Will NCUA Board Meetings Get More Interesting?

For three years, the NCUA board was a proverbial lovefest.

The two board members, Republican J. Mark McWatters and Democrat Rick Metsger, publicly got along swimmingly. They celebrated their bipartisanship and bragged that if everyone got along so well in Washington, things might actually get done.

But with a three-member board – Republicans McWatters and Rodney Hood, and Democrat Todd Harper – it remains to be seen if members of the board will continue that back-slapping tradition or if partisanship will surface once again.

During the first meeting of the three-member board, Harper took on the Trump Administration’s efforts to require independent agencies, such as the NCUA, to submit all guidance and rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

While he never mentioned Trump, Harper said the NCUA must remain independent.

“The Congress deliberately established the NCUA as a bipartisan, independent agency, and gave the board members six-year terms in order to insulate the agency’s decision-making process from transitory political winds,” the Democrat said.

The other two board members did not address the OMB plan.

In their written answers to questions submitted by members of the Senate Banking Committee, some policy differences between Harper and Hood surfaced.

Take Risk-Based Capital.

Last year, the NCUA board approved a plan to delay the RBC rule another year, to 2020.

McWatters had been a vehement opponent of the rule when it was originally adopted. And when House members pushed for a two-year delay of the rule, McWatters endorsed that effort.

But in a speech, Metsger said the debacle faced by credit unions that made loans to taxi drivers using their medallions as collateral was an indication that the rule was needed.

The result?

A one-year delay in the RBC rule – from all indications, a compromise.

In answering questions posed by senators, Hood endorsed a further delay.

“If confirmed to the NCUA board, I would support a further delay to the implementation of the RBC Rule, so that I and my fellow board members can further study and assess its real effects on the credit union system,” Hood wrote.

He added, “Only after that careful consideration of the costs and benefits should the NCUA board decide whether to proceed with the RBC rule and, if so, when. I respectfully note that the question of whether Congress should reevaluate the need for the RBC rule rests with Congress.”

But Harper, in his answers, made it clear that he believes the RBC rule was needed, saying that in all, less than 20 federally-insured credit unions would be subject to the higher RBC requirement in the revised rule.

“These 20 or so credit unions engage in riskier activities or hold higher concentrations of certain assets on their books,” he said.

He went on to cite the taxi credit unions as evidence that the rule is needed.

“If the NCUA’s risk-based capital rule had been in effect earlier, some of these losses might have been mitigated,” he wrote. “If confirmed, I would keep this recent history at the forefront of my mind when making any decision about whether to further delay implementation of the NCUA’s risk-based capital regulation.”

Harper previously worked for Democratic board member Debbie Matz, who frequently clashed with McWatters.

With a three-member board, it will be easier for these types of policy differences to become public.

I’m not saying board meetings will become the all-out brawling we see on Capitol Hill, but they at least might become more interesting to watch.

Stating the Obvious?

Speaking of the all-out brawling on Capitol Hill, if you’ve been patiently waiting for an issue of interest to be addressed by the 116th Congress, you may well be out of luck.

Normally, nobody expects Congress to accomplish much during a presidential election year, but in odd-numbered years, some serious legislating might take place.

This year? Not a chance.

Between the battles over the Mueller Report, the Trump Administration shattering all of Washington’s norms and the fact that half the Senate Democratic Caucus seems to be running for president, the grid is unlikely to be unlocked anytime soon.

It’s probably a good thing that the two NCUA board members were confirmed early in the year before everything became so poisoned that the smallest things are unlikely to get done.

You Can’t Make This Up: Chapter 226

Once again, Congress has demonstrated its ability to do the most stupid things while neglecting the really important issues.

House Democrats recently introduced legislation with the lofty name, “Protecting Americans With Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.” The aim of the legislation was … well, you get it.

Now, the naming of legislation is an art. A lousy art, but art nonetheless.

Remember the Affordable Care Act?

Or the Financial CHOICE Act?

Or then-House Transportation Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) naming a huge transportation bill after his wife?

Back to this year’s health bill.

Republicans argued that the name didn’t match the bill. No surprise there.

And so, when the legislation went to the House Rules Committee, which decides the amendments that may be considered on the House floor, they proposed some name changes.

For instance, “Insert Punchy Title That Doesn’t Reflect the Bill Substance Act.”

If members didn’t like that one, the GOP also proposed, “Nothing in This Bill Would Protect Individuals With Preexisting Conditions Act.”

Republicans proposed a total of seven possible name changes.

The U.S. Constitution states that to be a member of the House, you must be at least 25 years old.

Could have fooled me.

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.