
     concurrently with the 90-day period for the covered agreement 
     referred to in paragraph (3)), the proposed text of the 
     covered agreement;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Consultation With State Insurance Commissioners.--In 
     any negotiations regarding a contemplated covered agreement, 
     the Secretary and the United States Trade Representative 
     shall consult with and directly include State insurance 
     commissioners.
       ``(e) Prohibition on Regulatory Authority.--In accordance 
     with subsections (k) and (l) of section 313, a covered 
     agreement shall not be used to establish or provide the 
     Federal Insurance Office or the Treasury with any general 
     supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of 
     insurance or with the authority to participate in a 
     supervisory college or similar process.
       ``(f) Treatment Under Other Law.--A covered agreement shall 
     not be considered an international insurance standard for 
     purposes of the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016 
     and shall not be subject to such Act.''.

     SEC. 8. DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF FINANCIAL STABILITY 
                   OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.

       Subsection (a) of section 112 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
     Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5322(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Duties of independent member.--To assist the Council 
     with its responsibilities to monitor international insurance 
     developments, advise Congress, and make recommendations, the 
     Independent Member of the Council shall have the authority 
     to--
       ``(A) regularly consult with international insurance 
     supervisors and international financial stability 
     counterparts;
       ``(B) consult with, advise, and assist the Secretary of the 
     Treasury with respect to representing the Federal Government 
     of the United States, as appropriate, in the International 
     Association of Insurance Supervisors (including to become a 
     non-voting member thereof), particularly on matters of 
     systemic risk, and to consult with the Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System and the States concerning such 
     matters;
       ``(C) attend the Financial Stability Board of The Group of 
     Twenty and join with other members from the United States, 
     including on matters related to insurance and financial 
     stability, and provide for the attendance and participation 
     at such Board, on matters related to insurance and financial 
     stability, of State insurance commissioners; and
       ``(D) attend, with the United States delegation, the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and 
     observe and participate at the Insurance and Private Pensions 
     Committee of such Organization on matters related to 
     insurance and financial stability.''.

     SEC. 9. STATE INSURANCE REGULATOR INVOLVEMENT IN 
                   INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SETTING.

       Parties representing the United States at the Financial 
     Stability Board of the Group of Twenty on matters, and in 
     meetings, related to insurance and financial stability shall 
     consult with, and seek to include in such meetings, the State 
     insurance commissioners.

     SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may 
     be construed to support or endorse the domestic capital 
     standard for insurers referred to in section 4(a)(2) or any 
     such domestic capital standards established by the Board.

     SEC. 11. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RESERVE FUND.

       Clause (i) of section 4(i)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d(i)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, except that 
     for fiscal year 2017, the amount deposited may not exceed 
     $43,000,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will 
control 30 minutes.

[[Page H7316]]

  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5143, the Transparent 
Insurance Standards Act of 2016.
  Introduced by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the 
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of our committee, Blaine 
Luetkemeyer, H.R. 5143 enhances Congress' constitutional oversight of 
international deliberations relating to insurance standards. Mr. 
Speaker, again, this is legislation which is about accountability, 
transparency, and oversight.
  More specifically, the legislation establishes a series of 
requirements to be met before the Federal Insurance Office or the 
Federal Reserve may agree to accept, establish, enter into, or consent 
to the adoption of a final international insurance standard. Permit me 
to go into greater detail.
  First, the Federal Insurance Office and the Fed must publish any 
proposed final standard and allow for public comment. A public comment 
is critical to our negotiating posture, Mr. Speaker. In so doing, the 
involved agencies must provide a joint analysis of the impact the 
standard will have on consumers and the U.S. insurance markets. Before 
agreeing to any international standard relating to capital, the Fed is 
required to first promulgate its domestic capital standard rule.
  The bill makes similar requirements for negotiations concerning 
insurance covered agreements. It sets negotiating objectives for U.S. 
parties and also mandates that the Federal Insurance Office and the Fed 
report and testify before Congress twice annually.
  Finally, H.R. 5143 ensures that the independent member with insurance 
expertise who sits on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, known 
as FSOC, is permitted to assist the FSOC in international discussions 
and attend meetings of international bodies where insurance standards 
are discussed.
  Mr. Speaker, for almost 150 years, U.S. insurance companies of every 
type--including property-casualty, life, reinsurance, health, and 
auto--have been primarily regulated by our States. Congress and the 
States have occasionally reviewed the effectiveness of the State-based 
regulation of insurance and coordinated efforts to achieve greater 
regulatory uniformity. In 1949, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, which confirmed the States' regulatory authority over insurance, 
except where Federal law expressly provides otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, this changed with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 
2010. Dodd-Frank changed the insurance landscape and further enlarged 
the Federal Government's role in the insurance industry by creating a 
Federal office specifically tasked with insurance matters. Dodd-Frank 
established the Federal Insurance Office at Treasury and charged its 
director with representing the interest of U.S. insurers during 
negotiations of international agreements.
  Among other things, H.R. 5143 seeks to prevent any Federal overreach 
and establishes essential guardrails for the Federal Government when 
discussing international insurance issues abroad. The bill is not 
intended to bring international negotiations to any type of halt. Team 
USA has experienced victories at the International Association of 
Insurance Supervisors, and has kept Congress informed of its intent to 
negotiate the first of what could be many covered agreements.
  However, we should not underestimate the importance of these 
conversations or the implications they can have on insurers and the 
American consumers because they need to be heard and they need to be 
represented.
  As the leader of a Missouri-based midsized insurance company has told 
our committee, Mr. Speaker:

       We worry about the potential negative impacts any 
     international agreement could have on the domestic 
     marketplace or the State-based regulatory system that has 
     served consumer and insurance needs for more than a century.

  He added:

       Congress should conduct strong oversight in this area in 
     order to protect domestic insurance markets, companies, and 
     especially their policy holders.

  Strong oversight and transparency are, indeed, absolutely essential, 
and that is what we get with this bill.
  It is simply imperative that our States, the executive branch, and 
Congress work cooperatively to signify to the International Association 
of Insurance Supervisors, the Financial Stability Board, and to foreign 
governments that we will only lend our name to standards and agreements 
that benefit U.S. consumers. The bill we are considering today will 
assuredly lead us to this goal.
  Again, H.R. 5143 provides greater transparency, allows for a stronger 
Team USA in negotiations, and sends a signal to foreign governments and 
international organizations that the United States will lead and not be 
led into bad agreements. With the greater congressional oversight the 
bill provides, we can ensure that any deal that is reached will be a 
fair deal, and a good deal, for the American people.
  Again, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Luetkemeyer), for his leadership, yet again, on bringing an excellent 
bill to the House floor.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Last week, the majority made it clear 
that it was just getting started with the special interest giveaways at 
the expense of financial stability and consumer protection.
  Now, before we adjourn, we are here to debate one last holiday gift 
to Wall Street. This bill's gift is less oversight of the largest 
insurers in the United States, which will put us at risk for another 
AIG. Don't forget, AIG was bailed out to the tune of $182 billion.
  While Democrats passed Wall Street reform to prevent another crisis 
and future bailouts, Chairman Hensarling and Donald Trump have made it 
clear that Dodd-Frank is on the chopping block. Without the safeguards 
in Dodd-Frank, a lack of capital standards for large insurance 
companies will put our economy at risk.
  No one should be surprised at what is taking place here. This is 
Donald Trump's agenda. Despite promises to hold Wall Street 
accountable, the President-elect is proposing an administration that is 
heavy on Wall Street insiders. Their plans will do little to help the 
millions of Americans struggling to get ahead, but that is by design. 
Because ``Trumpism'' isn't really about helping the middle class. It is 
about lining the pockets of some of our biggest banks and insurance 
companies.
  AIG, as I mentioned, is a poster child of the financial crisis. It 
engaged in financial activities that more closely resemble investment 
banking than traditional insurance.
  Prior to the crisis, State regulators, which have primary 
jurisdiction over insurance companies, did not effectively account for 
AIG's activities related to credit derivatives or securities lending, 
for example, which allowed it to skate by with minimum capital. When 
AIG's bets on subprime mortgage-backed securities failed, it collapsed 
and required a taxpayer bailout. Recall that we bailed out AIG because 
it was a counterparty to nearly all of the largest global banks; 
meaning that if AIG failed, it would bring down a series of global 
megabanks with it.

  So under Dodd-Frank, we improved the oversight of insurance companies 
by giving Federal regulators the necessary tools to prevent another 
collapse of large, globally active insurance companies. We are talking 
about the big boys here: AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. For the past 
several years, Federal regulators have been overseeing systematically 
important financial institutions, which are identified as such because 
they are expected to pose a substantial risk to our financial stability 
if they fail. Our Federal regulators have also been negotiating with

[[Page H7317]]

140 other countries on international standards for large globally 
connected insurers.
  However, today's bill is designed to undermine the progress we have 
made on this front, and to ultimately prevent the adoption of these 
capital standards in the United States.
  In fact, H.R. 5143 would add layers of burdensome red tape and 
unworkable requirements on our Federal negotiators, making it virtually 
impossible for them to advocate effectively for U.S. interests on these 
issues or agree to any kind of standard. For example, this bill would 
prevent negotiators from agreeing to any standard unless it focuses 
exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims. However, focusing 
exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims can lead those same 
policyholders vulnerable to systemic failure.
  Moreover, by crippling our ability to engage effectively on 
international insurance issues, this bill will ensure that the rest of 
the world will move on to adopt standards that are not in our best 
interest.
  At worst, this bill is unconstitutional--something that the 
administration detailed in its statement of policy--raising multiple 
conflicts between the President's exclusive authority on international 
agreements and the bill's requirements to directly include State 
insurance commissioners in international negotiations.
  At best, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It caters to 
an unfounded fear that internationally agreed upon policies would be 
forced upon the small, domestic insurance companies and unwilling 
States.
  Let me again reiterate that the standards being negotiated 
internationally are for the largest insurers that operate all over the 
world--companies like AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. It is a scare 
tactic to claim that these standards would be applied to anyone but the 
largest and most interconnected global insurers.
  Second, States can never be compelled to adopt international 
standards such as these. These standards are nonbinding and each 
individual State has the discretion to adopt them, modify them, or 
reject them entirely after going through their full regulatory process.
  Third, stakeholders have ample opportunity to weigh in on these 
discussions. For example, Federal negotiators have held multiple 
sessions for stakeholders to provide input, and the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors has greatly improved public access 
and consultation. Yet, this bill, H.R. 5143, would require several 
additional notice and comment periods and several other layers of 
unnecessary red tape.
  To make matters worse, the sponsor proposes to pay for the bill's 
costs by taking $7 million from the Securities and Exchange 
Commission's reserve fund, which means that our financial watchdog will 
be unable to respond to unforeseen events, like the flash crash.
  In short, this bill would ask taxpayers to pay for the cost of 
rejecting capital standards by taking away the funding the SEC needs to 
respond to emergency situations that threaten financial stability. That 
just doubles down on the irresponsible policymaking we have seen by the 
opposite side of the aisle.
  As the veto threat issued by the White House on this bill states:

       The Nation has made great progress as a result of Dodd-
     Frank, and we cannot allow this bill to hamper the United 
     States' ability to implement the best standards for our 
     unique regulatory regime.

  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans will go to any lengths 
necessary to give industry what it wants--less oversight, less 
supervision, and less regulation. Republicans have repeatedly tried to 
hamstring our efforts to more effectively monitor and respond to 
systemic risk by working to dismantle the FSOC and its designation 
authority for SIFIs. They have called the FSOC unconstitutional and 
helped companies like MetLife challenge its designation in court. So I 
am not really surprised that Republicans would close out 2016 by 
bringing this bill to the floor, but I am disappointed because the 
American people deserve better.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the author of H.R. 5143 and the chairman of 
our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1545

  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.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the 
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak on 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I find much greater satisfaction in working on 
legislation with the subcommittee chairman, Blaine Luetkemeyer, than 
opposing such; but, Mr. Speaker, I do, in fact, believe that H.R. 5143 
would prescribe narrowly tailored reporting and negotiating 
requirements that must be completed before any international regulatory 
insurance standard could be agreed on.
  In the wake of the financial crisis with the passage of Dodd-Frank, 
the Federal Insurance Office, FIO, was

[[Page H7318]]

tasked with representing the United States at international insurance 
forums. Currently, the FIO has been negotiating alongside the Federal 
Reserve and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC, 
on behalf of our country's insurance interests. The Housing and 
Insurance Subcommittee has held numerous hearings on this topic, giving 
us ample opportunity to more fully understand the process that is being 
undertaken at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors as 
well as with other international bodies.
  It is critical that Team USA continue to advocate strongly on behalf 
of the U.S. insurance system, and it is imperative that we do not 
hamstring their ability to do so. More specifically, the bill contains 
a number of provisions that would ultimately delay our negotiations 
abroad. If we limit the ability of our negotiators to do their job, we 
lose our seat at the international table, which, I believe, will weaken 
our position. Like most on the other side, I am a strong proponent of 
the State-based system.
  Our Missouri insurance commissioner has recently held a national 
position. In order to effectively communicate our position and advocate 
for this unique American system, we need to ensure that our 
international representatives are empowered, and we believe that this 
actually impacts their role at the table.
  Additionally, none of the standards that may be decided upon 
internationally are binding. This is, perhaps, the most significant 
thing I am saying. As everyone knows, the States would have to approve 
any standards because we can't impose those standards on them. These 
standards would have to be agreed to domestically--they would have to 
go to each and every State--and they won't be approved on the Federal 
level. This process would include a notice and a comment period.
  I do believe that this bill does not address a single problem, that 
it does not fix any broken part of this process that is going on.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and a heavy heart 
that I yield to the next gentleman. I have a heavy heart because I fear 
this will be the last time I yield time to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer); but it is with great pride that, for 14 years, I have 
called him friend and colleague. He is retiring from this institution. 
He has been tireless in his service to our committee, his constituents, 
and this country. He has been a tireless advocate for the cause of 
freedom, free enterprise, and the lot of the common man and the common 
woman; and this will be a lesser institution upon his departure.

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), my 
friend.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman and thank him for his leadership 
and his kind words.
  It has been a great pleasure to serve on this Financial Services 
Committee. I think we have done some good work. I enjoyed working with 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on some issues as well. I 
wish you the very best as you continue as a committee to work on behalf 
of Americans all across the country to make sure that they have access 
to the financial products that they need for their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5143, offered by my good 
friend from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The Transparent Insurance Standards Act is critically important to 
ensuring that the U.S. State-based model for regulating insurance is 
preserved and that international agreements benefit U.S. consumers. 
Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the increased role of the 
Federal Government in insurance regulation has led to changes to U.S. 
participation in international insurance forums, like the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors.
  The Federal Insurance Office, FIO, is charged with representing the 
interests of U.S. insurers during negotiations of international 
agreements. Further, the FIO, along with the Federal Reserve, is an 
active participant in international standard-setting bodies. Over the 
last several years, developments in international insurance supervision 
have created tension with our State-based model.
  The European Union has moved toward a single regulatory structure for 
its member states. This effort, known as Solvency II, will harmonize 
the varied regulatory regimes in each European nation. Many have raised 
concern that Solvency II will be adopted as the gold standard for 
international insurance supervision. Solvency II could put the U.S. 
insurance industry and the U.S. policyholders at a disadvantage.
  H.R. 5143 is important legislation that enhances the congressional 
oversight of international deliberations for insurance regulation. It 
holds both the FIO and the Federal Reserve to important benchmarks that 
ensure that U.S. interests are being represented. For example, the 
agencies must provide joint analyses on the impact of proposed 
international standards on U.S. consumers and insurance markets. 
Further, it allows for public comment on any proposed final standard 
that the U.S. may agree to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. These regulatory checks are not new to many U.S. 
agencies, which already must comply with certain Administrative 
Procedure Act requirements when setting Federal standards. While there 
may be a critical role for U.S. representatives to play in the 
international insurance discussion, it is important that our advocates 
ensure that U.S. interests are not recklessly pushed aside in the name 
of global harmony.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5143.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking 
member of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises 
Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I join the chairman in thanking Congressman Neugebauer for his 
outstanding service to this institution, to his district, and to this 
country. He has been an outstanding Member. It has been a pleasure to 
serve with him.
  We will miss you. Thank you for your friendship, your consideration, 
and your really hard work for good, sound policy in this country. Thank 
you.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5143.
  I believe that it would undermine the Fed's ability to negotiate 
international agreements on insurance regulation, and I think that that 
will cause a big problem for insurance in our country.
  Telling the Fed that it can't agree to any international standard on 
insurance that isn't already the law in the United States absolutely 
makes no sense whatsoever. The other countries would simply stop 
negotiating with us, and I believe we would lose our voice and our seat 
at the table, and that is not good for America.
  It is also important to remember that nothing the Fed or Treasury 
agrees to internationally can be binding on State insurance regulators. 
That is already the law, and we don't need a new law to tell us that. 
The Fed does regulate 14 insurance companies through its holding 
companies. This has been a Federal authority, and there is nothing new 
about that.
  The Fed should be able to align the insurance regulations that it has 
authority over with the regulations in other countries. One of the big 
lessons of the scandal and of the economic downturn of 2008 was that 
different regulatory regimes in different countries could have 
different incentives, and some of them were bad incentives--for 
example, AIG. The only problem that existed with this country was in 
the different incentives in England.
  I am very uncomfortable with a bill that hamstrings the Federal 
Reserve's ability to regulate the safety and soundness of the large 
insurance holding companies that it has authority over and to ensure 
that those regulatory standards are consistent internationally, so I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), and I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman be able to control the remainder of such time.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

[[Page H7319]]

  There was no objection.
  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. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my fellow subcommittee chairman for 
working with me to protect the State-based insurance regulatory model 
that has served our Nation so well for 150 years.
  To my colleague from New York, I am very comfortable with this bill 
and with the underlying philosophy that has brought us here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a former State representative in the Michigan 
Legislature, and I know firsthand that Michigan does a better job of 
protecting policyholders within their borders than the Federal 
Government does or could. Even more so, Michigan certainly knows how to 
maintain a robust insurance marketplace that works for Michigan 
customers. Additionally, Michigan serves as an entry point for several 
foreign companies which then come into the U.S. marketplace.
  However, there are bureaucrats in Washington who believe that they 
know best. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded the Federal 
Government's role in the insurance marketplace by creating the Federal 
Insurance Office and charging the Director with representing the U.S. 
during the negotiations of international agreements. At the same time, 
the Dodd-Frank Act changed domestic insurance regulation, which also 
led to the changes in U.S. participation at the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors, or IAIS.

                              {time}  1600

  The IAIS develops international insurance regulations for its 190 
jurisdictions in more than 140 countries to then adopt those. I am 
concerned that this could influence the U.S. to replace the State-based 
insurance regulatory model with international standards that were 
created by unelected European bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, our States are, as Justice Brandeis so eloquently 
coined, ``laboratories of democracy;'' and in his words that means that 
a ``State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try 
novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the 
country.''
  I can't think of a better example of a successful experiment than the 
State-based insurance regulatory system, especially in my home State of 
Michigan. That is why the protections provided in the Transparent 
Insurance Standards Act are so vitally important.
  The straightforward bill simply gives the States and Congress the 
opportunity to comment on any international insurance standard before 
it may be adopted.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this very, very 
important bill and support our system that has existed for 150 years.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to the 
ranking member for allowing me this opportunity.
  First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from New York and the other gentleman from Texas regarding 
our colleague, Mr. Neugebauer. From the day that I walked into this 
Chamber, he has been nothing but a paragon of gentlemanliness toward 
myself and my colleagues. In fact, every freshman receives a flag flown 
over the Capitol that Congressman Neugebauer has had flown. And 
wouldn't you know it, small world category: 2,000 miles away, he 
happened to be good friends with my uncle, which I didn't even know 
until he arrived here. He will be missed. He is a testament to how you 
can see the world completely differently, yet be able to treat one 
another with respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncomfortable because this is the second 
time in a week I have risen to oppose a proposal by my friend from 
Missouri who I think actually is trying to do the right thing and with 
whom I have dealt in good faith and who has dealt in good faith with 
us. But I do, in fact, rise to oppose this bill because in some cases 
it goes too far, in some cases it won't work, and in some cases, 
frankly, it doesn't go far enough.
  It goes too far in terms of stealing the money from the SEC reserve 
to pay for this. Its costs and those associated with its implementation 
should not be borne by another enforcement agency whose job it is to 
keep us safe.
  It won't work in terms of its reporting requirements: all of these 
expensive requirements that require the rate on the SEC, the 
transparency, the reporting. Anybody who knows anything about 
negotiations knows you can't post a public notice about what you intend 
to do and hope to be successful on the outcome.
  I happen to have been a professional on both sides of the labor 
management negotiations table, and I can tell you, the last thing in 
the world you want to do is post your playbook. That would be a little 
bit like the football team saying: Come here, defense; let me tell you 
what we are going to do.
  That would, in fact, be the net effect of this particular approach.
  The objective: to maintain the integrity in the McCarran-Ferguson Act 
is the right one. It is the wrong approach. In some cases it, frankly, 
doesn't go far enough because, the truth is, we ought to have these 
international discussions and negotiations for international firms; but 
this bill would only apply to the IAIS. There are a lot of 
international forums where insurance is at the table. The fact of the 
matter is, the State regulators ought to be at those tables as well.
  Look, there is a better way. I offer it to you. It is a bill I have 
introduced, which is H.R. 6436, that takes a principle-based approach. 
It merely says that the State-based insurance regulators have got to be 
at the table, and we have to protect that system. It is a principle-
based, not a top-down, command and control heavy bureaucracy approach 
to achieving the same objective while at the same time ensuring that we 
provide adequate protection and regulation for international insurance 
companies, but respecting the State-based system.
  I don't know why we can't get the win-win here. You know, I find it 
ironic that my legislation, H.R. 6436, actually enjoys broad-based 
support among the stakeholders: the regulated and, yes, the regulators. 
The State-based insurance regulators believe that this is the best 
approach to take, and it is the one I think is a win-win for everybody. 
It achieves everybody's objectives. That is not what H.R. 5143 will do.
  H.R. 5143 goes too far in some cases, won't work in others, and 
doesn't go far enough in others. So I hope that you will reject it, 
provide us with an opportunity to continue to negotiate in good faith, 
and get to win-win because win-win is possible in this circumstance.
  I, once again, thank the ranking member very much for this 
opportunity.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is chairman of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for all of his 
work on this bill, H.R. 5143.
  As we enter into this debate, I think it is important to look at who 
supports what. If you look at insurers in States like Wisconsin, they 
have looked at Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill and they love it. They think it 
is a great bill because it protects the American State-based model.
  If you are a large global insurer, you don't like this bill because 
you want one global international standard that you have to comply 
with.

  So we are here fighting for the little guy, those little insurance 
companies that dot all of our States, that serve our communities and 
our families; and the opposition is standing with the large insurers 
which have been more concerned about this bill than the little guy, 
which goes to my point.
  I am concerned that the Federal Reserve and Treasury could enter into 
an international framework that undermines the U.S. system in favor of, 
again, this European-centric model that is inconsistent with our 
American model. If you look at this great American model, it has worked 
for 150 years.
  Look back to the 2008 crisis. This system in America, with a ton of 
pressure, it performed beautifully. It did really well. Why do you want 
to cash that in for a different model?

[[Page H7320]]

  I guess my concern is that those State insurers like in my State, 
they are not even regulated at the Federal level, but they are 
concerned that on the track that we are going, they very well may be.
  This is pretty simple stuff.
  What Mr. Luetkemeyer is looking for is openness and transparency. He 
just doesn't want Washington bureaucrats negotiating a deal. He wants 
all stakeholders as part of this deal. And lo and behold, it is a 
remarkable concept; but if we are going to have fundamental changes to 
our insurance law, why only have unelected bureaucrats make those 
decisions? Why not empower the Congress, the people who are responsive 
to the American electorate?
  We should have a say in this process. Put us back in control, which 
is exactly what Chairman Luetkemeyer does.
  It is a great bill. I encourage all of my friends on both sides of 
the aisle to show their resounding support.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his 
work on H.R. 5143. I rise in strong support of the legislation.
  Now, what we are hearing on the floor today is very similar, I 
suspect, to the discussion at the founding of this country, yet some 
who wanted a strong central government, strong regulating powers from 
Washington and some who said, no, that will not be the best way to 
provide a strong economy, that we should send the decisions closer to 
where people live. Frankly, that choice is being played out worldwide 
right now, and that is the case with the question in front of us.
  Should we allow people in Europe to tell us what our markets will 
look like here?
  Now, there are those who say yes. I am in the group that says no. 
Because our system here has created its own stability. In the financial 
difficulties of 2008 and 2009, our market performed just perfectly. We 
have got 56 different regulators, each one has their own 
responsibility. It provides a safer market for the consumer. It 
provides a safer product for the consumers to purchase. Why we would 
send that authority to some other country across the oceans just never 
made sense to those of us who want the decisions made closer to the 
people.
  Secondly, we have to think that it is good for American jobs. Anytime 
people in a different country are deciding what the rules are, they are 
going to skew it in favor of themselves. Again, our market is well 
diversified. It is spread among the States, and it provides insurance 
markets for every individual State and some more than just the one.
  So that tells us that it is good for the economy, it is good for the 
consumer; but, finally, we need the stabilizing force here, the ability 
for Americans to determine what we are going to do.
  I think that the recent election has been maybe a referendum on: Do 
we want to give up power to the local people, or do we just send it 
away?
  Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill preserves power for the people. It preserves 
power for the Congress. I would urge support for Mr. Luetkemeyer's 
bill, H.R. 5143.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 5143, the 
Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016, with my good friend and 
colleague from the State of Missouri, Representative Blaine 
Luetkemeyer.
  Dodd-Frank reversed a nearly 150-year precedent of the U.S. insurance 
industry being regulated primarily by the States. From property-
casualty, life, reinsurance, health, and even auto, the Obama 
administration and Dodd-Frank created a more invasive role for the 
Federal Government to intervene in this industry.
  Where this has become apparent is during the negotiations of 
international agreements regarding insurance standards, where our 
foreign counterparts, particularly in the European Union, are trying to 
force us to adopt their standard and forgo our State-based insurance 
regime.
  Most concerning is that many of these meetings take place behind 
closed doors with little accountability or transparency while our 
Federal Government says they are negotiating on behalf of our best 
interests.
  H.R. 5143 would enhance congressional oversight into these 
deliberations by establishing requirements to be met before the Federal 
Government can agree to the adoption of any final international 
insurance standards or covered agreements. Setting these procedures in 
place ensures that Missouri policyholders and customers will be 
protected from premium increases by having to adopt international 
standards that don't apply or make sense here in the United States.
  Americans are sick and tired of the Federal Government making choices 
on their behalf without proper input and oversight. Congress needs to 
be more involved in these negotiations that could have substantial 
impacts on policyholders across the country.
  I have two letters of support from companies in Missouri that 
represent over 40,000 customers and employees in the State. The 
companies state that this bill will help prevent costs from being 
driven up in Missouri, and I would like to include these letters in the 
Record.

                                  Cameron Insurance Companies,

                                                  August 19, 2016.
     To: Members of the Missouri Congressional Delegation
       Dear Representatives: On behalf of Cameron Mutual Insurance 
     Company and the 39,370 policyholders/employees in Missouri, I 
     am writing to ask for your support. During the next few 
     months, U.S. negotiators and their international counterparts 
     are scheduled to meet behind closed doors around the globe 
     approximately three dozen times to make strategic decisions 
     on new international capital and regulatory standards. The 
     U.S. is under pressure from international regulators to adopt 
     their standards. These types of changes have the very real 
     potential to drive up costs here at home.
       It is important that the U.S. defend its effective system 
     of insurance regulation. Our U.S. negotiators should not 
     agree to new standards that could eventually weaken U.S. 
     consumer protections, reduce competition, and, according to 
     economist Robert Shapiro, cost homeowners insurance consumers 
     up to an additional $100 per year.
       H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016, 
     introduced by Missouri's own Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, 
     provides critically important checks and balances regarding 
     negotiations on international insurance standards by 
     requiring transparency, accountability, and consultation with 
     Congress, and allowing for public input. The bill passed the 
     House Financial Services Committee in June.
       It is critical for Congress to act on this legislation now 
     and I am asking you to defend U.S. insurance markets and to 
     preserve our effective, consumer-focused, state-based system 
     of insurance regulation. Please contact House leadership and 
     the Financial Services Committee leadership and request a 
     September House floor vote on H.R. 5143.
       Transparency, accountability, and consultation with 
     Congress and the public is a simple and reasonable approach 
     to ensure our system is not undermined by closed-door 
     international regulatory fora. H.R. 5143 strengthens the U.S. 
     voice by requiring U.S. state and federal negotiators reach 
     consensus on advocacy positions and supporting them by 
     shining a light on the negotiations.
           Sincerely,

                                               Brad M. Fowler,

                                President/Chief Executive Officer,
     Cameron Mutual Insurance Company.
                                  ____



                                  Shelter Insurance Companies,

                                                September 7, 2016.
     Re: H.R. 5143, the ``Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 
         2016''

     Hon. Ann Wagner,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wagner: Shelter Insurance is the 
     largest domestic property and casualty insurance company in 
     Missouri, writing more than $1.6 billion in premium, and is 
     home to almost 1,700 Missouri constituents/employees.
       On behalf of Shelter Insurance Company, our agents, 
     employees and mutual policy holders in Missouri, I am writing 
     to ask for your help to defend the state-based system of 
     insurance regulation. Congressman Luetkemeyer's bill, H.R. 
     5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016, 
     provides critically important checks and balances regarding 
     negotiations on international insurance standards by 
     requiring transparency, accountability, and consultation with 
     Congress, and allowing for public input.
       We ask that you please encourage Chairman Hensarling and 
     House leadership to schedule a House vote on this legislation 
     in September.

[[Page H7321]]

       As you well know, the next few months are important when it 
     comes to international insurance regulation. By the end of 
     2016, U.S. negotiators and their international counterparts 
     are scheduled to meet behind closed doors around the globe 
     approximately three dozen times to make strategic decisions 
     on new international capital and regulatory standards. The 
     U.S. is under pressure from international regulators to adopt 
     their standards. These types of changes have the very real 
     potential to drive up costs here at home in Missouri.
       It is important that the U.S. defend its effective system 
     of insurance regulation. Our U.S. negotiators should not 
     agree to new standards that could eventually weaken U.S. 
     consumer protections, reduce competition.
       Again, our ask is that you please work with House 
     leadership and the Financial Services Committee leadership 
     and request a September House floor vote on H.R. 5143,
       I thank you for your help on this bill and for your 
     continued leadership on these efforts that are important to 
     my company and many insurers around the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rick Means,
                                                President and CEO.
                                                     Brian Waller,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I simply ask my colleagues to support this 
commonsense piece of legislation that instills transparency and 
accountability for our government when negotiating with their foreign 
counterparts.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and his 
staff for the hard work that went into crafting this legislation, 
coordinating with the insurance industry and the diverse array of 
stakeholders and consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, for about 150 years, the American insurance industry has 
been regulated at the State level. This has enabled the tailoring of 
regulations and business models to local circumstances for insurance 
companies of all types, structures, and sizes. This system has provided 
our domestic insurance industry a competitive advantage that benefits 
consumers and the market for insuring against risk. It is a superior 
model to the concentrated national champion insurance models of Europe.
  Some of Dodd-Frank's policies threaten to upend this existing 
regulatory infrastructure by interjecting the Federal Government, and 
ultimately international regulators, into the oversight of the American 
insurance industry. Regardless of one's views on Federal oversight of 
insurance, I think we should all agree that Congress should have a 
stake in this process and engage in robust oversight of any Federal or 
international standards.
  The Transparent Insurance Standards Act achieves just that. The 
legislation sets clear objectives, or rules of the road, for the 
Federal Insurance Office and the Federal Reserve that must be met 
during negotiation and, ultimately, adoption of any international 
insurance standards or covered agreements.
  The bill ensures that State insurance commissioners or their 
designees are directly involved in the negotiation process; and before 
adoption of such an international standard, the public and Congress 
must have access to the final text and the opportunity to provide 
comments.
  FIO and the Fed would be required to file reports and come before 
Congress twice a year to brief us on the progress and implementation. 
If the standards include capital requirements, the Fed must have 
promulgated a domestic standard first, and this will prevent the tail 
wagging the dog that we have seen with other international financial 
standards.
  These reforms and several other provisions ensure that, if the United 
States is going down the road of Federal and international insurance 
standards, the process is transparent, and Congress, the States, and 
the American people have a say in that process.
  For these reasons, I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
urge its passage.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is my last speaker. Last 
but not least, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams), an entrepreneur who understands the importance of 
our free enterprise system and how important it is for the insurance 
industry to be able to protect those interests of the free enterprise 
folks.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I think by now the secret is out the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has been a 
complete failure.
  For the last 6 years, in an effort to protect consumers, the Dodd-
Frank Act has instead stifled job creation for millions of Americans 
with regulation after regulation. H.R. 5143, which I am a proud 
cosponsor of, aims to roll back one of the many unintended consequences 
forced upon U.S. insurers.
  For 150 years, the State-based model, the American model, has been 
successful because it focused on one thing--the consumer. The U.S. 
State-based insurance regulatory system is unmatched by any insurance 
regulatory system in the world. It is important that U.S. insurers are 
not put at a competitive disadvantage worldwide and we continue to act 
in their interest.
  H.R. 5143 requires Congress to conduct oversight of international 
conversations focused on insurance standards and establish a series of 
requirements to be met by our top negotiators at Treasury's Federal 
Insurance Office.
  Furthermore, transparency and accountability is often lacking in 
international regulatory discussions, something that is fundamental to 
the State-based system. It is important that Congress takes every 
opportunity to open doors, not close doors, and allows all interested 
parties to participate in negotiations with our international 
counterparts. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strongly encourage 
increased transparency and information sharing and bring to light the 
true objectives.
  Just as Congress is routinely involved in international trade 
negotiations, this should be no different. It is important we work 
cooperatively and only agree to standards and agreements that benefit 
U.S. consumers and allow us to maintain a strong insurance marketplace.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for his leadership and 
the work our committee has done to stand up for U.S. insurers and 
consumers. I strongly urge passage of this bill. In God we trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time to close.
  The gentleman who just gave testimony indicated that the secret is 
out. I don't think he described the secret accurately, but let me just 
say it is out, and, just as Mr. Hensarling said on the floor the other 
day, we ain't seen nothing yet. They are out to destroy Dodd-Frank, 
they are out to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and 
they keep coming forward, as they are doing today, to protect Wall 
Street.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the great progress we have made since 
the enactment of Wall Street reform to fix the blind spots that 
prevented our regulators from seeing the big picture. Our U.S. 
financial system is increasingly complex, and the regulatory structure 
for the oversight of our system was fragmented before the financial 
crisis. This was particularly true of the insurance industry, which is 
regulated primarily by the States.
  While our State-based system for insurance regulation has many 
strengths, by its very nature, it is ill-suited to address all of the 
issues related to large, globally active insurance companies. That is 
why Dodd-Frank, while continuing to recognize the primacy of State-
based regulation, changed many of the ways in which the insurance 
industry is supervised for consolidated supervision and enhanced 
regulation.

  If we take a look at AIG, of course, one cannot help but ask: What 
State regulated AIG; and why did we get into the problem that we got 
into with AIG? It was because of its London-based operation. That is 
why it is so important to have cooperation between the countries on 
these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world.

[[Page H7322]]

  Let's remind everyone what this bill really does. It takes us 
backward. It says: forget about examining systemic risks across 
jurisdictions, and, instead, let's continue to leave the largest 
internationally active insurers in the world off the hook for any risk 
they may pose to our economy. Not the small, domestic insurers that 
engage in traditional activities, not the companies that make up such 
an important part of our economy in rural areas, and certainly not the 
insurers that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis. 
We are talking about the biggest and most complex insurers that have 
operations all over the globe and pose risks to international financial 
stability.
  This bill is not about transparency, as its title would suggest. It 
is about weakening oversight of these large firms and making it 
virtually impossible to agree to any kind of international insurance 
standard. This bill is also not about protecting policyholders. It is 
about burying our head in the sand and going back to the precrisis days 
where all of us, including policyholders, were vulnerable to a systemic 
failure.
  So let's call this bill what it is. It is a giveaway to the insurance 
industry that is trying to escape more oversight. And let's not pretend 
that this bill would ensure a more unified U.S. posture on the 
international stage because, under the provisions of this bill, the 
U.S. will be severely crippled in its ability to negotiate on these 
issues, which means that the rest of the world will move forward while 
American interests get left behind.
  What are we talking about? We are talking about capitalization. And 
if we are not willing to engage with other countries in this 
international community about these big insurance companies that are 
operating all over the world about capital standards, we are putting 
our own country at risk. The administration has already issued a strong 
veto threat for all of these reasons. For these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Let me share with you exactly what the administration is saying. 
``The restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on United 
States representatives in international insurance matters under H.R. 
5143 would raise serious constitutional concerns and severely outweigh 
any potential attendant benefits. . . .
  ``FIO, the Federal Reserve, and state insurance commissioners are all 
actively engaged at the IAIS and regularly coordinate with one another, 
ensuring that each aspect of the unique United States regulatory regime 
is adequately represented in any international negotiation. Despite 
their effective coordination and extensive work thus far to improve 
global insurance regulation, the restrictions which H.R. 5143 seeks to 
impose would stop this work in its tracks and would put in place 
cumbersome and counterproductive requirements. . . .
  ``Because this legislation seeks to tie the hands of U.S. 
representatives, in an unconstitutional manner, and prevent them from 
effectively negotiating on international insurance matters, the 
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5143.''
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that my colleague, the chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services, promised me and threatened me and 
others that we ain't seen nothing yet, I think it is very clear about 
what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle and how Mr. 
Hensarling and the committee are already carrying out the Trump agenda.
  They are making sure that before we leave here on break everyone 
understands that they are not about to support Dodd-Frank in any shape, 
form, or fashion, but, rather, they are going to take every opportunity 
to undermine Dodd-Frank because they don't believe in reforming Wall 
Street.
  Mr. Trump said that he was running for the United States President 
because he wanted to drain the swamp, but Mr. Trump and his leadership 
are already showing us that they intend to expand the swamp, that they 
are going to grow the swamp, that they are going to make sure that they 
have everybody from Wall Street, many of whom have already been fined, 
been accused of fraud, who are under investigation--somehow he is 
bringing them close to him, and I wonder why.
  This legislation today basically tells you a story. It tells you a 
story that they are talking about. They are saying, in essence, that 
we, the United States of America, operate unto ourselves. Yes, we have 
these big firms, and we don't mind that they have big businesses in 
other countries, like AIG. We don't mind that they are operating 
internationally. We have State regulations, and our State regulations 
will take care of whatever our needs are for oversight of insurance.

  But they can't tell you why that didn't happen with AIG. As a matter 
of fact, they don't mention AIG. They wish the story of AIG would just 
simply go away. They don't want the American people to be reminded of 
what happened with AIG that almost brought this country to its knees. 
They don't want to remind the people that we had to bail them out. They 
don't want to remind the people that they were undercapitalized, their 
credit default swaps were fraudulent, and they didn't have anything to 
back it up. So here we are, and they are asking the American people to 
ignore all of this, just forget all of this. We are out to protect 
those who certainly should not be protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just to recap what we are doing here: We have a bill in front of us 
here that is basically trying to give leverage to Team USA, which are 
the representatives from the United States, one of which was created by 
Dodd-Frank, to represent the United States insurance industry at the 
negotiating table with regards to the International Association of 
Insurance Supervisors. Now, this is a group of people from around the 
world that regulate insurance companies in each of these other 
countries.
  Now, these regulators have a different set of rules and regulations 
and a different purpose from the standpoint that they regulate 
insurance at the national level in each one of these countries, where 
we in this country regulate insurance at the State level.

                              {time}  1630

  When the IAIS tries to promulgate rules and regulations, it is like 
trying to put a square peg in a round hole when they try and put those 
rules and regulations on our companies here. As a result, this bill is 
to try and give leverage to our negotiations so that doesn't happen and 
so they can protect our industry. In fact, the negotiators want this 
bill because they need that leverage to be able to go and say no to 
some of the standards that are being proposed so that they can protect 
our industry.
  Now, I will give you a quick example. In my own State, we have a 
company that provides reinsurance in one of the countries in Europe. 
That country right now is trying to impose some new standards on that 
company to be able to do business there.
  We need to have the regulators be able to go to the IAIS and say: 
Look, this is not working. You cannot impact and undermine our own 
companies in this country with these rules that do not work. They need 
to be on a level playing field with everybody else.
  So this is a way that we can protect our companies and our industries 
and our consumers from this regulation that is basically out of control 
sometimes.
  Mr. Huizenga made a great point. He said: Why would we allow 
unelected foreign regulators to tell our industry what to do? That is 
what we have got. We have got a group of bureaucrats from around the 
world who are trying to tell our companies, our insurance industry--it 
isn't one company; it is everybody in this country--what to do. They 
are not elected, but we are in this Congress. Shouldn't we put the 
people's representatives in charge of this?
  Mr. Pearce made that comment. These regulations need to be decided by 
the people's representatives. That is us. That is what this bill does. 
It puts us in charge of saying yes or no to whatever agreements are 
done over there.
  Mr. Barr made the comment that we need to protect the insurance model 
of our industry. And that is what this does. We in the Congress can 
look and see if these rules and regulations will protect the industry.
  It doesn't mean we throw them all out either. The underlying 
principle of

[[Page H7323]]

everything that the minority ranking member is talking about here is 
that we are going to throw out every regulation that is being proposed. 
No, this is not the case.
  What we want to do is make sure the ones that are being proposed are 
okay and will not negatively impact our industry. The ones that are 
going to be helpful, we will support those. We will let them go 
through. That is up to Congress. We should be in charge of those 
decisions, not somebody else around this world.
  Mr. Williams made a good point. He said this is kind of like a trade 
agreement. We approve all the trade agreements over in the other body, 
if I am not mistaken. Should we approve an agreement like this where we 
are going to impact an entire industry? I think so, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just move on to a couple of points that were made by a couple 
of folks during the discussion on the other side.
  They talked about the pay-for in the bill. The pay-for in the bill 
actually comes from a slush fund of the SEC, which is overfunded at 
this point and that they are going to use less than 20 percent of that 
money this year. It is well paid for. It is well within the reason of 
being able to afford this, and it is not going to impact that regulator 
at all. So I think we are in great shape.
  Somebody made the comment that the Fed does have the authority to 
make these rules. No, they don't. They don't have authority to make a 
rule across the board on all insurance companies in this country. That 
is not a true statement.
  The statement was also made about the G-SIFIs and systemic 
institutions. This bill doesn't do anything to address G-SIFI 
designation. This bill is about protecting the IAIS, which is a 
supervisory body. It is not the Federal Stability Board. It is not the 
international board that decides all of these G-SIFI designations. This 
is the board that oversees the regulatory structure of insurance 
companies.
  Somebody said it has constitutional concerns. If it has 
constitutional concerns, then you have just told me that Dodd-Frank is 
unconstitutional. That is all we are doing is dealing with what has 
gone on in Dodd-Frank when setting up the FIO office to try and give 
them the leverage and power they need to do something.
  It is interesting because the ranking member last week was railing on 
a bill that we had on the floor about transparency and oversight of 
regulators. You know what? We listened to her. This bill today does 
that very thing. It adds to transparency, and we are providing 
oversight for the regulators. I would think she would be excited about 
this legislation and be willing to support it.
  One other comment, Mr. Speaker, and I will close.
  The ranking member keeps throwing AIG at us. That is a red-herring 
from the standpoint that AIG is made up of two separate entities: one 
is an insurance company; one is the securities and investment company. 
The company that was in trouble was the securities and investment part. 
The insurance company stayed solid and solvent. That is not the one 
that was bailed out.
  So, again, the point was made by one of my colleagues--Mr. Duffy, I 
believe it was--that in 2008 our system worked. And he is correct; it 
did work. Our insurance industry in this country withstood one of the 
largest and most devastating recessions in history since the Great 
Depression, and it came out of it with very little negative problems 
that could impact the quality of insurance being provided for our 
citizens.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying this bill does what we 
would hope that every bill would do in this Congress, and that is that 
it gives leverage to people who can do good to protect our industries 
and our people, our way of life and our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.


Amendment No. 1 Printed in House Report 114-846 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

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

       Page 4, line 11, before the period insert the following: 
     ``and that any such final standard is composed in plain 
     writing (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Plain 
     Writing Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. 301 note))''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 944, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple. It requires 
that any international agreement needs to be written in plain writing 
as a condition to enter into the agreement.
  I am offering this from the perspective of people in Florida, my 
district, and elsewhere who are small businesses, who are small 
companies who can't afford to hire large legal teams simply to 
understand overly complex regulations. They are already beset with way 
too much, both in terms of the scope, but also in terms of the 
complexity; and when you have complex agreements or regulations imposed 
on them, it not only makes life difficult for them, it actually gives 
them a competitive disadvantage over some of the big companies that we 
are always hearing about.
  So I think writing in plain language, clear and concise, makes it 
easier for small businesses to comply without amassing huge amounts in 
legal fees and other overhead costs.
  Plain writing doesn't change the regulation. You can have a 
regulation. It just requires it to be written in a way that doesn't 
require you to hire $500-an-hour attorneys to interpret it for you. So 
I think it is a commonsense way to help small business with no taxpayer 
expense.
  I would note that the need for plain writing has been something that 
the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has embraced over decades.
  I appreciate my friend from Missouri's bill. I intend to support it. 
I think this amendment will be added protection for those who are 
struggling to do well in an economy in which so much that comes out of 
Washington seems to be making it more difficult for them to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires 
that any final standard agreed to under the terms of this bill be 
composed in plain writing in accordance with the Plain Writing Act of 
2010. That law basically requires that Federal agencies use ``clear 
government communication that the public can understand and use.''
  As a matter of general policy, I think that makes good sense. We want 
the public to be able to understand the rules and regulations that 
impact their daily lives. When government regulations are difficult to 
comprehend, it undermines rather than enhances our goal of setting 
clear rules of the road and preventing misconduct. But no amount of 
clear communication or plain writing will improve the basic issues with 
the underlying bill.
  Of course we support plain writing. I wish that all of us would adopt 
and carry out and implement the legislation that was passed, supported 
by both sides of the aisle, for plain writing, for plain English. I 
wish the State would do it with their propositions, et cetera. We all 
pay lip service to it, but then we come with the gobbledygook that the 
American public has to try and understand.
  So, yes, I support plain writing. I support the public being able to 
understand what we do, but I don't want people to be confused. Plain 
writing has nothing to do with the basic issues in this underlying 
bill.
  While I do not take issue with the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida, I continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It 
is a solution in search of a problem, one that certainly does not 
exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this is an amendment that 
my friend from California can embrace.

[[Page H7324]]

I urge everyone to embrace it and would just urge people to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
DeSantis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on motions to suspend the rules with respect to H.R. 6076, S. 2971, and 
H.R. 5790, in each case by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 170, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               YEAS--239

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

                               NAYS--170

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Brown (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Clyburn
     Costa
     Fincher
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Jolly
     Kirkpatrick
     Lee
     McDermott
     Miller (MI)
     Neal
     Poe (TX)
     Rice (NY)
     Roskam
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, Austin
     Serrano
     Tiberi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1705

  Mr. MESSER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________