Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


114th Congress  }                                       {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session     }                                       {      114-608

======================================================================
 
        OFFICE OF FINANCIAL RESEARCH ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

  June 8, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3738]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 3738) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act to improve the transparency, 
accountability, governance, and operations of the Office of 
Financial Research, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommend that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose and Summary

    Introduced by Representative Royce on October 9, 2015, H.R. 
3738, the ``Office of Financial Research Accountability Act of 
2015,'' amends Section 153 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) to improve the 
operations of the Office of Financial Research (OFR). The 
legislation requires the OFR's Director to, after a public 
notice and comment period, publish a detailed strategic plan 
concerning the priorities of the OFR for the upcoming fiscal 
year. Additionally, H.R. 3738 requires the OFR Director to, 
before issuing any public report with respect to a specific 
entity, class of entities, or financial product or service: (i) 
consult with and incorporate any changes provided by the 
federal department or agency with expertise in regulating the 
product or entity and (ii) provide a period of 90 days for 
public notice and comment on the report after incorporating 
changes provided by the relevant federal agency. Finally, H.R. 
3738 requires the OFR to develop and implement a cybersecurity 
plan that uses appropriate safeguards adequate to protect the 
data of the OFR. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is 
required to annually audit the OFR's cybersecurity plan and its 
implementation.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act established the OFR as an 
office within the Treasury Department. The Dodd-Frank Act 
charges the OFR to collect and analyze financial transaction 
and position data in support of the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council (FSOC). The Dodd-Frank Act directs the OFR to 
create a Data Center and a Research and Analysis Center to do 
the following:
           collect data and disseminate it to the FSOC 
        and its member agencies;
           standardize the types and formats of data 
        reported and collected;
           perform applied and essential long-term 
        research;
           develop tools for risk measurement and 
        monitoring; and
           make the results of its activities available 
        to financial regulatory agencies.
    The Dodd-Frank Act requires the OFR to report annually to 
Congress on threats to the stability of the U.S. financial 
system, the OFR's activities, and the key findings from the 
OFR's research and analysis. In addition to these annual 
reports, the OFR also releases specific reports on subjects it 
has researched.
    The Dodd-Frank Act grants the OFR broad powers to compel 
the production of vast amounts of data from participants in the 
financial markets. The OFR has the authority to demand ``all 
data necessary'' from financial companies, including banks, 
hedge funds, private equity firms, and brokerages. The OFR can 
compel financial companies to produce sensitive, non-public 
information such as the identities of counterparties to credit 
default swaps, as well as information about individual loans, 
such as the interest rate and maturity. To compel the 
production of information, the OFR's Director may issue 
subpoenas. Neither Congress nor the GAO has the ability to 
audit the OFR's information technology systems to examine and 
evaluate the controls that protect the security of the data in 
the OFR's possession.

The OFR and Congressional oversight

    The OFR has the authority to set its own budget and to fund 
itself outside of the Congressional appropriations process. 
Since July 2012, the OFR has funded itself by levying 
assessments on bank holding companies that have total 
consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and nonbank 
financial companies that the FSOC has designated for 
supervision by the Fed.
    Because the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the OFR to fund 
itself through the assessments it levies on financial 
institutions, the Act significantly limits the Congress's 
oversight over the OFR. The OFR determines the size of its 
staff with no direction from Congress, and the salaries that 
the OFR pays its employees are not subject to the limits that 
govern the salaries of other government employees. At the end 
of FY 2015, the OFR had 201 employees, more than six times the 
number of people it employed in FY 2011. In FY 2015, the OFR 
spent about $85 million; its estimated budget for FY 2016 is 
$99 million, a 16% increase.
    H.R. 3738 requires the OFR to provide the public with its 
an annual work plan that would include target dates for 
`significant actions' and provide for public comments on that 
plan, but the legislation does not require the OFR to seek 
prior congressional approval for its annual work plan. The 
legislation ensures that the OFR works in concert with expert 
regulators to prepare its reports and provides agencies that 
have expertise in a matter subject to examination by the OFR 
with the opportunity to comment on the OFR's work in advance of 
any public dissemination.

The OFR's controversial asset management report

    In 2012, the FSOC requested that the OFR study the asset 
management industry for potential risks to the financial 
system. On September 30, 2013, the OFR released its report and 
concluded that the asset management industry might pose a risk 
to financial stability--despite substantial data and analysis 
to support a contrary conclusion. The OFR's asset management 
report was part of the FSOC's decision-making process on 
whether to subject asset managers to heightened prudential 
standards and supervision by the Federal Reserve. The Treasury 
Department claimed that in conducting its research and writing 
its report, the OFR had ``consulted extensively with Council 
[FSOC] member agencies.''
    But one of those agencies--the Securities Exchange 
Commission (SEC), which is the primary regulator for asset 
managers--had significant concerns about the OFR's research and 
its report. The SEC was so troubled about the accuracy of the 
report that it took the unusual step of opening a comment 
period for it. As Reuters reported, the SEC:

        had been quietly advocating for major changes to the 
        study for months, according to the sources. One of the 
        SEC's chief concerns stems from an earlier draft of the 
        report that the agency felt exaggerated the riskiness 
        of the business. The SEC has also been concerned that 
        the people involved in the study lack a fundamental 
        understanding of the fund industry itself, these people 
        said. The Treasury's research arm failed to take a 
        number of the SEC's critical feedback into account, 
        said the sources. As a result, the SEC decided last 
        week to issue the report for public comment, in a move 
        designed to give the industry a way to vent, one person 
        familiar with the matter said.

    During the comment period, market participants, financial 
experts, and interest groups expressed significant concerns 
about the OFR's methodology and its conclusions. The 
overwhelming majority of comments described substantive 
concerns with the OFR's analysis. For example, the Securities 
Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) noted that 
the report ``does not provide an accurate or comprehensive 
description of the asset management industry,'' and pointed out 
that the ``OFR appears to have used only a fraction of 
available data in its research.'' The Investment Company 
Institute noted that ``the OFR Study is replete with sweeping 
conclusions unsupported by data; lacks clarity, precision, and 
consistency in its scope and focus; and misuses or 
misinterprets data.''
    Even groups that are normally advocates of increased 
government regulation faulted the OFR's report. Better Markets 
castigated the OFR for ``the inexplicably and indefensibly poor 
quality of the work presented in the Report.'' Better Markets 
highlighted ``the inexcusable lack of transparency and 
disclosure regarding how and why the Report came about as well 
as how its analysis (such as it is) was conducted and with 
[whose] input and direction.''
    In fact, Barney Frank--the primary House author of the 
Dodd-Frank Act and the former Chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee--criticized the OFR's conclusions. As the 
Wall Street Journal noted:

          Retired House Democrat Barney Frank is the last 
        person on the planet you'd expect to criticize 
        implementation of the 2010 law that bears his name. But 
        there he was at a recent event hosted by the Clearing 
        House trade group, suggesting that regulators ought to 
        focus on banks instead of mutual-fund companies. 
        According to the Clearing House, Mr. Frank said he did 
        not favor designating such large asset managers as 
        BlackRock or Fidelity as ``systemically important'' and 
        that this was not the intent of his law. He added that 
        ``overloading the circuits isn't a good idea'' and said 
        that the Financial Stability Oversight Council created 
        by Dodd-Frank ``has enough to do regulating the 
        institutions that are clearly meant to be covered--the 
        large banks.'' Mr. Frank told the crowd, ``I have not 
        seen the argument made yet to cover'' the ``very plain-
        vanilla asset managers.''

    Apparently in response to the significant criticism of the 
OFR Report, in July 2014 the FSOC announced that it would shift 
its focus to evaluating activities and products of the asset 
management industry rather than on designating specific 
entities as systemically important. In particular, the FSOC 
directed its staff to undertake a more focused analysis of 
industry-wide products and activities to assess potential risks 
associated with the asset management industry.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on Financial Services did not hold a hearing 
on H.R. 3738 though it has held several oversight hearings 
examining matters relating to the OFR's operations.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 
November 3, 2015, and ordered H.R. 3738 to be reported 
favorably to the House without amendment by a recorded vote of 
35 yeas to 22 nays (recorded vote no. 71), a quorum being 
present.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
sole record vote in Committee was a motion by Chairman 
Hensarling to report the bill favorably to the House without 
amendment. That motion was agreed to by a recorded vote of 35 
yeas to 22 nays (record vote no. FC-71), a quorum being 
present.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Committee Oversight Findings

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

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 3738 
will bring accountability, oversight, and transparency to the 
OFR by requiring that its Director release a plan that 
highlights the OFR's annual priorities; by mandating that the 
OFR consult with expert departments and agencies before issuing 
reports on entities or financial products and services; and by 
compelling the OFR to implement a cybersecurity plan.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

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

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

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

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3738, the Office 
of Financial Research Accountability Act of 2015.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.










H.R. 3738--Office of Financial Research Accountability Act of 2015

    Summary: H.R. 3738 would direct the Office of Financial 
Research (OFR) to develop a detailed work plan for the upcoming 
fiscal year and to publish all reports completed by the 
office's researchers and financial analysts. In addition the 
bill would impose a new consultation requirement for all public 
reports produced by the OFR and would establish a formal notice 
and public comment period before the agency could issue a final 
report. Finally, under the bill, the OFR would prepare and 
implement a cybersecurity plan to protect the data the office 
possesses. The bill also would direct the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the OFR's cybersecurity 
plan and its implementation.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3738 would increase direct 
spending by $32 million and revenues by $28 million over the 
2017-2026 period. On net, CBO estimates that enacting the bill 
would increase budget deficits by $4 million over the 10-year 
period. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the 
legislation would affect direct spending and revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than 
$5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 3738 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 3738 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 
(commerce and housing credit).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026  2016-2021  2016-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              INCREASES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Office of Financial Research
    Estimated Budget Authority.......................      0      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      4      4        15         32
    Estimated Outlays................................      0      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      4      4        15         32
 
                                                                  INCREASES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues...................................      0      0      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      4        12         28
 
                                        NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
 
Impact on Deficit....................................      0      3      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0         3          4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 
2016 and that spending will follow historical patterns for 
operations of the OFR.

Direct spending

    H.R. 3738 would require the OFR to develop and publish an 
annual work plan that includes schedules and other information 
for each report, study, working paper, grant, guidance, data 
collection, or request for information expected to be underway 
or commenced during the coming year. The annual work plan would 
be subject to a public comment period before being adopted. In 
addition, each of roughly 200 papers and reports produced each 
year would be subject to new review, publication, and 
consultation requirements. On the basis of information from the 
OFR, CBO estimates that implementing those new requirements 
would cost about $2.5 million a year. CBO estimates that 
preparing the annual report on cybersecurity matters would cost 
less than $500,000 annually.

Revenues

    Under current law, the OFR levies assessments on certain 
financial institutions to cover expenses incurred by the 
office. During fiscal year 2016 the OFR plans to make 
assessments of about $100 million. Because the bill would 
increase costs to the OFR, CBO estimates that there would be 
corresponding increases in assessments. Reflecting the 
procedures that the OFR uses to set the assessment rates, CBO 
estimates that the change in assessments would occur about one 
year after the costs were incurred. As a result, CBO estimates 
that enacting the bill would increase revenues by $28 million 
over the 2017-2026 period.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays and revenues that are 
subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the 
following table.

        CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 3738, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 4, 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026  2016-2021  2016-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.......................      0      3      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0         3          4
Memorandum:
    Changes in Outlays...............................      0      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      4      4        15         32
    Changes in Revenues..............................      0      0      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      3      4        12         28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase in long term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion 
in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 
2027.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3738 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex; Impact on the 
Private Sector: Logan Smith.
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

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

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

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

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 3738 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to section 3(g) of H. Res. 5, 114th Cong. (2015), 
the Committee states that no provision of H.R. 3738 establishes 
or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be 
duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was 
included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-
139, or a program related to a program identified in the most 
recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

                   Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking

    Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, 114th Cong. (2015), 
the Committee states that H.R. 3738 contains no directed 
rulemakings.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title

    This section cites H.R. 3738 as the ``Office of Financial 
Research Accountability Act of 2015.''

Section 2. Additional duties of the Office of Financial Research

    Amends Section 152 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require that 
the Director of OFR publish a detailed strategic plan that 
includes (i) a unique alphanumeric identifier and detailed 
description of any report or working paper that is expected to 
be in progress or started during the upcoming year, (ii) a 
target date for each item listed, (iii) a list of all technical 
and professional advisory committees that is expected to be 
convened in the upcoming fiscal year, (iv) the name and 
professional affiliation of each individual who served during 
the previous fiscal year as an academic or professional fellow, 
and (v) a detailed description of the progress made by primary 
financial regulatory agencies in adopting the Legal Entity 
Identifier (LEI).
    Requires that the Director, prior to releasing a public 
report on any specified entity, class or entities, or financial 
product or service, consult with any Federal Department or 
agency with expertise in regulating the entity, class of 
entities, or financial product or service and incorporate an 
explanation of any changes made as a result of the 
consultation. Requires that the OFR provide a 90 day period for 
public notice and comment, prior to the release of any public 
report.
    Requires the OFR to develop and implement a cybersecurity 
plan that uses appropriate safeguards adequate to protect the 
data of the OFR. The Government Accountability Office shall 
annually audit OFR's cybersecurity plan and its implementation.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE I--FINANCIAL STABILITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--Office of Financial Research

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 153. PURPOSE AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.

  (a) Purpose and Duties.--The purpose of the Office is to 
support the Council in fulfilling the purposes and duties of 
the Council, as set forth in subtitle A, and to support member 
agencies, by--
          (1) collecting data on behalf of the Council, and 
        providing such data to the Council and member agencies;
          (2) standardizing the types and formats of data 
        reported and collected;
          (3) performing applied research and essential long-
        term research;
          (4) developing tools for risk measurement and 
        monitoring;
          (5) performing other related services;
          (6) making the results of the activities of the 
        Office available to financial regulatory agencies; and
          (7) assisting such member agencies in determining the 
        types and formats of data authorized by this Act to be 
        collected by such member agencies.
  (b) Administrative Authority.--The Office may--
          (1) share data and information, including software 
        developed by the Office, with the Council, member 
        agencies, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which 
        shared data, information, and software--
                  (A) shall be maintained with at least the 
                same level of security as is used by the 
                Office; and
                  (B) may not be shared with any individual or 
                entity without the permission of the Council;
          (2) sponsor and conduct research projects; and
          (3) assist, on a reimbursable basis, with financial 
        analyses undertaken at the request of other Federal 
        agencies that are not member agencies.
  (c) Rulemaking Authority.--
          (1) Scope.--The Office, in consultation with the 
        Chairperson, shall issue rules, regulations, and orders 
        only to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes 
        and duties described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (7) of 
        subsection (a).
          (2) Standardization.--Member agencies, in 
        consultation with the Office, shall implement 
        regulations promulgated by the Office under paragraph 
        (1) to standardize the types and formats of data 
        reported and collected on behalf of the Council, as 
        described in subsection (a)(2). If a member agency 
        fails to implement such regulations prior to the 
        expiration of the 3-year period following the date of 
        publication of final regulations, the Office, in 
        consultation with the Chairperson, may implement such 
        regulations with respect to the financial entities 
        under the jurisdiction of the member agency. This 
        paragraph shall not supersede or interfere with the 
        independent authority of a member agency under other 
        law to collect data, in such format and manner as the 
        member agency requires.
  (d) Testimony.--
          (1) In general.--The Director of the Office shall 
        report to and testify before the Committee on Banking, 
        Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
        Representatives annually on the activities of the 
        Office, including the work of the Data Center and the 
        Research and Analysis Center, and the assessment of the 
        Office of significant financial market developments and 
        potential emerging threats to the financial stability 
        of the United States.
          (2) No prior review.--No officer or agency of the 
        United States shall have any authority to require the 
        Director to submit the testimony required under 
        paragraph (1) or other congressional testimony to any 
        officer or agency of the United States for approval, 
        comment, or review prior to the submission of such 
        testimony. Any such testimony to Congress shall include 
        a statement that the views expressed therein are those 
        of the Director and do not necessarily represent the 
        views of the President.
  (e) Additional Reports.--The Director may provide additional 
reports to Congress concerning the financial stability of the 
United States. The Director shall notify the Council of any 
such additional reports provided to Congress.
  (f) Subpoena.--
          (1) In general.--The Director may require from a 
        financial company, by subpoena, the production of the 
        data requested under subsection (a)(1) and section 
        154(b)(1), but only upon a written finding by the 
        Director that--
                  (A) such data is required to carry out the 
                functions described under this subtitle; and
                  (B) the Office has coordinated with the 
                relevant primary financial regulatory agency, 
                as required under section 154(b)(1)(B)(ii).
          (2) Format.--Subpoenas under paragraph (1) shall bear 
        the signature of the Director, and shall be served by 
        any person or class of persons designated by the 
        Director for that purpose.
          (3) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure 
        to obey a subpoena, the subpoena shall be enforceable 
        by order of any appropriate district court of the 
        United States. Any failure to obey the order of the 
        court may be punished by the court as a contempt of 
        court.
  (g) Additional Duties.--
          (1) Annual work plan.--
                  (A) In general.--The Director shall, after a 
                period of 60 days for public notice and 
                comment, annually publish a detailed work plan 
                concerning the priorities of the Office for the 
                upcoming fiscal year.
                  (B) Requirements.--The work plan shall 
                include the following:
                          (i) A unique alphanumeric identifier 
                        and detailed description of any report, 
                        study, working paper, grant, guidance, 
                        data collection, or request for 
                        information that is expected to be in 
                        progress during, or scheduled to begin 
                        in, the upcoming fiscal year.
                          (ii) For each item listed under 
                        clause (i), a target date for any 
                        significant actions related to such 
                        item, including the target date--
                                  (I) for the release of a 
                                report, study, or working 
                                paper;
                                  (II) for, and topics of, a 
                                meeting of a working paper 
                                group and each solicitation of 
                                applications for grants; and
                                  (III) for the issuance of 
                                guidance, data collections, or 
                                requests for information.
                          (iii) A list of all technical and 
                        professional advisory committees that 
                        is expected to be convened in the 
                        upcoming fiscal year pursuant to 
                        section 152(h).
                          (iv) The name and professional 
                        affiliations of each individual who 
                        served during the previous fiscal year 
                        as an academic or professional fellow 
                        pursuant to section 152(i).
                          (v) A detailed description of the 
                        progress made by primary financial 
                        regulatory agencies in adopting a 
                        unique alphanumeric system to identify 
                        legally distinct entities that engage 
                        in financial transactions (commonly 
                        known as a ``Legal Entity 
                        Identifier''), including a list of 
                        regulations requiring the use of such a 
                        system and actions taken to ensure the 
                        adoption of such a system by primary 
                        financial regulatory agencies.
          (2) Public reports.--
                  (A) Consultation.--In preparing any public 
                report with respect to a specified entity, 
                class of entities, or financial product or 
                service, the Director shall consult with any 
                Federal department or agency with expertise in 
                regulating the entity, class of entities, or 
                financial product or service.
                  (B) Report requirements.--A public report 
                described in subparagraph (A) shall include--
                          (i) an explanation of any changes 
                        made as a result of a consultation 
                        under this subparagraph and, with 
                        respect to any changes suggested in 
                        such consultation that were not made, 
                        the reasons that the Director did not 
                        incorporate such changes; and
                          (ii) information on the date, time, 
                        and nature of such consultation.
                  (C) Notice and comment.--Before issuing any 
                public report described in subparagraph (A), 
                the Director shall provide a period of 90 days 
                for public notice and comment on the report.
          (3) Cybersecurity plan.--
                  (A) In general.--The Office shall develop and 
                implement a cybersecurity plan that uses 
                appropriate safeguards that are adequate to 
                protect the integrity and confidentiality of 
                the data in the possession of the Office.
                  (B) GAO review.--The Comptroller General of 
                the United States shall annually audit the 
                cybersecurity plan and its implementation 
                described in subparagraph (A).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 3738 is part of a larger legislative effort to 
undermine the government entities tasked with monitoring and 
responding to systemic risks to our financial stability and 
economy. This bill amends the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act to add burdens to the Office of 
Financial Research (OFR), the research arm of the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), that apply to no other 
federal regulator or agency. Specifically, the bill would 
require the OFR to disclose its research agenda ahead of time 
by publishing an annual work plan that includes a detailed 
description of all reports, studies, working papers, grants, 
guidance, data collection requests. This bill would also likely 
undermine the feedback the OFR receives from other regulators, 
by requiring OFR to publicly disclose everything the primary 
regulator suggested and why the OFR did not accept those 
suggestions.
    Requiring the OFR to disclose its research agenda with this 
level of specificity is unusual, unnecessary, and 
counterproductive. It is not the practice of any other research 
organization, and for good reason. All of the research that OFR 
plans to perform could be completely undermined. Individuals 
may not participate in OFR's studies if deliberations and 
internal discussions would have to be disclosed. Furthermore, 
OFR staff suggested that the bill is also likely to lead to 
less collaboration between regulators because regulators are 
less likely to provide candid responses if the OFR would be 
required to publicly disagree with them. And finally, H.R. 3738 
could potentially affect the U.S. financial markets; even alarm 
them--if OFR publicly reported that it is studying the effects 
on financial stability of a certain financial product or 
practice, the markets may respond even before OFR could 
conclude that there was no effect on financial stability.
    Because this bill makes it harder for the OFR to identify 
systemic risks to our economy, we oppose H.R. 3738.

                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   John C. Carney, Jr.
                                   Ruben Hinojosa.
                                   Gregory W. Meeks.
                                   Wm. Lacy Clay.
                                   Keith Ellison.
                                   Denny Heck.
                                   Al Green.
                                   Stephen F. Lynch.
                                   Gwen Moore.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Joyce Beatty.

                                  [all]