There's no need to rehash this saga, but the House passed a comprehensive overhaul of Dodd-Frank and is now passing chunks of it that Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) says the Senate should accept.

The Senate passed a much more modest bill with changes to Dodd-Frank.

In the best of times, this would be the time for cooperation and compromise.

Easy, right?

Of course not.

Senate supporters of the measure, written by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Id.), say the Senate bill is the best option for getting the 60 votes needed to enact Dodd-Frank changes. Any more ambitious changes would result in failure, they argue.

And that argument has gained some traction among financial services groups. For instance, Wisconsin bankers and credit union officials wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) asking him to bring the Senate bill to the floor.

"Together, we respectfully ask that the House promptly pass S. 2155, and allow our institutions to better serve Wisconsin's consumers and communities," Wisconsin Credit Union League President Brett Thompson and Wisconsin Bankers Association President Rose Oswald wrote.

But Hensarling has dug in his heels. He says he won't simply accept the Senate bill and that the Senate has to accept parts of his bill.

In the old days, House and Senate committee members would sit across the table from each other and engage in some good old-fashioned horse trading.

Staff from the two committees would settle the issues they could, and it would be up to the members to solve the others.

The Senate would give on some issues and the House on others. Then, leaders from the two bodies would go back to their respective chambers and try to sell the compromise.

But these days, compromises are tough to achieve.

For instance, if Crapo accepts parts of the House bill, he might not have the votes he needs to pass a conference report on the compromise.

It all boils down to simple math: 60 votes in the Senate, 218 votes in the House.

If all of this seems petty, it's nothing compared to the pettiness of past Congresses.

For instance, in 1962, House Appropriations Chairman Clarence Cannon (D-Mo.) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Carl Hayden (D-Ariz.) engaged in what was known then as the "Battle of the Octogenarians."

In January of that year, Cannon decided that all conference committee meetings between the two Houses should rotate between the Senate and the House. Until then, they only had been held in the Senate. And sometimes House members were unable to get to the House Chamber in time to vote because it took a while to get to the other side of the Capitol.

Particularly when you're in your 80s, like Cannon was.

When Hayden told his committee about the House position, the Senate Appropriations Committee decided that half of all funding measures should originate in the Senate rather than all of them originating in the House.

The bickering continued, as appropriations measures piled up because the two bodies could not agree on where to meet.

Ultimately, as part of the renovation of the East Front of the Capitol, the architect designed a room known as EF-100. It was exactly in the middle of the Capitol.

Neither body had jurisdiction over the room. It was overseen by the Architect of the Capitol. One side of the room featured one set of lights warning senators that a floor vote was being taken. On the opposite side was a set of lights warning the House that votes were being taken.

The room was ultimately removed in the early 2000s, when the Capitol Visitor's Center was built.

Jump ahead to a House floor debate on Aug. 4, 1989. During that debate, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) of Dodd-Frank fame compared the United State Senate to Jell-O. After consulting with the parliamentarian, Frank admitted that his comment was "not in keeping with the traditions of this institution," to which Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) replied, "Perhaps the gentleman should offer his apology to General Food."

Just a Reminder

It may seem like Mick Mulvaney is going to be the CFPB's director forever, but he is not.

He is an acting director and according to federal law, if President Trump doesn't nominate someone soon, Mulvaney will have to go back to his full-time job as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

If Trump nominates someone, Mulvaney can stick around until that person is confirmed.

That brings us to the NCUA. From all public indications, board members J. Mark McWatters and Rick Metsger are getting along swimmingly. But, technically, Metsger's term has expired and he's just hanging around until someone is nominated and confirmed to replace him.

And then, there's the matter of the empty seat at the board table. That seat has been vacant since Debbie Matz resigned. And nobody has been nominated to fill that seat.

So, while the president is so busy firing people, would it be so much trouble for him to fill a few vacant seats in his administration?

David Baumann

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at [email protected].