Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5461) to clarify the application of certain leverage and risk-based requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 5461 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5461, a bill authored by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my colleague on the Financial Services Committee, and cosponsored by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and myself.

This bill contains four titles, three of which having already passed this House with overwhelming or unanimous support and one of which passed with only a dozen ``no'' votes.

Mr. Speaker, it is rare that the Senate sends us meaningful legislation; and, frankly, it is even rarer when they send us legislation that amends and fixes the Dodd-Frank Act. As we on the Financial Services Committee have seen in our hearings and our markups, our friends on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the Capitol usually defend Dodd-Frank to the hilt, bestowing on it deference normally reserved for the sacred texts handed down from the heavens.

Well, we should agree that Congress doesn't always get it right. When sweeping legislation is enacted--remember, Dodd-Frank is a 2,300-page bill--there are often areas that later need clarification, and that is exactly what we are talking about here today.

Whatever one's position is on Dodd-Frank, we should all be able to agree that the text is not sacred and does need some fixing. That is why I am pleased that the Senate has sent us a bill to clarify that regulators should not impose regulatory capital requirements designed for banking institutions on insurance companies. That was not what was intended.

The Senate bill, S. 2270, passed the other body unanimously. There is broad support in the House for a companion measure, but there is equally broad support for three other Dodd-Frank technical correction amendments that have previously passed this House: Mr. Barr's bill on the treatment of collateralized loan obligations under the Volcker rule, Mr. Grimm's bill to exempt end users from derivatives from Dodd- Frank's overreaching margin requirements, and my own bill on how points and fees are treated under Dodd-Frank's onerous qualified mortgage rule.

My legislation that is included in this package is a strong bipartisan provision that modifies and clarifies the way points and fees in a real estate transaction are calculated. This provision is narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting requirements that Dodd-Frank's ability to repay provisions has in place.

Homeownership has been a pillar of American life for generations, and this particular provision will help more Americans realize this portion of the American Dream.

This bill is a commonsense measure that should and, I believe, does have broad bipartisan support. I was puzzled, however, by a Dear Colleague letter produced by Ranking Member Waters circulated earlier today. In the letter, she writes that Mr. Barr has coupled the insurance capital bill with other ``divisive legislation.''

Now, I would ask my friend the ranking member: What divisive legislation are you referring to? Is it the CLO bill which passed the House on voice vote? Is it the end user bill which passed the House on the ranking member's ``yes'' vote herself and only a dozen ``nay'' votes? Or is it my bill that also passed the House by voice vote? I don't see the divisiveness, and I don't see where the problem is.

The reality is Americans don't care about the parliamentary process so much as they want results.

We are pleased that the Senate has finally come to the table on Dodd- Frank reforms. This is legislation that represents a step forward in working with the other body to make sure that my constituents and your constituents can get mortgages to buy their first home, that farmers can assess the financing that they need to buy tractors and work their land, and that Americans can buy insurance policies without severe premium increases.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5461, especially my Democrats friends who I believe support every component of the package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wish I had actually asked if the gentlewoman would yield because I am confused. I am confused on a bill that she has voted three times--I am positive--three different bills, how that is divisive, how it is not targeted with significant Democrat support.

I personally with one of these bills--my bill has been sitting in the Senate since June. It has been targeted, it has had Democrat support, and it has had Republican support. We simply cannot get the Senate to move, and I am not sure why my colleague would support a Senate bill without any House input, but not expect the Senate to look at our material and to look at our bills.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield now as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who would like to clarify.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am curious why we are here. The House of Representatives is only going to pass Senate bills. I am curious why my colleagues would be willing to do that. I would love to hear from my colleagues, which overwhelmingly passed House bill does the Senate object to? We simply cannot get them to take our bills up.

I am glad to hear that my colleague, Mrs. McCarthy, is going to be supporting this bill package. I too am hopeful. But I do believe that this is not political theater, for the robust list of supporters, like credit unions, banks, insurers of all sizes, the entire real estate community and end-users strongly support the policies that are within this bill. And I do have that list available as well, which I will include for the Record.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

September 15, 2014.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned trade

associations, representing job creators across the country of

all shapes and sizes, write to urge your support for

bipartisan legislation recently introduced by Reps. Andy Barr

(R-KY), Gary Miller (R-CA), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), and David

Scott (D-GA). H.R. 5461, currently scheduled for floor

consideration on Monday, September 15th, includes important

technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

and Consumer Protection Act that strengthen the underlying

Act and provide critical clarifications to better oversee our

financial system while allowing for economic growth.

The ongoing implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act has

revealed unintended consequences that have adversely impacted

job creation and economic growth. We believe that the Barr-

Miller bill, comprised of a series of noncontroversial,

thoroughly examined, bipartisan proposals will fix these

unintended consequences and help make financial reform more

workable and effective. Specifically, this legislation

contains the text of three bills previously approved by the

House (H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price

Stabilization Act; H.R. 3211, the Mortgage Choice Act; H.R.

4167, the Restoring Proven Financing for American Employers

Act) as well as one bill that recently passed the Senate (S.

2270, the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act) by

unanimous consent. In fact, three of the four titles of this

package have previously passed either the House or Senate

without one dissenting vote.

We urge your support for the Barr-Miller-Huizenga-Scott

bill to help foster job creation and economic growth.

Signed,

American Bankers Association; American Bankers Insurance

Association (ABIA); American Financial Services Association;

American Insurance Association; Consumer Bankers Association;

Consumer Mortgage Coalition; Community Mortgage Lenders of

America; Credit Union National Association; The Financial

Services Roundtable; The Financial Services Forum;

Independent Community Bankers of America; Leading Builders of

America; The Loan Syndications and

Trading Association; Mortgage Bankers Association; National

Association of Federal Credit Unions; National Association of

Home Builders; National Association of Mutual Insurance

Companies; National Association of Realtors; The Realty

Alliance; Real Estate Services Providers Council, Inc.

(RESPRO); Securities Industry and Financial Markets

Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will address my remarks to the Chair, but, again, this is not about parliamentary procedure. This is about results.

The only bill that we will see here that may bring confusion to this entire process is the one that my colleagues are advocating for, the Senate bill. It is the only bill that we haven't dealt with in committee. It is the only bill we haven't had a vote on in the Houses. The other three bills have passed, two of them unanimously by voice vote, and the other one had 12 people, out of a body of 435, vote against it. Sounds like it is overwhelming. If it is that confusing to my colleagues to figure out what bill and how they voted for it when they come to the floor to vote on this package, they maybe should reconsider their current line of work. This should not be that tough.

This is, again, something that we need to move forward on. The political theater that seems to be happening here is on the other side. I am not sure why, if it is about trying to play to a base for an election issue or what, but this is the one time I think in the history of my working career that the whole is worse than the sum of its parts. This doesn't make any sense.

So there has not been bipartisan work on the underlying bill, Dodd- Frank, which I might remind my colleagues passed with zero minority Republican votes when the bill was passed. This package of bills has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they oppose the Senate.

And I guess I needed to clarify that my comments about people acting like this is holy writ from the heavens does tend to be concentrated with my colleagues over in the Senate who apparently don't want to touch this or others in the administration who oppose the nine-bill package on derivatives reform that passed overwhelmingly bipartisanly out of our committee as well.

That is the kind of holdup that we have that is frustrating Americans, that is frustrating me as a policymaker and my colleagues, that is frustrating, frankly, future generations as they look in on this process.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to pass this package of bills that includes three bills that this House has already dealt

with, that the Senate should have absolutely no opposition to or excuse why they will not take up.

With that, I again ask my colleagues to pass this particular bill, H.R. 5461, and look forward to its passage here soon.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership on title III of this package and the Mortgage Choice Act, and I appreciate the gentleman's yielding so that we can talk about why every Member of Congress should support this package of reforms.

Before I get to the substance, I do also want to thank the ranking member, thank her for voicing support for the underlying policies in this legislation. I want to thank her for expressing absolutely no concern about the substance of the policy in her remarks, and I would also like to thank the ranking member for her recognition that the Dodd-Frank law may very well have flaws, even for those who adamantly supported the passage of the bill, and for her acknowledgement that she would have no problem changing or dealing with some of the flaws of the Dodd-Frank law. Well, this is our chance, Mr. Speaker. This is the chance to deal with those flaws.

The legislation on the floor tonight is a package of four commonsense financial services bills that all share a common theme. They all have proven bipartisan support. They all have passed either the House or the Senate with unanimous or near-unanimous support, and, most importantly--put aside all of this procedure here--they all promote jobs.

They all promote durable economic growth in this country, and Members on both sides of the aisle and Members in both this Chamber and in the Senate agree about that. Let's stop the games in Washington, and let's get the American people back to work. That is what we have an opportunity to do here in a bipartisan way; so I call on my colleagues to support this bill.

This is a simple 14-page bill that is about fixing unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank law. These fixes are technical corrections, and they are meant to clarify provisions in the law where, although congressional intent was clear, the authority provided by the statutory language led some regulators to enact or promulgate economically destructive regulations.

The four titles of this legislative package represent the hard work of a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Let me just go through those really quickly. Title I of the legislation is an important provision that clarifies the capital requirements applied to insurance companies subject to Federal Reserve Board supervision.

Mr. Huizenga did a good job explaining what this title does; but, just in summary, it is important that the capital rules for insurance companies are carefully tailored to the business of insurance rather than arbitrarily holding insurance companies to standards that are meant for banks.

I want to thank Congressman Gary Miller, a Republican from California, Congresswoman Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for their leadership--bipartisan leadership--for this Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act and for helping push this provision forward.

I would also like to further emphasize the bipartisan and noncontroversial nature of this title by noting that the Senate version of the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 3.

Then there is title II. Title II is the text of a bill that I introduced in March which passed the House by a voice vote. This was a bill that no one opposed. This was a bill that simply incorporates bipartisan provisions of the Restoring Proven Financing for American Employers Act, and it is about jobs.

It is about restoring a robust and dependable commercial lending market to U.S. companies so that they can obtain affordable financing to expand their businesses.

Collateralized loan obligations, known as CLOs, have proven to be a critical source of funding for U.S. businesses for over 20 years. Today's CLOs continue to provide $300 billion in financing to U.S. companies on Main Street, including companies that are well-known to all of us in this room: Dunkin' Donuts, American Airlines, Burger King, Toys R Us, Delta Airlines, Goodyear Tire, and even a mattress company in Lexington, Kentucky, my home district, Tempur Sealy.

Because of this innovative source of financing, U.S. employers have expanded, jobs have been created, and our economy has grown; and, despite a proven track record with a default rate below even a half a percent, this valuable form of corporate finance is under assault because of the Volcker rule.

Further relief from the Volcker rule for these CLOs is necessary to prevent a fire sale in the CLO market that will cause significant losses for banks of all size. This defined, narrow fix which clarifies that the Volcker rule should not be construed to require the divestiture of any debt securities of CLOs prior to July 21, 2017, if such CLOs were issued before January 31, 2014, is a commonsense solution.

It clarifies that a bank shall not be considered to have an ownership interest in a CLO if such debt security has no indicia of ownership other than the right to participate in the removal for cause in the selection of a replacement investment manager or investment adviser of the CLO.

This title is a bipartisan commonsense fix to a real-world problem voiced by community banks and by companies on Main Street that want access to this affordable and reliable source of commercial credit. It prevents an unnecessary fire sale in the CLO market that would cause significant losses to banks currently holding these legacy CLOs, and it will help keep the cost of borrowing affordable in the future for Main Street U.S. businesses looking to expand, grow, and create much-needed jobs.

I want to personally thank Congresswoman Maloney and Ranking Member Waters for working with me to enact a CLO fix so that it could pass by a voice vote in April.

Then, also, title III, this is the fix that Congressman Huizenga helped pass, and Congressman Huizenga worked in a bipartisan way with Congressman Meeks to support this Mortgage Choice Act, and it passed the House by a voice vote--not a single objection--on June 19, and I won't go over the details which Congressman Huizenga has done well, but I will say that this measure will greatly advance our efforts to help the housing market and our economy recover as Members on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated with their support and supporting it by voice vote.

Finally, title IV, this is the fourth and final title of this package, and it is a provision that has broad support for Main Street and businesses of all sizes. Like other provisions of this package, title IV is meant to alleviate the unintended consequences created by Dodd-Frank. It is a technical fix that has proven bipartisan support and passed the House on June 12 with 411 votes in favor.

The provision simply clarifies and codifies congressional intent that Dodd-Frank was not supposed to impose margin requirements on end user derivative transactions. We are talking about nonfinancial companies that produce goods for the American people and simply use derivatives to hedge against commercial risk.

This provision is not about speculation. It is about promoting responsible risk-management practices among U.S. companies. In fact, failure to enact this provision could lead to more risk as companies may be deterred from engaging in hedging transactions.

It requires them to needlessly tie up capital that could otherwise be used to do more productive things like expand operating plants, perform research and product development, and ultimately create jobs. Again, this is a provision that previously passed the House with near unanimous support.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what do we have here today? We have a package of four bills, 14 pages, unlike the 2,300 pages in Dodd-Frank-- 14 pages, each of which of these four bills--overwhelmingly bipartisan--each of which are vital to preserving and creating jobs, each of which are noncontroversial in nature, and two of these provisions previously passed the House by voice vote, a third passed with 411 votes, and the fourth is a commonsense critically important solution for the 75 million American families that rely on life insurance for financial and retirement security, a bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

The substance and the policy behind these bills are bipartisan. It is solid. I would certainly expect that, if you would support the underlying policy, then you would support this commonsense package of bills to promote jobs and durable economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I appreciate what she is saying about bipartisanship. Let me just make sure I clarify. I was referring to Congresswoman Maloney on the legislation that she and I worked on together, the CLO bill. So, in a very bipartisan way, I worked with her on that.

But to the substance of the gentlewoman's remarks, I appreciate what she is saying, absolutely, and that is what is such a shame about this whole situation because we have four bills that have been worked on in a bipartisan way. There shouldn't be any controversy about this whatsoever.

Let's do the business of the American people, get them back to work. Pass these bipartisan bills.

Mr. Speaker, I along with Mrs. McCarthy of New York have authored legislation to address the capital requirements that apply to insurance companies under federal supervision pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. This legislation would strengthen the regulatory regime applicable to federally supervised insurance companies by

ensuring that they are not subject to bank-centric capital standards.

One of the central elements of the Dodd-Frank Act's financial reforms was stronger capital rules for both banks and certain non-bank financial institutions. Two sections of the Dodd-Frank Act expanded Federal Reserve authority to regulate large banks and imposed increased capital requirements--Section 165, which applies to large bank holding companies and to non-bank systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), and Section 171, which applies minimum capital standards to insured depository institutions, depository institution holding companies, including insurance savings and loan holding companies, and to SIFIs.

We have been disappointed by the Federal Reserve's failure to recognize that they have the authority to implement the Collins amendment as it applies to insurers in a manner that tailors the capital requirements for the insurance business model. We continue to believe that the regulators could solve this problem using their existing authority. Our House bill, H.R. 4510, shows that there is strong bipartisan support for addressing this issue, with 227 of our colleagues cosponsoring the bill. A slightly amended version of our legislation, which we support, passed the Senate with unanimous support in early June, and passed the House as part of a larger package in July of this year. We are pleased that final action on this legislation is imminent, and hope it will be sent to the President before the end of the session.

Our bill (and the Senate version, S. 2270) is narrowly crafted to only address this issue as it relates to federally supervised insurance companies, including SIFIs and insurance savings and loan holding companies. Under the legislation banks will be subject to the full force of the Collins Amendment. That is as it should be, and we will not change that.

To accomplish the goal of directing the Federal Reserve to tailor rules for insurance, our legislation permits the Federal Reserve to create a non-Basel III regime for the insurance operations of supervised entities. The legislation allows the Fed to work with state insurance regulators to develop appropriate insurance-based capital standards for federally supervised insurance companies. Alternatively, the Fed could defer to state insurance regulators for the capital standards that should apply to the insurance activities that they regulate.

The bill clarifies that, in establishing the minimum leverage capital and risk-based capital standards under Section 171, the Federal Reserve Board is not required to include activities or companies that are engaged in the business of insurance and are subject to state insurance regulation, including state insurance capital requirements. Similarly, regulated foreign affiliates or subsidiaries engaged in the business of insurance and subject to foreign insurance regulation and foreign insurance capital requirements that have not been deemed to be inadequate also may be excluded from Section 171 capital standards. It is worth noting that the Government Accountability Office found that the state risk-based capital rules performed well during the financial crisis.

The bill allows the insurance capital requirements that have been effective to continue to determine the capital requirements for the activities of insurance companies and groups that are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. Furthermore, activities of a holding company supervised by the Federal Reserve Board that are not the business of insurance would remain subject to the capital standards under Section 171. In determining insurance versus non-insurance activities of a supervised entity, the legislation provides regulators with the flexibility to tailor the rules for certain affiliates or subsidiaries of insurance companies that are necessary to the business of insurance, including, for example, affiliates or subsidiaries that support insurance company general and separate accounts.

Our legislation defines ``business of insurance'' by reference to Section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and under this definition the business of insurance means ``the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of risks by an insurer, including all acts necessary to such writing or reinsuring and the activities relating to the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of risks conducted by persons who act as, or are, officers, directors, agents, or employees of insurers or who are other persons authorized to act on behalf of such persons.'' The reference to this definition of the ``business of insurance'' will help ensure that insurance activities of federally supervised companies are subject to tailored capital rules, whether those activities are undertaken by the insurance companies themselves or by their affiliates or subsidiaries on their behalf.

We also want to ensure that the Federal Reserve uses its authority to tailor capital rules for insurance operations of entities under its supervision, regardless of the size of the subsidiary insured depository institution. As we have stated, under this legislation and under current law, the Basel banking regime and the Collins Amendment requirements will continue to apply to all insured depository institutions. It would be at odds with sound public policy and the intent of this legislation for the Federal Reserve to impose a Basel banking capital regime on the entire enterprise of an insurer that happens to also own a sizable insured depository institution--the depository institution in that operation will already be subject to banking rules, but the insurance operations should not be.

Another important provision of our legislation addresses the issue of insurance accounting for a small number of non-publicly traded insurance companies. While every publicly traded company in the United States is required by the Federal Securities laws to prepare consolidated financial statements under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), all insurance companies in the United States-- whether in mutual or stock form of organization--are required by their state insurance regulators to utilize an accounting method known as Statutory Accounting. Indeed, most mutual insurance companies only use Statutory Accounting in preparing their financial statements.

Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) are generally more conservative than GAAP because they are specifically designed to promote insurer solvency and the ability to pay claims instead of measuring an insurer's value as a going concern. SAP does not allow a number of non- liquid or intangible assets to be included on an insurer's balance sheet and provides less favorable accounting treatment for certain expenses. In both the text of the Dodd-Frank Act and its legislative history, Congress recognized the acceptability of SAP for holding companies engaged in insurance activities coming under Federal Reserve jurisdiction. Specifically, Congress (1) directed the Federal Reserve to rely on existing reports and information provided to state and other regulators (which for insurance companies would have been prepared according to SAP); and (2) included Senate report language stating that Federal Reserve assumption of jurisdiction over savings and loan holding companies engaged in the business of insurance did not reflect a mandate to impose GAAP. However, in proposed rulemakings, the Federal Reserve expressed its intention to require all companies to eventually prepare GAAP financial statements--consistent with their existing model for all bank holding companies. Imposing such a mandate on companies using only SAP would cost insurers a substantial amount to take on multi-year financial projects yielding minimal--if any--supervisory benefit to regulators. Additionally, we believe the principle of preserving SAP should apply to any international discussions relating to insurance.

This bill makes clear that under Section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act, such a mandate is inappropriate where the holding company is a non-publicly traded insurance company that is only required to prepare and file SAP statements. Nothing in this provision prevents the Federal Reserve from obtaining any information it is otherwise entitled to obtain from a SAP-only insurer.

We and the many other supporters of this bill are pleased that the House is poised to consider a final version of this legislation and look forward to it reaching the President's desk soon. We expect regulators to follow through with appropriate, tailored capital rules for insurers under their supervision.

Just for the record, when my colleague was speaking, my name is Carolyn McCarthy, not Carolyn Maloney, just so we clarify that, and I want to thank Ms. Waters. I want to thank the ranking member on Financial Services.

I have a speech here, but I need to clarify a few things. I am not sure, my memory has not been good since I was sick, but I was on Financial Services when we did Dodd-Frank, and we worked very hard, bipartisanly, on that committee, and we saw the problems on some of the language, and we corrected them bipartisanly.

We made sure that when we were dealing with derivatives, that it didn't have the language that you are complaining about. That came from the Senate side.

When we are talking about the insurance companies and making it easier to make sure they could do their job and not be treated like a bank, we got the language here on the House side. Again, the Senate side misinterprets some and had the wrong language. Gary Miller and I have been working a year--over a year--to make the corrections that are coming out today.

Now, I support everything that we are going to be voting on, but I am reluctant about it because talking to my colleagues on the Senate side, they have said that they will not do it; so something that you all want has a really good chance of never seeing the light of day. Maybe next year. That is fine. Whom are you hurting, and what are you proving? Mainly because, now, the insurance companies are going to be in limbo. We don't know what is going to happen; so you are putting off something again.

I am ending my career here in Congress. I will be retiring, and I have to say, for 18 years, I have worked bipartisanly, and I have gotten a lot of things done, and I hope to continue to get some things done between now and when I retire, but I also think what I have seen here is this politicking that words are said and people don't get to know each other.

Now, the audience might not understand everything that is going on here on the floor, but I do believe that what we have done on Dodd- Frank--and, now, yes, there are technical changes; but, to be very honest with you, in 18 years, I do not remember any bill--major bill-- being passed here, going through the Senate, that didn't come back for technical changes.

We are not perfect. As many times as people want to think we are, we are not. We are human beings; and, unfortunately, we do not take the time to legislate and to work things out as we have done in the past. I am not blaming Republicans, and I am not blaming Democrats.

We have got good people on both sides of the aisle, and it hurts me terribly to see this going on when everybody should be working together for the country, not whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.

There are many of us who care very much about getting jobs. There are many of us that care to get everybody forward, and I think that is something that people have to start realizing. We have so many members on your side of the aisle and members on our side of the aisle that have been friends for

years and years, and you have got to learn to work together. You can have your opinions, and we have ours, but you have got to sit down and work together.

I know the big word around here is don't compromise. It is not compromising. It is trying to represent all of our constituents for the whole country.

And Ms. Waters is absolutely right. She worked very hard during Dodd- Frank, as many of your Republican colleagues did. But it was Gary Miller and I who have been working with the Senate for over a year and to see this bill come onto the floor, which is going to pass, and it will pass. What upsets me is it is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. Another bill will die. And there is no reason for it. 204 Members bipartisanly want to see the Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014 passed.

I understand where you want to put everything together so you see it is efficient. Sometimes you have to know how the Senate works so that we can be efficient and work with them as we go forward because, if had you done that, you would hear Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and their aides who are saying, This is not the way it is done. That is why we are upset.

When you have so many people working on this, many of your colleagues, my colleagues signing on to having it done, and now we are going to see, most likely, it die or put off until next year, which is really a shame because the companies you are talking about, everything you are talking about as far as the jobs bills and everything else like that, I would like to see that signed by the President tomorrow. That ain't going to happen now, and it is not going to happen now.

So what I will say is Ms. Waters is correct, but I will vote for this bill tomorrow. Many of my colleagues will vote for this bill tomorrow because we are hoping we will go forward. But in my heart of hearts, because I have been around here too long, I don't think the Senate is going to pass it, and that is a shame because that is what you are working for. That is what we are working for. But the Senate's procedures do not do it.

They will take a stand-alone bill. And from what I understand, Mr. Miller and I will hopefully introduce a stand-alone bill in the next few days, because if this dies in the Senate, we will take up the Senate bill, which is our bill, and hopefully get a vote here and have the President sign it within a few days.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the House is considering the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014 under suspension of the rules.

This bill contains four Financial Services Bills including S. 2270.

I am pleased to be the lead democrat on H.R. 4510, the House companion to S. 2270, the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014. However, this is not the same bill that we will be voting on.

Though I will reluctantly support the bill, I am disappointed in the process and believe that S. 2270 should have been brought up as a stand-alone bill, rather than combined with three other bills which have already passed the House. The Senate has indicated they would need to start all over if changes were made to the original bill.

Ranking Member Waters rightly objected to this procedure last week yet her concerns were ignored.

S. 2270 supports a more precise application of capital standards that furthers the interests of strong prudential supervision. This legislation grants the Federal Reserve the appropriate flexibility to apply accurate capital standards for insurers. This bill will help keep insurance products affordable and available by ensuring the correct capital standards are applied to insurance companies that fall under the supervision of the Federal Reserve.

This House version already has 204 bipartisan cosponsors and S. 2270 would easily pass under suspension. This bill has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Passing S. 2270 on its own in the House would have sent the bill directly to the president's desk.

Instead, the Financial Services committee majority leadership has insisted on combining four bills and using our title, even though this is different legislation. This creates uncertainty as to the future of the original bill.

I will support the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014 on the floor tonight and urge my colleagues to do the same. However, I am disappointed in the process that has been used. Had S. 2270 been passed as a stand-alone bill, it would have been sent directly to the President's desk. Instead, we will likely have to vote on S. 2270 as a stand-alone bill during the lame duck session, which is already filled with a long list of remaining actions.

The House delay in passing this bill is causing uncertainty for insurance companies who cannot plan for the future of their businesses without knowing the appropriate capital standards. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4510, the House version of S. 2270, so that we can reach 218 cosponsors and bring this to the floor.

What I was trying to explain to you, it is not that we are giving up our power from here to the Senate. The Senate will not accept everything as a package because they have to change all their language, and that is not going to happen.

They will send back here a stand-alone bill, probably pass the other package--that is fine--but they are not going to change or open it up. That is what I meant to tell you, that you have to understand how the Senate works, and the House is totally different. That is all I am saying, and that is why this bill might die, unfortunately, over in the Senate, because they are not going to get to it because, let's face it, we have too much to do between now and when we come back for a lameduck session.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I must correct the gentleman from Michigan when he talked about our unwillingness to look at Dodd- Frank in any critical way and our unwillingness to modify, amend, or do anything to Dodd-Frank. It is absolutely not true.

As a matter of fact, I am recorded time and time again--even in my speech before the Chamber of Commerce, where I have said and I have acted in this manner and in this fashion--that where there were complications, I was willing to work with the opposite side of the aisle to try to deal with those complications so that everybody would understand what was intended. Where there appeared to be conflicts, I would work to undo those conflicts.

I have no problem with changing or modifying or dealing with problems in Dodd-Frank, and I have acted that way time and time again.

Today, I rise to express my disappointment with a Republican Party

that has politicized consensus legislation that would provide real, tangible regulatory relief.

When we began this Congress, Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee both agreed to support technical fixes to the Dodd-Frank Act that have broad bipartisan support.

In that spirit, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, who is on this floor this evening, worked hard, provided leadership, helped to straighten out any confusion, and worked with both sides of the aisle to come together in a consensus around the legislation that we are going to hear so much about.

I worked with Mrs. McCarthy. I worked with both sides of the aisle also. We came up with targeted, bipartisan insurance capital standards, and we fixed it, and our hard work paid off.

After months of holding hearings and building consensus, we delivered to our chairman a bill with no opposition. Democrats and Republicans supported the measure, as did outside experts on financial reform and the financial services industry.

It was a bill that unanimously passed the Senate, a bill that represented the kind of work Congress should be doing. In other words, Mr. Speaker, virtually no one opposed these reasonable changes to insurance capital standards; but, instead of passing the measure, this noncontroversial technical change has been ``repackaged'' into a broader and more controversial bill by attaching provisions that make substantive changes to Dodd-Frank that, unlike the insurance capital standards fix, are nontechnical in nature and are not universally supported.

The reality is, by circumventing and politicizing the process, this commonsense legislation is going nowhere in the United States Senate. Countless Senate Democrats have made clear that any changes to Dodd- Frank must be targeted and have overwhelming bipartisan support; and Republicans, like Senator Collins, whose contributions to the Dodd- Frank Act we are fixing today, are opposed to it as well.

Her statement was unequivocal, saying, ``I would hate for a bill, after many months to have achieved consensus, to get bogged down in unrelated issues.'' She went on to say, ``This isn't reopening a major issue in Dodd-Frank. It is simply bringing clarity to a provision that I authored that the Fed has misinterpreted. I think, given how closely we've worked with everyone, it really is more of a technical correction.''

Senator Johanns, another author of the ``clean'' Senate bill, also wants to see an up-or-down vote on the House side; and he said, ``My hope is that we can do this in a straightforward way and get it done.'' He went on to say, if changes were made to the bill, he has to ``start all over.''

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been infamous for its inability to get anything done; but, on this one issue, we have managed to get the policy right and get incredibly broad support. We have a clear path to getting something done; but, unfortunately, the chairman has decided to throw a wrench in the works at the last minute for no reason.

Finally, it is clear that this is an exercise in political theater. It is well-known and widely reported that Republican leadership has privately told insurance industry stakeholders that they would bring up a ``clean'' insurance capital standards bill after the midterm elections.

It simply shows the disgraceful nature of this debate and the partisan, dilatory tactics that create more distrust in the political process. Rather than do what is right and enact legislation that everyone has agreed on, the chairman has decided to create a fight where there was none.

Make no mistake, but for the chairman's intransigence, the insurance capital fix bill could be on the President's desk for a signature tomorrow.

I oppose this bill due to the particularly flagrant affront to bipartisan efforts to fix narrow issues in the Wall Street Reform Act, an important and complex bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee. She is a woman that has worked hard to bring a clear bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Oh, very good. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I think the argument that we had a piece of legislation here authored by Mrs. McCarthy and Mr. Miller that truly had bipartisan support, that had been worked on so long and so hard by the gentlewoman from New York, that could have passed, and it should have, not been placed in this controversial position. This bill should have been a clean bill that was put forth in a way that would allow the Senate to support it, and to place it--well, the Senate--we would put this on the President's desk if, in fact, we just passed this bill out as a clean bill. It is quite unfortunate.

My colleagues can say all that they want to say about jobs and creating jobs. They talked about bills that had been supported in the committee and bills that had even been supported on the floor. Why are you bringing them back again? Why are you repackaging them? Why are you taking bills that you are identifying as having had all this great support and passed off the floor, passed out of committee, why are you repackaging them? I will tell you why you are repackaging them: because you are trying to create this picture that somehow you have this great jobs bill, that somehow you have worked in some extraordinary ways to put together, despite the fact that you are just repackaging bills that, as you said, had support.

The gentleman from Michigan said he is confused. Yes, I think you are, and I think you are confusing others, and that is my point. My point is it doesn't matter whether or not we have bills that were jointly supported or passed out of committee or passed off the floor. This process and this procedure that you are employing is one that is not fair to the Members of this House.

You are putting forth a process that is complex, that is not easily understood, and now the Members who come to the floor, if they have to take a vote, are going to try to decide did I support that or didn't I support that.

I think that the way that you are doing this is somewhat dangerous; and I can just envision that for the future that we may have a situation where you will hold all of the bills that perhaps do not have bipartisan support, and again you will package them with maybe one bill, as you are doing with this one, with support, and we will never have an opportunity to have the kind of debate and amendments that we should have.

It is about process. It is about procedure. It is about making sure the American people understand what we are doing and how we are doing it. It is not about being slick. It is not about being cute. It is not about trying to take the process and package it in such a way that you can get what you want with a big title of jobs to make people think you have done something new, creative, and extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.