Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 696 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and ordered a rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth continuing resolution to fund the government for the fiscal year 2018. In bringing up this bill, the House is fulfilling its primary obligation to the American people: to fund the government and keep the government open and operating.

With the package under consideration today, Congress will fund the government through February 16, 2018. We will provide crucial dollars to keep the government functioning, to support our troops and the military, and to ensure we are all working for the American people. We will provide time to negotiate a larger agreement on funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as a badly needed immigration reform measure.

In addition to funding the government, this bill also includes several other important provisions. Most notably, it reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as it is popularly known--for 6 years. It also implements critical delays in certain taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act, including a 2-year delay for the medical device tax, a 2-year delay for the so-called Cadillac tax on health insurance plans, and a 1-year delay on the health insurance tax.

As a supporter of repealing and replacing the entire Affordable Care Act, I am gratified to see this delay in imposing these harmful taxes on the American people.

Finally, I am also pleased that this bill provides additional funding for ballistic missile defense, which is of crucial importance when dealing with rogue states like North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Congress actually got a great deal done. The House and the Senate have worked with President Trump to do more to deregulate the economy and free small businesses from harmful regulations than any previous Congress.

The Senate has been productive in overhauling the judicial branch, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice and 12 judges for the courts of appeals. The House and the Senate have approved and passed into law a new National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide new tools to rebuild and strengthen our military in the face of global threats.

We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills to deal with the damage caused by multiple disasters across the country, and I am confident we will pass a third in the days ahead.

Above all, the crown jewel in this first year of the 115th Congress has been the passage of major tax reform legislation, which will boost the economy, reduce the tax burden on workers, support working families, and simplify and modernize our burdensome Tax Code. I am particularly pleased this bill included the repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate.

The place where Congress has not gotten its job done is in the appropriations process. This is not the fault of the House of Representatives. Under the leadership of Chairman Black, the House wrote and passed a budget for FY18--fiscal year '18--in April. Through the efforts of Chairman Frelinghuysen and the other members of the Appropriations Committee, the House wrote and passed all 12 appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year.

However, our friends in the Senate have failed to act. We have been waiting for over 120 days--4 months--for the Senate to either act on our bills or write their own and send us passed appropriations legislation to consider. The Senate has not done so. Given their failure to act, we need yet another additional short-term CR to ensure the government remains open.

It is my hope, in the interim, that the leaders of the two Chambers and the President will be able to come together to determine what our spending top lines will be for the fiscal year 2018. Once that happens, all the interested parties can meet to put together a bipartisan and bicameral full-year spending bill.

If the leadership of both Chambers come to an agreement, I am confident that the appropriators can produce bills to fund the government in fiscal year 2018 and begin the important task of producing a budget for fiscal year 2019.

Let me be crystal clear about the consequences of voting against the underlying legislation:

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the health insurance plans of millions of Americans.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the medical devices that millions of Americans rely on.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against badly needed funds to protect America against missile attacks from rogue states like North Korea.

And a vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government of the United States.

I hope every Member on both sides of the aisle understands these consequences and votes accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, today's CR accomplishes several important tasks and keeps our government open and operating. But there is still more work to be done. In the words of Winston Churchill: ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend refers to the drama of the moment. Frankly, there wouldn't be any drama if Democrats would simply vote to keep the government open while good faith negotiations are going on on the very topics they are most concerned about.

They are concerned about the immigration issue; there is a negotiation under way. They are concerned about the appropriate balance between military and nonmilitary spending in the budget; there is a negotiation that is under way.

Now, I suspect this effort to threaten a government shutdown in order to achieve policy aims that are unrelated to the funding and operation of the government will not succeed in this House. Here, we have a simple majority. But to my friend's point, and to be fair, that is not the case in the United States Senate. There, Democratic votes will be needed to keep the government open.

Now, this House's responsibility is to do everything we can to keep the government functioning. In addition to that, there are important policy objectives in here that my friends, I think, either agree with or have even been demanding.

The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program is something both sides agree on. Actually, the 6-year extension is a year beyond what the Democrats asked for when the legislation was originally considered last fall. That is something I know they agree with, and I would hope they would vote for it.

A couple of the unattractive parts of the Affordable Care Act, which even

my opponents who supported it en masse agree with:

It is not very smart to tax the health insurance plans of American workers. We have got a delay of that for 2 years.

They also agree it is not wise to tax medical devices. Again, we have a measure in here that would delay that for 2 years.

They also, I know, believe that we ought to protect the American people against missile attacks from rogue states. There is a request from the Pentagon in here, again, that is fully funded.

There is absolutely nothing in this bill that my friends on the other side object to. There are many things that they support. Now, they are perfectly free to say, well, I would like this, and this, and this, and this added. But there is nothing in here to vote against.

If you want to raise the other issues, I suspect we can work out an agreement. And I suspect those issues are being negotiated, literally, right now in budget discussions and budget talks. So that is the appropriate place to deal with them. But, again, there is no reason to shut down the government or threaten a shutdown unless you are trying to force some unrelated policy objective.

In this case, the immigration issue that my friend refers to, actually things extend into March. There are talks underway there. I don't see how shutting down the government moves us toward that solution.

The same thing is true with the other functions of government. So I would say we have a very reasonable prospect or proposal on the table here. I suspect that we will achieve the majority in this Chamber. Then we will go to the United States Senate, and we will see whether Democrats there really do want to shut down the government, as opposed to pass a number of items that they agree with: keep the government running and keep negotiations going.

That is the responsible thing to do. That is what I think this House will do. That is what I hope Members on both sides of the aisle choose to do, both when they vote here and later when they take this matter up for consideration in the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear on something. The House of Representatives never held up CHIP. It actually passed it in October. We are still waiting for Democrats in the Senate to work with Republicans in the Senate and send us something back. In the meantime, in this bill, my friend said they want to reauthorize CHIP. We reauthorized it for 6 years. There is nothing in it they object to. They believe in the program. I believe in the program. It has had bipartisan support.

When we passed it, it got almost every Republican vote, a couple of dozen Democratic votes. We actually made the bill better in the process, so if you want to fix CHIP, you just simply need to vote for this bill.

And my friends, frankly, we wouldn't be racing Members back here, or the President of the United States, if my friends weren't threatening to block vote against funding the government while negotiations are underway. What advantage do you have in shutting down the government of the United States, which is precisely what my friends are threatening to do? I think they will not succeed here but actually have the ability to do it in the United States Senate, should they choose to do it under the rules of that body.

While negotiations are going on, if you think shutting down the government is a good idea, I beg to differ. If you are using it as a negotiating tactic, then you ought to be ashamed, because that is no way to treat the American people.

We are operating in good faith. There is not an item in this bill that offends any Democrat. Nobody I know is against CHIP. We just heard that. Nobody I know is against delaying the Cadillac tax or the medical device tax in ObamaCare--two parts of that bill that even my friends who supported it tend to disagree with. I know my friends are not opposed to providing ballistic missile defense for the United States of America. I know my friends surely don't want to handicap the American military at a dangerous time by a government shutdown. There is nothing in here that could possibly be offensive to them.

And there are negotiations underway on the very items they are most concerned about: immigration and the appropriate balance in funding level. Shutting down the government while those negotiations are underway isn't going to help us get DACA reform, isn't going to help us actually get a budget that we can operate on. It will actually just simply switch attention away from those and create a crisis, which I assume my friends think will work, somehow, to their political benefit.

I don't think that is true, and I speak from some experience here. I argued against it, but I watched my own side do something like this when it came to defunding ObamaCare. It was not successful. It was not the appropriate way to proceed, and there was a pretty harsh verdict by the American people.

I suggest my friends are running the same risk today. Now, they have every right to do this. I never question any Member's right to vote how they think is appropriate, but, in this case, in this body, I think we have the votes to make sure that they don't shut down the government as they have threatened to do.

In the United States Senate, that is going to be up to them. Frankly, if Democratic Senators want to shut down the government to achieve some policy objective, that is their choice. But I think it will be crystal clear at the end of the day who actually closed down the government for some unrelated policy aim that was actually under negotiation at the time.

So I would, again, just urge my friends to benefit from our experience and sit down and keep negotiating while we keep the government open. I think if we do that, we will arrive at a constructive solution for the American people. I think if we don't, it is going to be a political crisis that was unprovoked and unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just to be clear with my good friend from Texas, Democrats didn't pass a budget. They proposed a budget. That is fair enough, but they never passed a budget in this House. There was a budget that was passed by the Republican majority. It is interesting, that budget actually came into balance within 10 years. Our friends on the other side never presented a budget that came into balance from any of their various groups.

Frankly, the last administration never presented a budget that ever came into balance. So it is hard to talk about a budget that never comes into balance as if it is a responsible document. It is clearly not.

In terms of my friend's concern about CHIP, it is an appropriate concern. The answer is right in front of her. Simply vote for this bill. You got a 6-year authorization that was longer than my friends originally asked for in the negotiations that were last fall.

This House has actually, again, met all of its obligations. My friends' counterparts in the other body, frankly, have used their votes under the rules of that body to sabotage any appropriations process whatsoever. It requires 60 votes in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, we only have 51. So if Democrats won't sit down and negotiate, nothing much gets done over there. That is why we are here today. Frankly, we are here to make sure the government doesn't shut down.

Now, again, my friends have every right to vote to shut down the government. If they vote ``no'' on this measure, that is exactly what they are doing. They are voting to shut down the government. They are voting not to reauthorize CHIP. They are voting to tax the American people by putting taxes on their healthcare plans and putting taxes on medical devices. They are missing the opportunity to help us with missile defense in a very dangerous era. And they are throwing away the time while negotiations on the topics they are concerned about are underway--negotiations on the budget and negotiations on DACA.

So why my friends want to do this at this particular point is beyond me. But I would suggest it is not likely to work. It is likely to backfire. If we end up in a government shutdown--something I would very much advise against--I think my friends, all of whom will have voted to shut down the government, will bear the responsibility. I think the American people will understand.

Now, again, I don't think my friends will succeed in this House, but they may well in the upper Chamber because, up there, they do have the votes under the rules of that body to shut down the government. I would urge them not to do that and to keep the government operational, to take these victories--and they are victories where we agree--and keep negotiating on the issues that most concern us. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed, and I would urge my friends to adopt that course.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a press release from--my friends may have missed this--the Children's Hospital Association.

[Press Release, Jan. 18, 2018]

Children's Hospitals to Congress: Kids Can't Wait, Fund CHIP Now

Washington, DC.-- The Children's Health Insurance Program

(CHIP) is vital to millions of children and families. These

families have been living with uncertainty since funding for

CHIP expired at the end of September. States are exhausting

all available program funds and have announced plans to

freeze enrollment and, in some cases, end their programs

altogether. Kids can't wait any longer.

Congress has a chance to pass a long-term extension of CHIP

that will provide security for millions of kids. The

continuing resolution being considered by Congress includes a

six-year extension of CHIP. Children's hospitals support a

long-term extension of CHIP and urge Congress to take this

opportunity to pass CHIP this week. The time is now to extend

funding for this lifeline millions of children and their

families count on every day.

About the Children's Hospital Association--the Children's

Hospital Association is the national voice of more than 220

children's hospitals, advancing child health through

innovation in the quality, cost and delivery of care.

Mr. Speaker, the Children's Hospital Association has actually urged that this bill be adopted. They have urged that we, for 6 years, ensure the funding. They would like my friends--who I know believe in the program--to actually vote for the measure in front of them.

Now, we have heard a number of things about kicking the can down the road. I confess, keeping the government open while negotiations are in progress is something we are trying to do.

But I also point out this is not simply a normal CR. It settles the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 6 years and appropriately funds it. It delays tax increases, which my friends also oppose, although they voted for them in ObamaCare on people's health insurance programs and on medical devices. It provides badly needed dollars for missile defense in an era of crisis with an irresponsible state.

It doesn't have anything in it that offends my friends in any way. There is nothing in this bill they are against. If they are, I would like to know.

Is it CHIP that my friends are against? Is it delaying the Cadillac tax that my friends are against? Is it, frankly, delaying the medical device tax increase that my friends are against? Is it putting more money in ballistic missile defense that my friends are against? Or is it just continuing the government's operations that my friends are against while negotiations are underway?

I am not sure which one my friends are for, but it suggests to me if there is nothing in here they are against, then they ought to be voting for the bill.

Finally, to my friend's point--and there is more to this than their comments would suggest--to suggest that we simply can control the universe around here isn't true. We don't write the Senate rules. I wish we did. They would probably look a lot different and we probably would have less of a problem. But my friends have not been able to shut down the government here, although they tried to in December. I don't think they will be able to shut down the government, although they will try to again today.

But in the United States Senate, the Democrats will decide whether or not the government continues to operate; whether or not CHIP is reauthorized for 6 years, as the Children's Hospital Association urges; whether or not millions of American families are spared from a tax increase simply because they fought and worked for a decent insurance plan; whether or not millions of Americans who depend on medical devices for their survival have to pay more for them; and whether or not we have a higher level of certainty that we can defend ourselves against an unprovoked and dangerous attack that might occur at any moment.

That will be a decision for Democrats in the Senate to make as long as we vote here to move this legislation forward. I think we will, and I would invite my friends to join us in that.

There is nothing in here that offends my friends. There are many things that my friends like, and there are negotiations underway on the things that are my friends' concerns.

I would suspect that is the course that we ought to take, and I would urge my friends to reconsider and adopt that course.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to close whenever my good friend is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to, as always, thank my good friend. We disagree on this, but there is nobody that I enjoy serving with on the Rules Committee more than my good friend, the ranking member. She is a wise and able legislator.

There are a couple of things she said I am going to agree with. She did say that facts matter. I actually agree with that. Facts do matter here, and the fact of the matter is anyone who votes ``no'' on this resolution is voting to shut down the government. Anyone--Republican or Democrat--who votes ``no'' has said: I am not willing to keep the government open while negotiations are underway.

Anyone who votes ``no'' is voting against a 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program that we all agree on to say is critical. Anyone who votes ``no'' is absolutely guaranteed a tax increase or will be voting for a tax increase on American workers who happen to have a fairly decent insurance program. Anybody who votes ``no'' is going to raise taxes on Americans who are ill enough to require medical devices.

Anyone who votes ``no'' is going to make sure we don't have the resources we need to protect this country in a time of international crisis against a potential rogue missile attack.

Anyone who votes ``no,'' to begin where I started, is voting to shut down

the government. It is that simple. My friends did that in December because they thought, ``Well, they can't do it without us,'' but we did. I suspect we will be able to do that again. But I regret that anyone would vote ``no'' on those kinds of votes because I think they will come back to haunt them.

My friend also--and I think this may actually be the key to the issue--quoted polling data that said the Republicans are going to get the blame anyway. That may be true. I don't doubt the accuracy of my friend's numbers, but I suspect that, once they watch the process, the American people are pretty smart and they will understand a ``no'' vote is a vote to shut down the government.

Now, if my friends are gambling that Republicans will get the blame for this because they have done this in the past, I think they are running a terrible risk with their own credibility.

In this body, we will succeed. I don't serve in the United States Senate, never served in the United States Senate, never worked for anybody who served in the Senate. They have rules that will allow the Democrats to shut down the government if they choose to do it. I don't think they will. But if they do, I think they will regret it. Certainly, many on my side regret some of the decisions they made in the last crisis of this kind.

I hope we do the responsible thing in this body and count on cooler heads in the United States Senate to do the same thing.

I also would point out that in this bill that my friends are going to vote ``no'' on--probably in overwhelming numbers, I am sad to say-- there is nothing in it they disagree with. They don't disagree with the CHIP reauthorization. They don't disagree with delaying taxes in the Affordable Care Act. They don't disagree with providing additional missile defense.

They tell us they want to keep the government operating, particularly when there are negotiations underway on the matters that actually concern them. That strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, shortsighted, or both.

So I urge my friends: Do what you must on the rule. The rule is the rule. That is always a partisan exercise, and I always respect my friends for voting ``no'' on a rule. But the underlying legislation is real: whether or not the government operates; whether or not we take care of these knotty problems where we happen to agree; whether or not we actually put the well-being of the country, in terms of its defense, above the media partisan interests. Those things are all areas that shouldn't be tough votes.

So I would hope my friends reconsider, come down and vote to keep the government running instead of shutting it down, come down and vote to keep taxes from being imposed on hardworking families through their health insurance plan or medical devices, come down and vote to make sure we have the strongest possible defense against any possible attack on our country, and come down and vote to keep the government open while negotiations are underway. I think the failure to do that is one that my friends will look back on with deep regret in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government. Although not perfect, the bill before us today will fund our government and keep it open and operating through February 16, 2018.

We will also reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years and achieve a delay in several harmful Obama taxes. While doing so, we bolster the defense of our country at a dangerous time.

While I look forward to completing our work and passing a bipartisan, bicameral full-year omnibus spending bill, for now, this legislation will keep the government open and operating and give us time to continue working toward a bipartisan agreement for the American people.

I applaud my colleagues for their work.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows

An Amendment to H. Res. 696 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs,

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among

and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority

members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee

on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4820.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.

Contrary to the bill's title, this bill is far from a technical clarification. So I want to be very clear about what this bill would actually do.

H.R. 2396 would reduce the meaningful and clear disclosures that financial institutions must currently provide to their customers every year, even if those companies share their customers' nonpublic personal information broadly with nonaffiliated third-party companies.

Unlike other privacy bills Congress has considered, this bill comes with no guardrails whatsoever to discourage the company from broadly sharing consumer-sensitive personal information.

While the bill provides several alternative mechanisms to deliver privacy reminders, one option would result in the customer receiving no written disclosure at all.

The current annual privacy notices serve as a reminder describing a customer's right to restrict the sharing of their nonpublic, personal information to nonaffiliated third parties and information about how to exercise this right if they so choose.

This privacy right was created in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was signed into law in 1999. I served on the conference committee, so I know firsthand that the initial and annual privacy notices in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were enacted partly in response to public concerns about the sale of personal data for marketing purposes that were highlighted in a number of legal actions brought by State attorneys general at the time.

In 1999, for example, there was a settlement between the Minnesota attorney general and U.S. Bank resolving allegations that the bank misrepresented its practice of selling highly personal and confidential information about its customers to telemarketers.

These concerns are just as relevant today. In fact, I find the timing of the consideration of this bill very troubling, as it is being brought to the floor just months after the massive Equifax data breach.

In the Equifax breach, 145.5 million Americans had their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive financial and personally identifiable information exposed to thieves.

Equifax is not the only major credit bureau to experience a large data breach. About 2 years ago, Experian, one of the other three major credit bureaus in this country, had a breach that exposed millions of T-Mobile customers' information.

These breaches are on top of a long list of other breaches we have seen at other companies where sensitive customer information was compromised. Consumers have called on their Representatives in Congress to enact tougher laws that would strengthen their control over their personal information, not weaken it.

Consumers are increasingly wary about the unfettered sharing of their personal information by financial firms to nonaffiliated third parties that can result in consumer profiling, fraud, aggressive target marketing, and identity theft.

Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction. Instead of working to strengthen consumers' privacy protections, H.R. 2396 would ease obligations on financial institutions to provide notices to their customers describing their privacy practices and policies, and importantly, fully explaining to these customers their right to restrict the sharing of their information to nonaffiliated third parties.

This is commonly referred to as a consumer's right to opt out of having a financial institution share their information to companies that are outside of their common corporate structure or organization. These nonaffiliated third-party companies are generally not ones that the consumers have an existing relationship with, meaning that they have not received a product or service from the company in the past.

The proponents of H.R. 2396 may say the bill has nothing to do with Equifax, or that Equifax would not be covered, if the amendment being offered later today is agreed to. But the bill would roll back privacy notice requirements for many financial institutions that engage in vehicle financing, including megabanks like Wells Fargo, even if they broadly share their customers' nonpublic, personal information with other companies.

Let's discuss Wells Fargo and their auto lending practices and their work with nonaffiliated third parties. Earlier this year, the Democratic staff of the Financial Services Committee produced a report on Wells Fargo's egregious misconduct, which has consulted in extensive consumer harm.

For example, Wells Fargo charged over 570,000 consumers for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including Active Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. These auto insurance policies were provided through a nonaffiliated third-party company called National General Insurance.

The bank has also demonstrated a clear pattern of misusing millions of their customers' information to open accounts in their name without their permission.

So why should Congress consider relaxing the privacy requirements for a recidivist bank like Wells Fargo?

Let me also address arguments that suggest customers don't read these notices anyway. That is a quote that we hear oftentimes.

As I have discussed, I think consumers are paying closer attention now after the Equifax incident. Proponents say that a company posting a link on their website isn't so bad, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allowed for it.

But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provided an alternative to the annual privacy notices for companies that do not share data in ways that trigger consumers' opt-out rights under the law. Over the last decade, Congress has heard repeatedly from banks and credit unions that if a company does not share personal information with an unaffiliated third party that allows consumers to opt out from having it shared, and if they do not change their privacy policies, they should be exempt from the annual notice requirements. In those instances, the customer does not have the ability to opt out of having the information shared.

After several years of research and debate, we made that targeted change in the last Congress. Since then, other companies, specifically captive auto finance companies, have made the case they should have more flexibility satisfying the annual notice requirement because they have a unique and close relationship with automobile dealers they work with that still requires them to send the annual notice.

This unaffiliated third-party relationship triggers a consumer's right under the law to opt out and not have their information shared. I offered an amendment in committee that would have granted this targeted relief, but it was rejected.

So, while I appreciate that H.R. 2396 provides flexibility to captive auto finance companies, the bill is not limited to them and goes much, much further. Mr. Speaker, over 30 consumer, community, privacy, and civil rights groups have publicly opposed this bill, including U.S. PIRG, and so do I. This is an area where more study is needed before policymakers craft sweeping changes.

The bottom line is that I believe we should not open the door too widely at this time to give this same degree of flexibility to all and every financial institution, including recidivist banks like Wells Fargo.

Furthermore, there needs to be more, not less, privacy protections and consumer control relating to personal information following the massive data breach at Equifax this year.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge opposition to H.R. 2396, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

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

I have heard, more than once, Members speaking for consumers, saying: These privacy notices are not that important. Nobody reads them. They throw them in the wastebasket.

Well, I don't know how Members would know that, and I don't think that we should be satisfied that consumers are being represented that way with indications that they don't really care about these notices and the opportunity to opt out so that their information won't be shared.

But let me tell you what consumers are saying to us. I have, here, letters that have been sent by consumer organizations that really do care about what is happening with this bill today, and I would like to share that information with you.

Let me just tell you who these consumer organizations are and whom they represent:

There is Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial Reform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, civic, and community groups formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, working to lay the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system, one that serves the economy and the Nation as a whole.

Then there is Allied Progress. Allied Progress is a consumer watchdog organization that uses hard-hitting research to stand up to Wall Street and powerful special interests and hold their allies in Congress and the White House accountable.

Then there is Center for Digital Democracy. The Center for Digital Democracy is recognized as one of the leading consumer protection and privacy organizations in the United States; and since its founding in 2001 and, prior to that, through its predecessor organization, the Center for Media Education, CDD has been at the forefront of research, public education, and advocacy, protecting consumers in the digital age.

Then there is Consumer Action. Through multilingual financial education materials, community outreach, and issue-focused advocacy, Consumer Action empowers underrepresented consumers, nationwide, to assert their rights in the marketplace and to financially prosper.

There is the Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation of America is an association of nonprofit consumer organizations that was established way back in 1968 to advance consumer interests through research, advocacy, and education. Today, nearly 300 of these groups participate in the federation and govern it through their representatives on the organization's board of directors. CFA is a research, advocacy, education, and service organization.

Then there is Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government, and politics, and they describe themselves as deploying an in-house team of public interest lawyers, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change corporate and political injustice in every way, every day, saving Americans billions of dollars and improving countless lives. For decades, Consumer Watchdog has been the Nation's most aggressive consumer advocate, taking on politicians of both parties and the special interests that fund them.

Then there is the National Association of Consumer Advocates. The National Association of Consumer Advocates is a nonprofit association of more than 1,500 attorneys and consumer advocates committed to representing consumers' interests. Our members, they say, are private and public sector attorneys, legal services attorneys, law professors, and law students whose primary focus is the protection and representation of consumers. They have represented hundreds of thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive, and predatory business practices.

As a national organization fully committed to promoting justice for consumers, NACA's members and their clients are actively engaged in promoting a fair and open marketplace that forcefully protects the rights of consumers, particularly those of modest means. NACA also has a charitable and educational fund incorporated under 501(c)(3).

There is another very prominent consumer organization, the National Consumer Law Center, working on behalf of low-income clients. Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults in the United States. This organization's expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy, consumer law and energy publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates.

This organization works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and Federal and State government and courts across the Nation to stop exploitative practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.

Then there is Privacy Times. Privacy Times is the leading subscription-only newsletter covering privacy and freedom of information law and policy. It is read largely by attorneys and professionals who must stay abreast of the legislation, litigation, and executive branch activities, as well as consumer news, technology trends, and business developments. Since 1981, Privacy Times has provided its readers with accurate reporting, objective analysis, and thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and freedom of information.

Then there is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization located in San Diego, California, their mission is to engage, educate, and empower consumers to protect their privacy. They engage in outreach, provide educational materials and services to individuals nationwide, and have an active media presence. The PRC uses the information we learn directly, they say, from consumers to form the basis of their advocacy work.

Then there is Public Citizen. Public Citizen has a team of researchers. They uncover the facts. Their staff brings their findings to the public through the media as well as one-on-one interactions. Their advocates bring the voice of the public to the halls of power on behalf of consumers.

Then there is Public Knowledge. Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression and open internet and access to affordable communication tools and

creative works. They work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest.

Then there is Reinvestment Partners. Reinvestment Partners' mission is to advocate for economic justice and opportunity. They do this by providing direct services to people, revitalizing places, and advocating for just policies. Founded as a project of Legal Services in 1986 as the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, the agency has worked to ensure fair lending to underserved communities in order to build and protect wealth. In 2012, they changed their name to recognize the expanded diversity of their programs and their local and State and national outreach.

And then there is U.S. PIRG. U.S. PIRG is an advocate for the public interest, working to win concrete results on real problems that affect millions of lives and standing up for the public against powerful interests when they push the other way. They say: ``The problems we face don't care if you are liberal or conservative, if you live in a red or blue State. They affect each and every one of us.'' That is why, for decades, they have taken a nonpartisan, facts-driven, results- oriented approach to their work.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like hearing that our consumers don't care, that they don't need a yearly notification about their privacy rights, that they simply throw this information that describes their rights into the wastebasket; and I am so pleased that, over the years and through the history of this Nation when too many consumers have been ignored, taken advantage of, didn't know what their rights were, all of these organizations that I have taken time to share with you today work on behalf of consumers. They work not only in organizing and educating, but they send this information to their Members of Congress. All of these organizations have sent in this information not only about their backgrounds, but about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Again, it is interesting how my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle describe their consumers. These are people, they say, who don't want to be inundated with useless information. They are saying that the privacy information is of no use.

It is interesting that Mr. Loudermilk said he read his privacy notice, unlike most other Americans who don't read their privacy notice. I think that is very interesting to describe himself as someone who read his privacy notice, but able to speak for all other Americans who don't read their privacy notice.

What is very interesting also about his comments is he refers to the consumer groups as special interests, while he is representing the banks and the financial institutions, the real special interests.

Why is it Representatives who come to this Congress to represent people who vote for them somehow see their responsibility to protect the real special interests, such as the financial institutions who have lobbyists running up and down these Halls every day, who make contributions to Members of Congress, rather than the consumers who are represented by the kinds of groups that I have taken time to describe here this morning, because these individuals and the average citizen do not have paid lobbyists from financial institutions and banks representing them here.

So it is also interesting that Mr. Loudermilk talked about how many of these consumers are going to be buying automobiles because of the tax fraud bill that he is referring to that is being advanced by the opposite side of the aisle. The only thing that bill is going to do for consumers, which will hurt our economy, is create a $1.5 trillion debt.

Well, he said that consumers were going to be buying more cars. Yeah, the wealthy will be, the ones who are given the breaks in this tax bill. The wealthy may be buying more automobiles, but the very people who are represented by these consumers that I have shared the information on this morning, they won't be able to buy automobiles because they are going to be harmed. It is only the wealthy, only those who are making extraordinary amounts of money, and corporations, that are going to benefit from the tax bill.

I don't even know how and why he talked about it in the same breath that we are talking about our consumers being able to be respected with privacy information that they would get because we have laws that give them the right to have this information.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members, so I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

It is very simple. The consumer groups that I took time to help people to understand who they are and what they do, representing the consumers, are the folks who are concerned about people knowing their rights. This is what they work at doing.

Those of us who align ourselves with consumer groups care about the average citizen. We care that the average citizen gets the kind of information that is going to make their lives much easier.

The people on the opposite side of the aisle represent banks and financial institutions. We are not opposed to business, and we work with businesses in various ways.

We are opposed to rip-offs. We are opposed to fraud. We are opposed to denying consumers the opportunity to know their rights.

But those Members of Congress who come here and basically mimic and mock the consumers by talking about those consumers who wait by their mailboxes for privacy information certainly are not representing the citizens of their district.

I can tell you this: When you take a look at who the real special interests are, who is representing the interests of the special interests, who in this House stands up for banks, financial institutions, and Wall Street and hedge funds, you look at the opposite side of the aisle, time and time again, and you will find them putting all of their time and their effort into representing those special interests.

For those of us who stand on the side of the average citizen, yes, we align

ourselves with consumer groups. No, we don't dismiss them as unnecessary people just messing around in the business of big business.

These are the representatives, again, of people who don't have fancy lobbyists walking these Halls and following the Members of Congress, getting into their area and influencing them.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today with our consumers. I applaud all of our consumer groups and I stand on the side of our consumers being able to know their rights and all of the work that went into providing this opportunity in law. I stand with them and I resist any effort by the opposite side of the aisle to deny the right of our citizens to be notified about their rights and their ability to opt out if they do not want their information shared with these unaffiliated groups.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. I know that we are doing what our citizens want us to do, why they sent us to this Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Clay's effort to make the bill better. He is absolutely correct, we have been attempting to work together to see if there was a way that we could deal with the issue at hand and absolutely ensure that our consumers not only have a right to information that explains to them what their rights are and how they can opt out when their information is being sold, really, to unaffiliated organizations.

Mr. Speaker, just in case people are not following exactly what we are talking about when we talk about opt-out rights, let me draw your attention to the fact that you oftentimes are receiving loads of mail in your mailbox, everything from somebody who is selling pet food to clothing, to services, to all kinds of products, and you don't know why they are sending you all this junk. Well, they are sending you this junk because somebody sold your information to all of these organizations because you didn't know that you had not opted out. You maybe didn't know what your rights are. But citizens have a right to have that information, and they have a right to be respected and not thought to be simply throwing it into the wastebasket.

It doesn't matter whether it is for all businesses in the United States or just for automobile dealers. It is about every citizen having the right to have their privacy protected and not having people sell their information to unaffiliated organizations that will cause them to be pressured or solicited over and over again and their mailboxes filled with information because their privacy information has been sold to one of those unaffiliated organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Clay is attempting to streamline the bill. I appreciate the efforts that he has put into attempting to do this, but this does not correct the problem. This undermines the efforts of all of these consumer groups that worked for years to get these notices sent to our consumers.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we have tried and we have worked and we have listened to each other, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

My motion would prevent institutions that have engaged in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations related to consumer harm from being able to evade important consumer protections.

When companies repeatedly exhibit indifference to consumer protection and demonstrate that they are incapable of complying or are unwilling to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, they should not be allowed to benefit from those bad actions.

As I have already mentioned, under this bill, as amended, companies like Wells Fargo would be free to share or sell customer information with any company, with minimal reminders to their customers.

We all know that Wells Fargo has engaged in illegal student loan servicing practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraft fees, unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharging veterans for refinanced loans, enrolled customers in life insurance policies without their consent, delayed mortgage closing dates until after the expiration of the borrower's interest rate lock to levy additional fees, and charged over 570,000 customers with auto insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including Active-Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed.

Companies like Wells Fargo are why I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to make sure that lenders that have engaged in abusive practices face real consequences for their wrongdoing. It is time we truly hold companies that demonstrate a pattern of harming consumers accountable. These institutions must no longer be allowed to abuse hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are talking about today, the Home Mortgage Adjustment Act, has to be looked at in the light of the history that this country has had.

Our country has a HMDA bill, a home mortgage act, a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, because of years, literally centuries, of discrimination and racism which has allowed for Americans to be excluded from the hope of homeownership.

When people say: Look, I believe I have been the victim of mortgage discrimination, they have been very difficult and hard-pressed to prove it because the people who issue mortgages say: Well, that wasn't the reason. Well, I know that your credit score and your downpayment and everything is just like other people, but that is not the reason.

Well, the truth is that it is the data that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act provides for that puts people in a position where they can say: Look, I have been discriminated against. How come there is this wide racial disparity?

As a result of it, justice has been yielded to people who have been victims of discrimination seeking nothing more than the American Dream of homeownership.

So along comes the bill today, the bill we are considering at this moment, which essentially says that we are going to backtrack on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We are not going to enforce it, even though we know that it has yielded justice for people, equal protection under the law for people, but we think that the needs of businesses are just going to be so important that we are going to backslide on the issue of justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I have to urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this bill because this bill says that America's commitment to liberty and justice for all is not something that this House wants to live up to. We are going to say that we can't abide government regulations even if it means we are going to advance the cause of a civil and human equality for all Americans.

Now, of course, the folks might say: Well, it is not all HMDA that we are trying to change. What we are trying to do is just stop the implementation of HMDA data, and it is only going to be for institutions that are of a smaller size; and even then, it is only going to be certain data.

Yes, they will minimize the negative impact of this legislation. But there is no doubt that this is backing off of a commitment that this Nation has made so that all people in our country can freely participate in homeownership.

They will try to minimize and say: It is only credit unions and banks that only issue about 500 or fewer mortgages. When you add all those folks up, that adds up to being a whole lot of mortgages, Mr. Speaker. It is only certain kinds of data, and that data is critical to making sure that people are included in the American Dream. So I am urging a very powerful ``no'' vote.

Now, the people who advocate this legislation say: Well, it is just too much burden on business. We can't be bothered with having business fill out forms. It is quite inconvenient.

But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, if this were such a problem, we would all come together and figure out how to make it easier to meet the requirements of HMDA. But that is not what is going on. They just want to delay the implementation of collection of critical data which will lead to the furtherance of the American Dream, which is homeownership.

Mr. Speaker, it was only 8 years ago that we went through the largest foreclosure crisis in the history of our country other than the Great Depression, just 8 years ago. It wasn't decades ago. It was really a few years ago, well within the memory of people who serve in this body right now. Many of us were serving in this body during that foreclosure crisis.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans were hurt. They were hurt when the value of their homes went down, and they were hurt when they saw unemployment go up. All Americans were hurt. But if we are perfectly honest, Mr. Speaker, not all Americans were hurt the same. African-American and Latino household wealth took the biggest hit of all. Because of this devastating blow, because of this shot, we saw the stripping away of African-American wealth to extreme degrees, not to mention people from Latino families.

We cannot say, on the one hand, ``Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, work hard, save, and own a home,'' and, on the other hand, take away the tools by which people can get that home. But that is exactly what we are doing right here. We are saying that we are going to take the tools that you need to make for a fairer, more open and more just neighborhood, we are going to take those tools that you rely on, and we are going to say that you cannot have those tools because the demands of business require that we don't do that; it is just too expensive, it is too burdensome, and it is too inconvenient.

Let me tell you this: 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and another 70 years of social discrimination are pretty doggone inconvenient, too. If HMDA is a tool that we use to make our society a more equal and more perfect Union, then why would we backtrack on it? Why would we backslide on it? Why would we do those things?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the underlying bill, the bill that is being attempted to be amended today, didn't drop out of the sky. We have it because there was historic, provable, and demonstrable discrimination. That is why we had it.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act--a completely different piece which, I argue, backslides on our commitment to fair housing--would undermine our ability to stop discrimination by exempting 85 percent of the Nation's banks and credit unions and 48 percent of the Nation's nonbank lenders from having to follow the updated reporting requirements.

What are these reporting requirements? They are things that banks collect already. They are pieces of information being collected now. All they have to do is take one piece of paper that they have already prepared the documentation for and put it into another document. That is it.

Now, the application borrower's age, that is an important thing to combat age discrimination.

Credit score, name, and version of the credit scoring model, that is an important piece of information. That is already in the underwriting file and in FCRA.

The debt-to-income ratio is already in the underwriting file and is required by QM compliance.

Automated underwriting system name, that is in the underwriting file.

Other information about the property, securing the loan, and the value of the property to secure the loan, that is in the underwriting file and it is in TILA requirement.

Combined loan-to-value ratio, that is in there already because of underwriting.

Manufactured home property type, land or without land, that is in the underwriting of the file.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information is critical because, in the manufactured housing industry, we know there is predatory lending and unfairness to borrowers a lot, so we need that kind of information to protect borrowers.

I reject the argument that somehow, if we don't have commonsense regulations and disclosure, that is going to result in more--more-- loans being issued. There is no evidence to support that. What it will likely result in is more discrimination happening and perhaps people who own the banks and the credit unions just pocketing more money. But the fact that less regulation and oversight is going to yield more justice for people who have historically been excluded, there is no basis to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a point that I thought was definitely worth mentioning. He said that he wanted to know how the law plays out boots on the ground back at home. He talked about: Does it hurt you or does it help you? The gentleman made a specific point about getting real-life, tangible experience people have with the law.

I am glad he mentioned that, and the reason why is that I talked to a woman earlier this week as I prepared to be here today. She said she scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She got up every day, and she saved her money. Her family never owned a home; they rented. That is all they could ever afford to do. She applied for a loan in a bank for a home once she got her money together.

She was hopeful. She was optimistic. She even had a home picked out that she wanted to own and have her grandchildren and kids live with her in that home. She was denied. She had a good credit score. She saved her money. She shared with me that she felt like it was because of her race.

Now, of course, nobody is going to admit that. When it comes to mortgage lending, Mr. Speaker, the people who make decisions that exclude one group of people and include another one don't use the nasty, ugly language that all of us condemn. They don't come in here and use the N word. They don't say ugly stuff.

These people wear suits. They wear ties. They have nice, pressed white shirts. Many of them have monograms on those shirts. These are the members of the country club. Yet this lady who worked so hard for so long to own a home was denied.

It was when statistical analysis was brought forth that people decided maybe they should just give her that loan after all. It was when she went to legal aid and complained.

I can tell you this, it is the kind of thing that is important.

How do people on the ground experience the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act?

They experience it as something that gives them a chance to have a good life, too. If you never felt the sting of discrimination, maybe it is just a business regulation to you. But if you have been looked in the eye and told ``no,'' and you know that this is not right and you know it is probably because of who you are, then, and only then, will you understand why it is important not to weaken the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

I don't doubt that people who are offering this amendment to relieve the regulatory ``burden'' have animus in their heart. I really don't believe they do. But I will tell you this: they are listening to the folks in the country club. They are listening to the folks who are on the other side of the table. They are not listening to the people who need that mortgage, who work for that mortgage, who deserve that mortgage.

That is not who they are talking to. If they would sit down and listen to folks who just want to own a home, maybe they wouldn't see this as just some sort of a bothersome regulation. It is getting in the way of business.

How can we possibly ever allow that?

To the folks who would say that, discrimination is a theoretical concept. It might happen to some people, but none of the fine people they know in the banking industry would ever do that.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill came up because people were living with mortgage discrimination. It came up because people were being denied. It came up because people that were being told ``no'' should have been told ``yes.'' That is what is going on right here. This is why this bill, this Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, needs to be defeated.

If you want to talk about ease of regulation, we can always talk about how to help people comply with the law. I am not against that. But what I am against is backsliding and backtracking on the progress that this country has made in favor of equal access to credit and mortgage lending. This bill is a threat to that.

There shouldn't be anyone who votes for this piece of legislation who seriously considers how damaging discrimination has been historically and who seriously considers how the lives of people who spent so much time simply trying to be part of this country have been told ``no.''

There are a lot of groups that agree. There are 173 national and State-based civil rights, fair housing, and consumer and community organizations that agree. There are 25 community labor and public interest groups that agree. They say this:

H.R. 2954 would nearly quadruple the number of banks

exempted from the key mortgage disclosures designed to detect

predatory and discriminatory lending, leading to 5,400 banks

being exempted, as well as an additional 487 nonbanks.

This is not a small thing. I just say that I give everybody credit for good intentions. I really do. But I think that folks need to really think about what it means to be on the other side of that desk when you are applying for that mortgage, not just the businessmen and -women who deny mortgages or grant them as they see fit.

Public Citizen says:

This bill would eliminate race and gender home mortgage

reporting requirements for lenders who make fewer than 500

closed-end mortgage loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines

of credit. There is really no benefit to such an exemption,

as the reporting requirements are negligible.

Lenders who write mortgages obtain significant data on

their customers, as they should. Reporting a few items of

this data is not cumbersome. The potential harm, on the other

hand, is to subvert the basic intent of the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act, which is to publicize whether a bank is truly

serving its geographic market on a race and gender blind

basis.

What about CAP, the Center for American Progress?

They say:

While on its face this appears to be a simple regulatory

relief bill, this provision would exempt the majority of

mortgage lenders from new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

reporting requirements.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting is the primary

source of information on the availability and quality of

mortgage lending and serves a vital function in fair lending

assessments.

This bill would effectively paint an incomplete or

inaccurate picture of lending activity in the communities

across the country, making it vastly more difficult for

regulators and researchers alike to assess the state of the

mortgage market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation. It is wrong. It is not the right thing. There are other ways to do what the authors want to do. But simply saying, ``All these people are exempt and you don't have to comply,'' is not the right way to go. It will set us back as a nation. It will turn us back as a nation. I am urging a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

As we have heard today, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is a critical civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill designed to increase opportunity for all Americans. It is about liberty and justice for all. It is about the Equal Protection Clause. It is about those things that men and women laid their whole lives down for to make this country more fair, more equal.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act's intent was to ensure that equal opportunity was given to everyone with respect to mortgages. The law is necessary, given our country's long history of discrimination. Through slavery, we took away rights and freedoms of Black men and women for 250 years. We made them property rather than human beings. It was followed by nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement.

As a result of it, people stood up to say we have got to have laws to protect people. We might not be able to change hearts and minds, but we can change behavior. And HMDA helped change behavior.

We are still fighting to make sure we have a more equal society. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act empowers the Department of Justice, State attorneys general, Consumer Bureau, and the public to fight back against discriminatory lending and monitor access to mortgage credit by traditionally underserved communities and populations.

If a financial institution denies a family a mortgage, they can provide a number of excuses for that denial. Only the data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act proves that there is a broader issue of discrimination at play.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, exempts institutions from certain HMDA reporting requirements if they originate 500 or fewer closed-end loans, which includes mortgages and car loans, and institutions that issue 500 or fewer open-ended loans. That is nearly 6,000 institutions across America that will stop reporting HMDA data if this bill goes into effect.

This opens the door for discrimination. It opens the door for red- lining, and it is not acceptable. That is why I am offering a motion to recommit that would ensure that individual banks affected by this bill take steps to reduce discrimination in mortgage lending. If opening the door for discrimination is not the intent of the bill, there should be no issues why my amendment is not passed.

My amendment simply says that the CEO and the president of any financial institution now exempted from collecting and reporting important HMDA data fields must attest that, one, the institution is compliant with all relevant fair-lending laws; two, the institution has established adequate internal controls to detect whether the institution provides equal opportunity; and, three, the institution's senior executives, managers, and loan officers and other employees who are substantially involved in underwriting residential mortgage loans complete an antidiscrimination and diversity training.

Ultimately, my amendment is meant to ensure that each exempted institution is properly incentivized to do what they're supposed to do: lend to all qualified borrowers. By holding the CEO accountable, my amendment ensures that lenders will take the actions necessary to begin to overcome historic racism, sexism, and other discrimination just like HMDA was intended.

If it is a fact that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act is not designed to open the door and green-light discrimination, then this amendment is a commonsense proposal to make sure that that does not happen and that the leader of the institution maintains responsibility for that not happening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to vote for this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, once again, Congress finds itself rushing to try to pass legislation to keep the government open; ensure that our youngest, most vulnerable Americans have access to health insurance; and protect young, aspiring Americans from being deported from the only country they have known as home. Yet here we are debating other things with the clock running out in the eleventh hour--issues that, no doubt, have a few people here and there who care about them, but zero people have called my office on, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents are demanding that we address access to the childhood healthcare insurance program and demanding that we act on the DREAMers with the deadline approaching and 100-plus DREAMers every day losing their status.

It sounds like, from all we are hearing, that the House is going to consider yet another short-term spending bill to maybe keep the government running for another 4 weeks or 6 weeks. It is actually the fourth short-term spending bill for this year, not allowing the Department of Defense to plan to keep our country safe and not allowing any of the departments across the Federal Government to make any of the investments they need or have any degree of certainty that contractors will be paid.

It is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Part of the reason that we are left doing this is we are using our precious floor time on all of these other issues like the ones before us today.

It is not that these issues don't deserve their day in the sun, and we will talk about them for the rest of the day today, apparently, but we are facing the closure of the entire Federal Government in 3 days if we don't act. We are doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. This is an absurd exercise in doing some narrowly tailored special interest bills rather than addressing what we all know to be the 1,000- pound gorillas in the room.

Seniors, military veterans, and people with disabilities shouldn't have to question whether they will actually receive their benefits month to month because we don't know whether the government will remain open. In the meanwhile, Republicans, Democrats, and the White House are all trying to put forward bipartisan solutions for the hundreds of thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and DREAMers, and we could be debating that on the floor and putting together the final package now to do that by this Friday. But instead, we are discussing these bills that my constituents aren't telling me that they are sending me to Washington to pass.

A lot of my colleagues say that the deadline for DACA isn't until March, but, in reality, over 100 deferred action DREAMers every day lose their protected status as their benefits expire. Every day the Republicans fail to act, they are creating over 100 more illegal immigrants in this country. If Republicans fail to act by March, they will have created over 800,000 more people here illegally in our country.

We have about 18,000 DREAMers in Colorado able to work legally today. They have come from countries near and far in search of a better life for themselves and their families. They grew up in our schools, sports teams, cheerleaders, don't know any other country, and many of them don't speak any other language.

One DREAMer that I have gotten to know from Colorado is Anarely, whose family stayed in Colorado to help take care of their grandmother. Anarely is a triple major at Colorado State University, studying political science, ethnic studies, and international relations. She has built a life in Colorado--the only life she knows--and continues to build a bright future in the U.S. if we can give her the certainty with regard to her legal ability to work and, of course, take her place alongside other American citizens.

What makes America so great is we are a country of immigrants made up of people from all backgrounds, all quarters of the world. We embrace people from different cultures and different countries. We value the contributions based on the individual and the values of individual responsibility and hard work. That is what makes our country and our communities vibrant and our economy successful.

Mr. Speaker, a group of bipartisan House and Senate Members are working together to find a solution to protect DREAMers and improve border security. I am proud to cosponsor the USA Act, which we dropped yesterday with Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar which would provide DREAMers long-term protections and improve our border security to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

But instead of legislation that addresses long-term funding or protects aspiring Americans, here we are bringing bills to talk around the fringes about consumer protections and, of course, a bill that would chip away at reproductive health rights.

The rule we are debating today considers two pieces of legislation that are not anything to do with the expiration at the end of this week of government funding or the over 100 DREAMers who lose their status every day--the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the World Bank Accountability Act.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act has long been a tool to monitor the mortgage lending practices and patterns of financial institutions to ensure equal and fair access to credit. The information that lenders are required to report shows that they are meeting the housing financing needs of their communities. HMDA data is very important in fair lending assessments and helps make determinations of where to target community development resources.

Congress has made changes to HMDA as a response to legitimate concerns about the role that widespread predatory lending played in the financial

crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was charged with updating how lenders report HMDA.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a standard for the new reporting requirements that took into account the burdens imposed on banks by new standards to ensure that the data is being reported to monitor fair lending practices to prevent another systemic meltdown like we had in 2008 and 2009.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even temporarily raised the reporting threshold eliminating the need for low-volume banks to report through 2019, in order to conduct research to determine the right way to document open-ended loans. We should not codify this threshold, removing the flexibility of the agency that we in Congress set up to prevent another financial meltdown. It would literally tie their hands and prevent them from acting, even if there was a need to, to prevent a financial meltdown.

I strongly support regulatory relief for community banks and small financial institutions. This bill would actually exempt 85 percent of depository financial institutions and 48 percent of nondepository lenders.

Congress should want to encourage increased access to housing finance and combat unlawful practices that can prey on vulnerable home buyers or lead to systemic risk which leads to people coming to this town demanding another Republican taxpayer bailout.

This rule also considers debate for H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act--another issue that does not relate to the expiration of government funding at the end of the week, does not relate to the illegal aliens that the Republicans are creating every day, and does not relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program expiring.

What it does is it places a restriction on funding to the World Bank International Development Association--again, something I am not hearing from my constituents on, that they are not sending me to Washington and demanding that I take action on--and try to get them to reform to improve their management accountability and fight extremism, which I am sure is fine. It is true that, of course, they probably need to improve accountability and oversight, and Congress can have this discussion, but here we are, backs to the wall, the government is about to close, DREAMers are facing deportation, children are going without healthcare, and, yes, of course, World Bank accountability, great, let's discuss it, but can't we do it next week after we get through this?

In fact, I believe the Republicans are sending us all on vacation next week. I think most Americans wish they had 10 days off at the end of January. I don't understand this. It makes no sense. I think Congress is about to do a last-minute funding bill and then send every Member of Congress on a 10-day vacation saying: Good job, we dealt with World Bank accountability. That is what the voters want. Forget about government shutdowns, forget about Republicans creating more illegal aliens, forget about Republicans plunging our Nation deeper into debt with their tax-and-spend policies. That is where we are headed, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we should have a debate on the best way to make reforms in the U.S. and engage the World Bank to encourage those reforms.

Again, fiddling while Rome burns, Mr. Speaker, it is a common theme over here, and the American people are seeing through it, which is why the approval rating of this institution is under 15 percent--no shock.

We can be debating World Bank accountability every day for the next year if you want. That is why people think this body is out of touch. We are just not addressing or dealing with the issues the American people sent us here to deal with: skyrocketing debt; over 12 million people who are here illegally, and yet this Congress fails to take up comprehensive immigration reform; expiration of the Children's Health Insurance Program; fixing the Affordable Care Act.

Withholding funds to the IDA has a lot of positives and negatives. We could influence them to act. Others fear it could punish people in the developing world. It could hamper their ability to fight famine. It could force the necessary reforms.

Again, fine, we will have that discussion under this rule for an hour or two and Congress will debate that. Congress will pass a bill, and we will see whether the Senate even takes it up. They often don't.

But, again, it is backs to the wall, fiddling while Rome burns, the eleventh hour, record debt, Republicans creating more illegal immigrants every day, and here we are debating accountability for different aid programs.

The 15 percent must be, like, the family members and cousins of the Republican Members. I don't know anybody who is satisfied with this Congress, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Trump tweeted: ``The Democrats are all talk and no action. They are doing nothing to fix DACA.'' That is deeply insulting to those of us who have worked so hard for years. I was even here when the Democrats passed the DREAM Act in December of 2010.

This is the 18th time we have attempted to bring up the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440. We are about to do it again with my colleague, Mr. Gomez. The Dream Act makes our position clear. We want immigration policies that make America safer. We want to make sure that our aspiring, de facto Americans can take their place alongside of us with the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Unfortunately, President Trump made his position clear, as well. I am not sure which position; he changes every other day. But at times, he said he will sign whatever we do. At other times, he said:

My standard is very simple: America first, and Make America

Great Again.

That is an easy one. This bill we bring up if we defeat the previous question will absolutely make America greater. According to the conservative think tank CATO, repealing DACA would actually cost the government over $60 billion, reduce economic growth by $280 billion, and make us all poorer.

We just want to make America wealthier, make us better, and recognize the aspiring Americans and let them work hard and play by the rules and pay taxes and live the American Dream. That is an America first policy that we can all get behind.

This is the 18th attempt here to do this. But I am a Jewish American, and 18 is actually a lucky number. ``Chai'' means ``life,'' when you do the numerology. Mr. Gomez is lucky to be here for number 18. For our Jewish friends watching on C-SPAN, Mr. Speaker, they will recognize that. It is kind of like seven. I don't know if seven is a Christian lucky number or pagan or what, but I have heard seven is a lucky number, too.

But 18 means life, and this is life for the DREAMers. That is what Mr. Gomez's motion is all about: it is letting young people who have that uncertainty and don't even know if they can go to their job and work hard come March, or even come today or tomorrow for the over 100 a day whose status is expiring.

I really hope that my Republican colleagues join Mr. Gomez and me in defeating the previous question so we can bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, which would pass this body, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that. It is bipartisan, bicameral. It would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every single way--de facto Americans, aspiring Americans--except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez) to discuss our proposal for the 18th time: chai, or life.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go. We are finding ourselves staring down self- created deadlines, and I want to be clear about that. The deadline for the expiration of the DREAMers in March and the fact that 100 are expiring every day is self-created by President Trump. It is a manufactured crisis. We, of course, could do immigration reform while not having our backs to the wall on that issue.

This shutdown of the government is a construct of this body, this House. They said that they would only fund the government through January 19. So we are facing another deadline. Again, I believe, from what I am hearing, that Congress will then create another artificial crisis sometime in February, when we are going to be facing a government shutdown again.

All in the face of record deficits and tax-and-spend Republican policies, the American people have had enough.

Hundreds of thousands of DREAMers are at risk of deportation by this administration.

Millions of children are at risk of losing their health insurance.

We are all being plunged deeper and deeper into debt, not just for ourselves, but our future generations: my kids and many of our grandkids, for those who have them.

We are facing another government shutdown of necessary, important government services, including economic drivers in areas I represent, like Rocky Mountain National Park, with over 3 million tourists a year. It would close down if the government shuts down.

Air traffic controllers. So many other important parts of our necessary infrastructure to succeed as a country faces an expiration this Friday.

Even if somehow the Republicans say, ``Okay, here is another 2 or 3 weeks of funding,'' the uncertainty that that creates--meaning they can't plan for short- to medium-term capital projects: a simple repair that might take more than 3 weeks; knocking down a wall; fixing a building; making a hire and an employee not knowing whether they are going to have a job in 3 weeks, or contractors not knowing whether they are going to be paid, and then having to reflect that in their pricing and ultimately charging the taxpayers more for the work they are doing because they don't know if the government will pay.

What kind of country are we running, Mr. Speaker?

I know we can do better, and that starts by defeating the previous question so that we can just pass the Dream Act and move on. It will pass. Sixty, seventy, or eighty percent of this body will probably vote for it. I know there are people who don't like it. Let the people's House work its will. Let us vote. That is what we are here to do, Mr. Speaker--Republicans and Democrats. Let us work our will.

We have the votes on the Dream Act and we have the votes to keep the government open, if you simply allow us to have an open process to do it. That is what this floor time should be used for today. This is precious floor time--the time that we are in session debating-- especially considering Republicans are sending Congress on a 10-day vacation at the end of this week. Let's use this floor time to do what matters.

Sure, there will be a day to discuss the finer points of World Bank policies and the finer points of the threshold for regulatory forbearance for mortgage cutoffs. Those things are fine, Mr. Speaker. Those are fine to discuss, but not while the Republicans are creating over 100 more illegal immigrants a day and they are going to create 800,000 more in just a couple of months; not when the Republicans are plunging our Nation deeper and deeper into debt with their tax-and- spend policies; not when Republicans are forcing another government shutdown, if not this week, then in 3 weeks or in 4 weeks.

Crisis to crisis to crisis, manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, the American people count on us to be stewards of the greatest Republic that has ever been created on the face of this Earth. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, Congress is letting them down. Let's defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber finds itself in much the same position it was in on September 8, December 7, and December 21. Those were the other three continuing resolutions that we passed to try to get through here, but we are rushing again with one of the majority's short-term continuing resolutions with days to spare--actually, tomorrow--one day to spare until the great Government of the United States closes for business.

Now, you might think that would be the most important thing on the minds of the majority and of the United States Government, but it isn't because we are not going to get to vote on this tonight until 7 p.m.-- and all the people in the country who are holding their breath to see whether they are going to be laid off, the Federal workers, and all the other things that go with that devastating thing.

Let me remind you that the last time the government had a shutdown, $24 billion was lost to the economy, a lot of it to laid-off workers, and also the fact that large numbers of facilities owned by the government have stores and newspaper stands in them that were also closed.

But, no, we are not in any hurry today. Nobody is concerned about it, and the President of the United States and several Members of the House have gone to a political rally in Pennsylvania. They are trying to save a congressional seat there of a person who was forced to step down. That, obviously, is of more importance to them than whether or not this government continues to function.

That is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have been putting up with for a long time.

I don't recall a time we have had four continuing resolutions in probably a month and a half, but here we are, and I bet you that we will come back in February and do yet another one.

Now, my colleagues who have gone to Pennsylvania could have gone next week--because we are taking another week off back to the district next week--and not caused this great hubbub today, which is one of the most important days in the life of the Nation as to whether we are going to continue to be the Government of the United States.

It is tragic, isn't it?

I remember I was on the floor the last time it shut down, and at midnight I had said: The government of the United States is now closed. I would

hate to be up here to have to say something like that again.

I don't know what else to call it except incompetence. That certainly comes as close to the definition as I can make.

But this latest proposal that we will not vote on until after 7 p.m.--and I understand that will inconvenience some people, but I do hope that other people will be able to stand the suspense. This is the fourth continuing resolution since the end of the fiscal year in September, and it will run, as I said before, through February 16, where I bet you we do another one.

If past is prologue, we probably will find ourselves back because what we do in this House now is be a standby person while the majority goes from one self-imposed crisis to the next. And much like the proposals before it, this continuing resolution is not the product of bipartisan negotiations. It was written solely by the majority without a single Democratic fingerprint anywhere on the bill.

America, pay heed to that. If this government should shut down, this problem is solely that of the Republican Party. We were not asked for our input when it was written in the back room, but since its public release hours ago, the majority has being asking for our support and saying what a shame it is, what a shame that we who don't even believe in this particular thing are not out there beating the drum for it.

But that is not how it works. The majority cannot craft this bill solely by itself and fail to address the matters that we agree we need to take action on and then criticize us for not supporting this partisan proposal.

We had an idea we would come to this point for some time, and I think everybody will agree with me, certainly on my side, and I suspect on both, that our leader, the minority leader, Nancy Peolsi, certainly made herself clear all the way through as to what it would take to get the votes of the Democrats in the House. But there was no consideration given to that, and yet they are asking us for votes.

This stopgap measure continues to just chip away at the Affordable Care Act--and I know my colleague said he was happy about that--by targeting some key funding mechanisms under the law. I suppose I probably did the rule on at least the vast majority of all the times repeal and replace was the fashion here, and I have always asked every single time: Why does the Republican Party want to take healthcare away from people? I have never gotten an answer to that, but I am totally convinced, after all this time, that that is exactly what they want to do.

Since the majority waived the rules requiring the provisions to be paid for for the healthcare act, it is actually a massive tax cut for the health insurance industry. It comes on the heels of the majority's tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, which represents the largest transfer of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen. It is a bill that made tax cuts for corporations permanent.

Now, the continuing resolution before us today includes a temporary reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare for 9 million of America's children. That was only to be for 6 years. But, as you heard already from a previous speaker this morning, had it been made permanent, it would save over $6 billion. I fail to understand the economic benefits of what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, why is the majority giving permanent tax cuts to corporations but it won't even give permanency to children in need of healthcare? The majority believes that a temporary reprieve on CHIP will force us to vote for this misguided plan. But what about the community health centers? What about improving healthcare for veterans?

The continuing resolution turns a blind eye to victims in desperate need of help in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes, mudslides, and wildfires our Nation has ever experienced and to 700,000 DREAMers who remain at risk of being deported following President Trump's decision to end DACA.

Remember what DACA was about. We asked young people who had been brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to come out and to register and say that they were undocumented and that we would protect them as a way to citizenship. But instead, that was taken away from them, and they face deportation and are being deported daily--and it is an emergency.

But it also fails to take any action, this particular CR does, on bipartisan priorities like the pension crisis, veterans healthcare, and, as I said, the community health centers.

What has the majority prioritized instead of crafting a long-term spending bill that deals with these urgent issues? Ideological crusades like undermining financial reform laws and attacking women's health.

We had a wonderful debate just before this bill came on the floor of a thing called Born-Alive. We passed a bill I think unanimously, and I think it was done by voice vote, in 2002, that any infant born in an abortion setting would be given every care in the world, and, in fact, we didn't even need that bill. That is a given.

At the same time, though, that we are debating that on the floor today, that is to do every medical thing possible, the administration announced that, if a provider--a nurse, a doctor, or anybody in a medical setting, and they don't have to give any reason for this--if they personally or for some other reason, morality reason, decide they do not want to treat a patient before them, they don't have to.

Think about that a minute. Well, you know what I am trying to say here. It is more than ironic. It is stupid. But we sort of get used to that.

A separate bill on the floor today, H.R. 2954, would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a thing hated by this Congress, their ability to respond to the problematic trends in the mortgage market. So here we go again. The CFPB has already saved over $12 billion for consumers.

Another measure that will be considered this week, H.R. 4712--that was the one I mentioned a minute ago--tries to shame and scare doctors out of providing constitutionally protected abortion services. The bill this morning gives doctors and medical professionals up to 5 years in prison just for practicing medicine to the best of their ability.

And all the while, the majority has been ignoring the elephant in the room and we march toward another government shutdown, and the American people and the world are once again forced to wonder whether the greatest superpower on this planet can keep the lights on. Surely, this is no way to run the Government of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

For months, the majority has been holding the healthcare of 9 million children and more than 9 million individuals, including seniors, pregnant women, and veterans, hostage while they pass the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Well, the time is up, and with each day we fail to act, our constituents face uncertain futures. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, even President Trump agrees we need to act on CHIP. Just this morning, he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''

Well, here is our chance to stop playing politics, except we can't do it until 7 o'clock this evening because the President and so many Members of the House are in Pennsylvania at a political rally. I guess this wasn't as important as we thought it was.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and Kids Act. This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our most vulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare priorities.

It permanently reauthorizes CHIP, saving us $6 billion. It reauthorizes the community health centers for 2 years and includes other vital healthcare programs that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and so many more.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant minority leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he is prepared to close? I have no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Cole, seems almost to be desperate to have us vote for this continuing resolution, which says to me that the majority doesn't have enough votes to pass it. Somehow by saying that because the Democrats will not support this farce, then we are going to be responsible for it. But, frankly, my good friends are three for three on government shutdowns just since I have been a Member of Congress. Nobody is going to believe that, with all the excess numbers of votes here--I think you have 23 more Members have than we have got-- we are at fault.

But, anyway, let's get to the business here.

Instead of treating this like the serious issue that it is, the President is treating it like another reality show. He has suggested that Democrats would certainly be blamed for the majority's inability to keep the government running. But he is wrong about that, too. Just this week, a poll from Hart Research Associates found that the public would blame the majority by a double-digit margin. That gap grows wider when you look specifically at independent Americans.

History shows this to be true. When the majority shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act in 2013, a majority of the public placed the blame on them, not President Obama. We saw similar results when former Speaker Gingrich engineered shutdowns in both 1995 and 1996 because he thought the seat given to him on Air Force One did not fit his stature. The American people then blamed the Republican congressional majority, not President Bill Clinton. That is because facts matter, and the fact here is that the majority chose a partisan approach that threatens our ability to keep the government functioning.

But this discussion should not be centered on blame. It is about whether the Republican majority can even govern. Holding the White House, the Senate, and the House comes with great responsibilities, and, obviously, the most basic one--and we all understand this--to start with is keeping the Government of the United States running.

Yet we are confronted all the time with this problem: Are we going to be able to pay the bills and keep things going?

That is so humiliating for America. There is no other word for it.

But this majority, as pointed out before, just lurches from crisis to crisis to crisis, and they lurch around from one deadline to the next without any plan. All the time, all you need to do is ask to let us work together, let Democrats in on your backroom plans. We never get to see that. We are never consulted and never a part of any plan.

Let me remind everyone watching that the last Republican shutdown in 2013 cost the economy an estimated $24 billion. Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were halted, and numbers of great Federal employees were furloughed. Federal permitting was stopped. Hundreds of patients at the National Institutes of Health were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials. Federal scientific research was also put on hold. We had five Nobel Prize-winning scientists working for the Federal Government at that time, and four of them were furloughed.

The majority apparently thinks it has the votes to go it alone on this bill, but I don't think so anymore. We thought so when I wrote this. But they think we are going to prevent a repeat of all that carnage. It is a shame that they squandered a chance to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill. Frankly, I think it is tragedy, and I think it is no way to run the government.

Without question, we could have kept the government running while addressing the priorities that Members of both parties agree on, like we used to.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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