mr. woodall. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. panel, i'm very concerned about the department of labor's few di f fiduciary role. i've spent many years in the african-american community, and our president is a wonderful person. he is a decent, good man. but as an african-american, i'm not sure that he has been properly advised as to how devastating this department of labor ruling will be on the african-american families in terms of wealth building. now, i say that as one who -- i'm a graduate of wharton school of finance where i got my mba. i went off and much of my work has been in investment. i had an investment portfolio in my own business that i started. as a result of that, they put me on the board of directors, executive board of directors of the wharton school, and there in that position we pulled together along with john scully who was chairman of our board, and chairman of pepsi-cola at that time, an extraordinary program of wealth building. but what we found out there were thr

mr. woodall. >> thank you. i would kindly agree with you. mr. odall. >> i don't want to overstate my expertise. >> does it concern the panel that the one person with insurance expertise is the one individual who dissented in the designation of prudential and metlife? or chair matz, as you say, we're not really looking at the insurance side, we are looking at financial services side so it doesn't matter? >> that's correct. and also the head of the federal insurance office did support the designation and also has considerable experience in the insurance agency. >> did they vote on fsoc? who is the one with insurance expert? >> congress is entitled to do oversight over fsoc. is that correct? you all agree with that. our committee, under the signature of the chairman, sent a letter to jack lew asking for 13 different points of information from fsoc there were partial compliance with a couple of those. if we have already gone through a designation process, that congress is not entitled to nonpublic information? you don't disagree with that, do you? wh

mr. woodall, in

mr. woodall, but let's talk about asset managers. what are we doing here designating asset managers as sifis? when in fact they're basically brokers? mom and pops will now have to pay fees to justify why they're brokering with a sifi when we have not even established that an asset manager should be an sifi. >> yes, sir. we have not designated any asset managers as sifis. >> they learned through a "wall street journal" article. don't you think it would be more prudent to allow these asset managers to have the ability to correct whatever may be wrong so they can save not only the financial system but also those with whom they serve and instead of waiting until the opportunity that a collapse may occur which you seem to foresee? >> that's a point of view -- >> if i went to the doctor, i would want to be diagnosed and treated then, not when i was on the life-support. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from washington, mr. hick. >> mr. woodall, i think i would like to direct this to you, if i may, please. over the last -- i'm over

mr. woodall?>> yes. >> should it be? >> well, at the time when they were designated, we were coming right out of the financial crisis. the first two designations were aig and jecc, companies who had had some problems during the crisis. >> some problems? big problems. >> big problems. >> okay. so it should be a sifi? >> at that time. >> at this time? >> it's half the company it was then. >> at this time? should it be a sifi? let me just go on to mr. gruenberg. in the dodd-frank act congress recognized our banking regulators failed to engage in regulatory oversight of large banks leading up to the crisis. as such, we put in place enhanced prudential standards to set forth the basic requirements for a bank to be well run, capital resolution, risk management, among other factors at the same time the deliberative process in congress led to an exemption from the requirement. congress also directed the fed to tailor certain regulations for large regional banks based on size as well as provide the fed wit

mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 78, house resolution 546, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 22, to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate, and two, one motion to recommit if applicable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration of this resolution all time is

mr. woodall, you are now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee for inviting me to appear before you today. mr. chairman, you have asked us to be precise in our testimony. in view of your request, i do not feel it's necessary for me to expound on it in detail. but in short, as the committee examines ways to improve the structure and the operations of the council, my written testimony discussion falls into three broad categories. first, the background and legislative history of the independent member position in dodd-frank. second, the lack of explicit statutory duties and authorities pertaining to the position other than just being a member of the council and the difficulties that has presented from being only, quote, three lines in the statute. the first line creates the position. the second one sets the six-year term. and the third one sets salary. that's all that's in dodd-frank about my position. finally, the third section of my written testimony tries to go into my willingness to work with

mr. woodall, you've been very patient today. i have to concede, this is a panel full of phi beta kappas. i'm phi beta kappas. for this complex world of acronyms and regulatory structure, we're trying to figure it out. in the construct of the rule of law that i talked about, i have offered legislation that i think is really a modest proposal. it's hr-3857. and here's what it does very simply. i'll read it here to make sure i'm getting it accurate. the bill would simply prevent fsoc from designating any further non-bank financial institutions for heightened fed supervision until 90 days after. first the federal reserve establishes prudential standards, as required by section 165a and b of dodd-frank.

mr. woodall if you vote for this thing today, we'll take them off the table forever and we'll never revisit them, then i'll share more of mr. levin's concerns. my assumption is we're providing what certainty we can today but everything is on the table in the context of growing american jobs through tax code. >> you are absolutely correct. in fact, the first step in pro-growth reform of the tax code is to answer the question is what is the tax code. today there's confusion. is it what the current law is. is it part of the temporary. is it all of the temporary provisions? and so this bill answers that first question. it makes a true, honest accounting of the current tax code going forward. it lays the foundation for fundamental reform. and for your budgeting purposes, also answers the question what is the u.s. tax code. this is a critical step. >> in the context of eliminating the fictions we operate under around here the fiction that businesses don't pay taxes needs to be eliminated. the very folks at the bottom of the income ladder who shop at walmart, who shop at kroger, who shop at safewa

mr. woodall? >> i had a quick question. thinking about the difference between a clerical error or something that got confused in the negotiations, how would your senate colleagues characterize this? would they characterize it as saying we thought we had a commitment with the house that this was going to be included and somehow we woke up this morning and it was gone? >> no, i don't think it happened that way. i think the way it happened was that delegation in this case led by senator carper who went to his leader reid said these are important extensions that i would like to see in the bill. and the understanding was that that message was delivered through staff to leader mcconnell's side of it and that assurances were given back that this was done. when the language came out, it didn't include -- it included solar, which wasn't senator carper's main focus, but it's the top one on the list. and it didn't include the others. again, over here on this side, we've talked and we've had a willingness to engage the issue by congres

mr. woodal you have been patient today. i have to concede, this is a panel full of phi beta kappas. and ivy league decorated folks. and which is something i don't admit in public. i'm phi beta kappas. for this complex world of acronyms and regulatory structure, we're trying to figure it out. in the construct of the rule of law that i talked about, i have offered legislation that i think is really a modest proposal. it's hr-3857. and here's what it does very simply. i'll read it here to make sure i'm getting it accurate. the bill would simply prevent fsoc from designating any further non-bank financial institutions for heightened fed supervision until 90 days after. first the federal reserve establishes prudential standards, as required by section 165a and b of dodd-frank. two, the federal reserve promull gates regulations setting forth criteria for exempting certain types of non-bank financial companies from supervision, as required by section 170 of dodd-frank. and third, the fsoc re-evaluates within calendar year 2016 each previous designation and rescinds any such designation if

mr. cole, aye. woodall, aye. mr. burgess, aye. mr. burn. aye. mr. newhouse. aye. miss slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, mr. chairman, aye. >> report the total. >> the motion is agreed to accordingly, i want to thank the committee, the white house, the house and the senate have spent a good bit of time to prepare what i believe is a process that we will end this big issue appropriately, so that we continue the funding of government so it's done in a responsible way and i want to thank all the members for their time today. i want to thank the staff and we'll do a first chair. i want to thank cspan for being here tonight as i know your listeners are interested in what's going on. this ends the committee hearing. for all the member, we will have mr. cole who will represent the committee tonight to file the rule and to represent us tomorrow, good luck, sir. mr. mcgovern will represent the democrats. i don't know, i assume we'll see each other again, but merry christmas each and every one of you. this ends the committee hearing for today. sterpsterman. >>> the house rules comm

mr. woodall: things tend to stay the same. i understand that the committee has a desire to get work done each and every year. it does not provide much certainty to anyone when our constituents do not get october money until december, and that is if they are lucky. i am reminded of the last cycle where we had a 2 year budgeting process where you had a topline number you could work with andy moved to the first appropriations bill out of the committee in the last week coming moved it 416-1. and it went to this and it where it sat -- senate where it sat and did nothing and the da did not get money until february. at some point, it is not a process issue, it is a personality issue and we cannot count on one another to take our work seriously, then it does not matter what rules we have for valuable -- it is process. it is valuable to have an example of what the committee would do when you have your topline numbers earlier, the cross the house floor before the end of april, that is a real step. i want to ask one other question with m