The Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2017

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Since Dodd-Frank's passage, the economy has created over 16 million jobs over 85 consecutive months. Business lending has increased 75 percent. Banks, large and small, are posting all-time record profits, community banks are outperforming larger banks, and credit unions are expanding their membership. And because of the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 29 million people have seen $12 billion back into their pocket and not into those of improper and illegal practicing financial services firms.

Do you want to know why we have the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act before us today?

Because they want the money. Not the $12 billion that went back to the 29 million veterans and farmers and students and citizens and people who need that kind of help for their families. They want that money going back to the big financial interests.

And that is the purpose of the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. It is between the many and the money, and the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act stands firmly on the side of those who would line their pockets in the top 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

One of the elements of the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act that is particularly troublesome to me--and there are many--has to do with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act repealing section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Now, people watching this debate, Mr. Chair, might find that to be just legislative talk, but it is substantively, really important. Section 953(b) was a hard-fought victory for investors, consumers, workers, and the general public. Mr. Chair, the law requires that publicly traded firms disclose the ratio between what they pay their CEO and what they pay their median worker.

I think this is important information. A CEO of an S&P 500 company makes, on average, about $331 for every $1 a typical rank-and-file worker makes. In some companies, this ratio can reach as high as $1,000-to-$1. Investors should be able to consider if a CEO provides hundreds of times more value to their employees before investing in a firm. Actually, exorbitant CEO pay, excessive CEO pay, can impact dividends. It can impact all kinds of decisions, lead to risk taking, and it is a good idea for investors and the general public to know that information.

So while executives are making critical decisions about the direction of their companies, quality employees ensure those decisions are being properly implemented.

This pay ratio information benefits investors by giving them valuable information for ascertaining whether or not a company's employees are being treated fairly and, therefore, able to retain employees; whether or not it is a stable company, and a company that values its people.

The ratio helps them to decide how to cast their say-on-pay advisory votes on executive compensation. And research shows that the higher the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio, the more likely the CEO is to pursue the kind of risky investments that brought the global financial crisis to bear.

Institute for Policy Studies found that nearly 40 percent of the CEOs on their top 25 highest paid list over a 20-year period wound up being fired, sought a bailout, or were forced to pay fraud-related fines.

Moreover, a lower ratio of CEO-to-median-worker pay, implies more investment in human capital, and a longer-term outlook on the corporation.

According to the Center for Audit Quality's annual investor survey, 46 percent of investors say they consider CEO compensation in their decisionmaking.

The current culture of paying CEOs hundreds of times--and even thousands in some limited cases--more than typical employees hurts working families, is detrimental to employee morale, and goes against the research which shows us what is best practice.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chair, does it make sense that, after 8 years of a piece of regulation, Dodd-Frank, that has brought us increases in GDP, increases in jobs, and stability in financial markets, that we would now repeal that piece of legislation to go back to a time when we saw that deregulation strategy bring us the Great Recession?

It just doesn't make any sense to take the position that what we need is more wide open, Wild West, you are on your own kind of financial rules and laws in our country.

The fact is, before Dodd-Frank was passed, we had an abysmal consumer protection system. We really had seven or eight different agencies that were sort of responsible, but not really. Consumer protection was not a priority of the Federal Government. And as a result of it, we saw a proliferation of mortgages that got people who really couldn't handle that particular mortgage that they got, or the products were just fraudulent, get into a situation where they ended up going into foreclosure.

We saw the secondary market package up some of these bad mortgages. We saw rating agencies say that these were good equity products, and when these products started to fail, what we saw is that those big banks that trafficked in those equities get bailed out, and we saw citizens lose their homes.

The fact is, going back to those bad old days is just a bad idea--to bring us back to a time when we didn't have any consumer protection, when we didn't have any responsibility placed on the shoulders of management, when we didn't say that we were going to look after these rating agencies, and we didn't say that these systemically important large institutions were going to get a little bit more scrutiny.

Before the time that we did that, we saw ruin in the economy. Let me just remind the American people: we had many States with unemployment above 10 percent because of the deregulation, laissez-faire attitude that prevailed in the American financial services legal system.

Those bad old days nearly ruined so many families, and they are just now starting to recover. But under Dodd-Frank, we have seen month after month of private sector job growth. We have seen economic activity increase. Fast enough for me? No. I think we need much more.

But with over $170 billion in record profits from 2016, I can tell you one thing: this claim on the other side that the banks and financial services sector is being crushed simply isn't a true statement. It is just not right.

Business lending is up 75 percent since Dodd-Frank. Data from the Federal Reserve shows aggregate bank lending has increased from about $1.2 trillion, in 2010, to $2 trillion in outstanding business loans. Vote ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which was filed late, should be viewed as the first admission by the Republicans that H.R. 10 would be bad for our financial markets and our economy.

The amendment recognizes that it would be inappropriate for Members of Congress to attend nonpublic meetings of the council charged with reviewing sensitive financial information and discussing potential threats to our economy.

I agree with the sponsor that this was one of many harmful provisions in the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Here are a few more: the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act eliminates the Office of Financial Research, which is tasked with studying emerging risks to our economy and informing the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act stops the council from taking actions to prevent firms like AIG from threatening our economy. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act allows banks to choose the regulatory system that best suits their bottom line, even if doing so is bad for the economy and taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment also recognizes the dangers of subjecting our independent financial regulators to the partisan appropriations process, by restoring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's and the National Credit Union Administration's independent funding when it comes to their responsibilities for unwinding failed banks and credit unions.

I agree, this is important, but do you know what is also important and needing to be independent?

The authority to supervise those entities before they fail.

The bank and credit union regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have important yet sensitive responsibilities to make sure that financial institutions follow rules that are good for the economy, good for consumers, but which some institutions would rather ignore.

Subjecting these decisions to the appropriations process will result in fewer cops on the beat, weaker guardrails, and a greater likelihood of financial catastrophe.

We have seen this happen before. One of the reasons for the failure of the housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was that they had a woefully underfunded regulator without independent funding.

Democrats fixed this when we created the independently funded Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2008. Since then, this agency has successfully made tough decisions to right both GSEs by putting them into conservatorship and cleaning up their businesses.

Ignoring this success and history, H.R. 10 would once again strip away the independent funding of the GSE's regulator, as it would for all of the financial regulators.

I am pleased that this amendment has recognized the problems taking away independent funding for our regulators, but, unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to reject it and the entire ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, the late poet Maya Angelou had a saying: ``When people show you who they really are, believe them.''

So when the chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association leads a pep rally before 1,500 bankers, we should pay attention. He probably means what he is saying.

In March, he told ABA members about all the opportunities for banking with a Republican Congress, he crowed: ``I don't want a seat at the table. I want the table.''

If we read this bill, we know what it looks like to give the financial services sector the whole table. We know they want the whole table.

H.R. 10 is clever at undermining financial regulators, emboldening Wall Street, and making it incredibly easy to delay regulators at every step of the rulemaking process.

It is important for the people of America to understand that when Republicans say they want to kill regulations, usually what they are talking about is safety regulations, regulations that make the water clean, the meat safe, and that financial product that you just bought not blow up in your face. They don't like regulations because regulations mean that the people who control some of these products can't just do whatever they want to do.

But for the people in the United States, you should know that financial regulators are going to keep money in your pocket, they are going to stop people with way more resources than you have from picking your pocket.

That is why we oppose this amendment. I think it is particularly important for people to realize that the rhetoric that we use denigrating regulation all the time is the same regulation that protects us, and that includes in the financial services sector.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the Hollingsworth amendment seeks to insert a totally new and unvetted set of exemptions from the security laws for closed-end funds. These are the type of pooled investment vehicles that typically issue a fixed number of shares that, unlike mutual funds, are not redeemable on a daily basis by the fund, making them harder for investors to sell.

The Financial Services Committee has had no hearings, no markups, no debate on these issues until now. Perhaps that is why the amendment has been mislabeled as only benefiting closed-end funds traded on an exchange with well-known seasoned issuer status.

In fact, the amendment is much broader, as it would allow even illiquid, nontraded funds to claim multiple exemptions. This effort would make it harder for the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, to police these products for investors.

This last-minute, partisan approach is not the way that Congress should proceed in making laws, but it is consistent with this bill. Although Democrats conducted 41 hearings to develop Dodd-Frank, Republicans planned only 1 hearing on this bill. It is not surprising, then, that the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act is a 600-page bill chock-full of bad partisan ideas and special interest wish lists that will harm our Nation's investors, consumers, and taxpayers.

For example, the bill would severely undermine the ability of the SEC, our Wall Street cop on the beat, to protect investors and hold bad actors accountable. Specifically, it would remove valuable law enforcement tools, burden the SEC with onerous cost-benefit analysis, and generate more and more endless litigation, tying the agency up.

Worse, the bill repeals the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule and effectively prevents the DOL or the SEC from ever moving forward to protect our Nation's investors and seniors from conflicted advice by unscrupulous financial advisers.

I will say, most financial advisers are not unscrupulous, but for the ones that are, there needs to be authority in the law to stop them. We need the fiduciary rule. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act takes it away.

But this should come as no surprise, since the Republicans in Congress have been relentless in their opposition to the DOL's commonsense requirement that financial advisers put their clients' interests ahead of their own when providing investment advice about retirement products.

Their extreme partisan efforts to kill the fiduciary rule ignore the facts that 9 in 10 Americans reportedly agree with the rule. An overwhelming majority--65 percent--of Americans who voted for President Trump appear to support the regulation.

Tellingly, just last week, after robust bipartisan debate, the Republican Governor of Nevada signed into law a bill requiring financial advisers to act in their clients' best interests.

The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act continues this partisan slant by also rolling back bipartisan efforts from this and past Congresses to craft legislation that helps grow small business and protect investors.

Mr. Chair, we owe it to our constituents and the American people to work together to address real problems with real solutions that are thoroughly vetted. For that reason, I must oppose this bill and this amendment.

I will add, my colleague on other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, said: Where is our bill? That would be Dodd-Frank.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have discussed business development

funds. We have not talked about closed-end funds in committee. This amendment introduces a new idea which has not been debated. For that reason alone, we should vote it down.

We have got to have regular order around here. This is a complicated issue. All the avenues and all the different perspectives that need to be brought to bear should be done in committee, not right here.

Mr. Chairman, for those reasons alone, I would ask for a strong ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there might be some merit to this amendment, but I still claim time in opposition.

Because it wasn't brought up in committee, I think that there is a lot of hashing out of this particular amendment that could have happened and we might have been able to agree, but at this point in the process I have to claim time in opposition and I will explain why. I will say that, if we can work on it later, we will see what happens, but as now for now, we are urging a strong ``no.''

I think the amendment is well-intentioned because it purports to address the growing problem of identity theft, something we all need to be concerned about. However, I am concerned that it may make it harder for some consumers who want to obtain their own reports, particularly those using the website annualcreditreport.com, to access their free annual consumer reports from nationwide credit reporting agencies, or CRAs.

Also, the amendment purports to combat identity theft, but solely focuses on tougher authentication requirements for consumers who want to access their own files, not on all users who have access to consumer reports like landlords or employers. I think that is a weakness.

The website annualcreditreport.com and reports maintained by the big three require consumers to provide personally identifiable information and to successfully answer several questions about information on the consumer files before giving them access to reports online.

In a 2017 report, the Consumer Bureau noted that credit reporting complaints are consistently among the top three types of consumer complaints it handles. When consumers are denied online access, they have to mail copies of sensitive identifying documents in order to obtain their reports, which consumers note is time consuming as well as potentially not secure. This amendment could make that situation even worse.

I also find it a little confusing that the House is considering this amendment to a bill that will hamstring the only Federal agency, the Consumer Bureau, that has rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over most consumer reporting agencies and has actually addressed many credit reporting problems.

If Members support this amendment, then it simply does not make sense to me for the same Members to support H.R. 10, which will gut the Consumer Bureau's capacity to effectively address problems like identity theft.

Before Dodd-Frank, the Federal Trade Commission was the only Federal agency with enforcement authority over the CRAs, but there was no entity with supervising authority. Dodd-Frank closed that gap by giving the Consumer Bureau the supervisory power to monitor CRAs' operations.

Just this year, through the good work of the Consumer Bureau's examiners, the Consumer Bureau issued enforcement orders against all of the big three CRAs for misleading practices that harm consumers.

I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment and reject the ``Wrong''

CHOICE Act. I hope next time we can talk about this legislation before it gets to the floor. That would be better and more proper.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about an issue somewhat related that is critical in this debate and would go a long way toward improving our economy and the chances of consumers.

I have a bill, H.R. 435, the Credit Access and Inclusion Act. My amendment would help solve problems the Financial Services Committee has been discussing for more than a decade. This is not an amendment that I have submitted for disposition today, but I would like to bring to the attention of the body that this Credit Access and Inclusion Act was good legislation and should be taken up. It would address a problem of access to credit that the leader of this bill says he wants to solve.

My bill would allow utility, telecom, public and Section 8 housing residents to build a credit score without debt. It provides affirmative permission for utility, telecom, and housing providers to report on- time payment information to credit reporting agencies.

I have introduced this bill in four consecutive Congresses. I introduced this bill with Mr. Pittenger as a lead. It has the support of many members of the committee, including Representatives Maloney, Duffy, Green, Stivers, Meeks, Love, Capuano, and more, a truly bipartisan piece of legislation.

Why am I committed to passing the bill? Because 1 in 10 Americans do not have a credit score. These 26 million people are credit invisible, and they can have trouble getting an apartment and might pay more for insurance, and they will have a very hard time qualifying for a loan to buy a car or a home. Another 19 million are not scorable because there is too little information in their files. One in four African Americans and one in four Latinos are credit invisible and not scorable.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another example of Republicans choosing to prioritize the interests of corporate insiders over consumers, which is what the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act really symbolizes. We should not prevent regulators from addressing potential conflicts of interest but, instead, let all shareholders have their voice be heard.

While Democrats stand ready to work on targeted reforms to help responsible community banks and credit unions, we will reject any ideological legislation that puts our financial system and economy at risk of another crash and that gives a leg up to Wall Street and predatory lenders to rip off consumers all over again.

Republicans like to pretend that Wall Street reform destroyed our financial system and economy, but the alternative facts have no basis in reality. Thanks to Wall Street reform and other Democratic policies, our economy has made significant gains since the depths of the financial crisis.

Since Dodd-Frank became law, we have set a record, with 86 consecutive months of private sector job growth, during which the economy created more than 16 million private sector jobs. Let me assure you, much more work needs to be done, but this record is important and must be noted.

Financial institutions are thriving since the passage of Dodd-Frank. According to the FDIC, banks are posting record profits since the crisis. Profits for community banks increased more than 10 percent in the past year. In 2010, the banking industry set an all-time record with $171 billion in profits. Business lending has increased 75 percent since Dodd-Frank became law. Credit union membership has expanded by more than 16 million members since 2010, an increase of 18 percent.

This has happened in part because we have a system that is fairer, because bad actors are held accountable. The highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established and has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million consumers who were ripped off by unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices of bad actors. This tough consumer enforcement approach has put the entire financial industry on notice to follow the law and treat their consumers fairly or suffer the consequences.

So the economy is doing well, financial institutions are doing well, and consumers are finally being protected. The last thing we should do is go back to a failed, weak regulatory model that gave us bank bailouts and the Great Recession. But that is what the Republicans are offering the American people with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it was the last time, but one of the many times that we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we passed the Dodd- Frank Act, which protected consumers to the tune of 29 million of them to return $11.5 billion to $12 billion back to their families. I think that Nancy Pelosi has a pretty good record of helping out consumers. I think consumers of America would appreciate $11.5 billion returned to their family budgets.

The last time we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we saw a Dodd-Frank which has stabilized markets, which gave us 85 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

But the last time we heard from these free-market, Ayn Randian conservatives, oh, boy, these guys ran the economy straight into the ditch with their deregulatory schemes and their hostility to any kind of regulation on Big Business.

We saw unemployment rates well north of 10 percent in many parts of this country; we saw home values plummet; and we saw mass foreclosures, all because of the failed Ayn Randian, free-market fundamentalist attitudes that we see so often on the other side of the aisle.

I will just note to my freshman friend that the minority leader can talk as long as she wants. You might want to check the rules on that one.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, let me recognize that the problem that Representative McSally is trying to address here is a legitimate problem that we think needs to be focused on.

I must oppose it because it is inadequate and simply not enough. It would be good if we could get together and try to come up with a bipartisan solution to this problem that she has, I think, identified as a legitimate issue.

But ensuring that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, particularly key remittance channels for vulnerable populations, is a subject of great importance and one on which I and my Democratic colleagues remain focused.

Many of us represent districts with significant immigrant populations from Central and South America, the Caribbean, Africa, all across the globe. We have heard just how critical it is for immigrants here in the United States to be able to send money that sustain their loved ones back home.

While I am pleased that there is a bipartisan recognition about the need to preserve critical remittance channels for legitimate transactions, I must say that I am deeply concerned by some of the rhetoric and proposals that we have seen from the Trump administration, which make me fear that access to remittances, particularly for vulnerable populations, may be in jeopardy.

Not only has the President been overtly anti-immigrant in his rhetoric during the 2016 campaign and since, he put out an alarming proposal about how he would force Mexico to pay for a wall on our Southern border. He proposed cutting off access to remittance transfers for anyone who couldn't document their immigration status until Mexico agreed to pay an extortion payment of between $5 billion and $10 billion.

I also note that while it is essential that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, it is equally important that illegitimate and illicit transactions do not.

For this reason, I am concerned that the amendment before us falls short in that it fails to call the administration to disclose how it plans to curtail the flow of illicit funds, particularly funds which may be coming from key adversaries like the Russian Federation.

One doesn't have to look far to see that, despite record fines and numerous enforcement actions, global megabanks have continued to facilitate shady transactions even when such transactions are highly suspicious, have no economic rationale, and even likely involve money laundering and tax evasion.

One example of concern, Deutsche Bank, which operates in the U.S. and around the globe, was found by the Federal Reserve, New York State, and the United Kingdom to have facilitated a massive fraudulent trading scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia to unknown locales.

In order to better understand the scheme, I recently joined with a number of my colleagues in writing to the Treasury Secretary to ask for any and all records of suspicious activity related to Deutsche Bank's 2011 scheme in the Department's possession, including the names and identities of all parties who participated in, or benefited from, the scheme.

But, like much of the oversight Democrats are conducting on this administration, this request has apparently fallen on deaf ears.

So, again, I do appreciate the intent of the amendment--I even commend Representative McSally for identifying this is an important issue--it should have gone further in demanding that this administration disclose how it will curtail well-known schemes being used to facilitate fraud. So I must urge a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with Representative McSally on this important issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as if the CHOICE Act was not bad enough, this amendment piles on to the Republicans' misguided attacks on the highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I don't understand why my Republican friends don't get--29 million people got $11.5 billion of their money back because unscrupulous financial services firms unlawfully took their money. I would think we could get together on that. I would think we could agree that that is an important thing to work on. And now we are trying to mess with their building, for the sake of the children, no less.

The Bureau's inspector general conducted a thorough investigation of the Republican's made-up suggestion that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's building renovations were inappropriate.

The inspector general released an audit back in 2015, that stated:

We determined that construction costs appear reasonable

based on comparisons to an independent cost estimate and the

costs of two comparable building renovations identified by

the U.S. General Services Administration. We also determined

that potential renovation costs are below the amount

previously budgeted and obligated for the renovation. . . .

Current controls for approving, managing, and documenting

renovation costs and project decisions are designed

appropriately. . . .

May we put this issue to bed that there is some nefarious plot going on with the building? It wasn't legitimate when they first raised it. It is not legitimate now. And trying to bring a big deal up about their building, which is an issue that has been resolved, is not going to benefit the children of tomorrow. I think it will benefit the children for those 29 million families to get $12 billion back. Now, that might help some kids. That might pay for some lunches, some school fees, and a whole bunch of other things to help families. But just messing with the CFPB over their building will not help anyone.

Even if the House Republicans are not willing to thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for all it has done, I am.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a tough independent watchdog, has done a great job on behalf of American consumers, and has done a great job for American financial firms which do honest work. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, being a financial services firm that is actually selling a good product at a fair price and you have somebody down the street cutting corners, ripping off consumers, and you are losing your competitive advantage because you are honest. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps keep good financial firms good and not create this pervasive sentence to drag them in the wrong direction.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau maintains a transparent database that has collected over 1.1 million consumer complaints about financial institutions, and 97 percent of those have received a timely response.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has demystified financial transactions by requiring simple know-before-you-owe disclosures, and providing educational and comparison shopping tools so that consumers are empowered to make the right choice for them and their families.

Perhaps one of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's most notable accomplishments to date was its investigation of Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal. Let me tell you, Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal definitely hurt families and kids in those families, and the CFPB's good work helped those families.

Last September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $100 million for secretly opening up 2 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of its consumers and ordered the bank to compensate customers it harmed. This marks the largest penalty the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has imposed to date. And that, Mr. Chairman, has helped families and children.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to stop the petty stuff about the building. This has been reviewed by independent people. It is really just a waste of time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I proudly yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, it has been 7 years since the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, a monumental triumph of ideology over compassion and common sense. All of the promises of Dodd-Frank were broken. They promised us it would lift the economy, Mr. Chairman, but, instead, we are still stymied in the weakest, slowest recovery in the postwar era.

They promised us that it would end too big to fail, but, instead, it cynically codified too-big-to-fail banks in the law and backed it up with a taxpayer bailout fund.

It promised us, Mr. Chairman--they promised us that it would lead to a more stable economy, but, instead, the big banks are bigger. The small banks are fewer. We are losing a community bank or credit union a day.

Our corporate bond market, a key component of financing of jobs, historic levels of volatility and illiquidity.

They promised us, Mr. Chairman, that it would help the consumer, but, instead, we see free checking cut in half at banks, bank fees are up. The ranks of the unbanked have increased.

For many creditworthy borrowers, they are paying $500 more for an auto loan. Have you tried getting a mortgage recently? They are harder to come by and cost hundreds of dollars more to close.

Every promise of Dodd-Frank has been broken. And, Mr. Chairman, we hear about it every day. I heard from Julieann, a banker in Massachusetts, and she wrote, `` `We have experienced a spike in loan declines to women,' for their investigation identified that women attempting to buy the family home to settle their divorce and stabilize their family were being declined at a high rate due to the Dodd-Frank Qualified Mortgage rules. . . .''

Dodd-Frank is hurting recently divorced women. I heard from Allen in New Hampshire who talked about his need for a new car, but he couldn't find a loan from a bank, and he said:

But for my local dealer's efforts on my behalf, there is no

doubt I would not be driving my current car, and this was a

desperate situation, for I am the sole income earner for my

family. My wife is ill, and we have two young children in

school. After my old vehicle broke down, I needed to find

reliable, replacement transportation so that I could get to

work and continue to provide for my family. Please ensure

that financing car and truck dealerships are not stymied by

Dodd-Frank's CFPB.

I heard from Maxine in Salt Lake City, who talked about her company. She said:

Last February, we were awarded a major catering contract

for all food services in the new performing arts center. The

new contract will require us to make a major investment in

equipment in small wares. We will be able to hire 50

additional staff. Unfortunately, red tape got in the way,

turned what should have been a golden opportunity into an

unbelievable headache. Three banks informed us that our

rating, according to new bank regulations imposed by Dodd-

Frank, disqualified us from consideration.

Mr. Chairman, we have letter after letter, email after email, showing how Dodd-Frank is harming working families, harming small businesses, crushing community banks.

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is a better, smarter way, and it is called the Financial CHOICE Act. It is going to create hope and opportunity for investors and consumers, and entrepreneurs, and it stands for economic growth for all, but bank bailouts for none.

Contrary to Dodd-Frank, and what every Democrat will come here today--my friends on the other side of the aisle--and defend, we will end bank bailouts once and for all. We will replace bailout with bankruptcy. We will replace economic stagnation with a growing healthy economy. We will ensure that there will finally be pay increases, wage increases for working Americans who haven't seen a pay increase since Dodd-Frank became law.

We will replace Washington micromanagement with market discipline. We will ensure that we replace taxpayer money with private money because for every bank who will have a 10 percent simple leverage ratio, which is analogous to having a private insurance policy against bailout, we will let them have that Dodd-Frank off-ramp, and that is so important.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are also going to hold Wall Street accountable with the toughest penalties that they have seen, and no more bailouts. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they oppose the Financial CHOICE Act and support the status quo of Dodd-Frank.

We will make sure that there is needed regulatory relief for our small banks and credit unions, because it is our small banks who loan to our small businesses, that create the job engine of America, and make sure that the American Dream is not a pipe dream; but, instead, it is a dream and a vision where we will only be limited by our imagination.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), a real leader on our committee and chairman of the Financial Institution and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of our Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a leader on our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is a fighter on our committee. She is the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a gentleman on leave from the Financial Services Committee and one we proudly call our own.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who is the chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that perhaps the gentlewoman from California is unaware that the VFW has tweeted that it lauds Representative Hensarling for a commitment to protect veterans, and then:

We are so happy that the Financial CHOICE Act has been

endorsed by over 100 groups, including the Concerned Veterans

for America, because of what we do to protect their freedoms.

At this point, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a proud member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, apparently the gentleman forgot that the big Wall Street banks also oppose this, according to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times.

And I am now very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a member of our committee and chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend and neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a real workhorse of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), an incredibly talented member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the Financial Services Committee whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a new and very knowledgeable member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. Chairman, to better balance the time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), another new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a huge fighter for freedom and a fighter against Federal price controls.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank both gentlemen for their steadfast leadership on this issue. Basic economics tell us that when government fixes market prices, consumer welfare suffers. So it is not a surprise that researchers have found that the Durbin amendment resulted in a net loss of perhaps $25 billion for consumers.

But in a larger sense, what we have is a legal dispute between two parties. This is an issue that belongs in the courts, not Congress, which is why we sought to repeal the Durbin amendment.

I remain hopeful that Congress will correct this mistake, and I will work towards that goal in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), another new member of the committee.

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

We have now had 7 years of history with Dodd-Frank, and what do we know? We know that the big banks are bigger. We know that the small banks are fewer. The gentleman cites some statistics about lending, but what he left out is, we are losing a community bank or credit union a day, and they are not dying of natural causes. They are dying of the dreaded Dodd-Frank disease.

Our small businesses continue to suffer. It takes small banks to lend to small businesses. The job engine of America and small bank business lending isn't recovering, and it can't recover, as long as Dodd-Frank is on the rolls of the Federal Register.

I got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is time. It is time for a better way. It is time to help our struggling families. That is really what this is all about. We have had 7 years of Dodd-Frank, and yet working Americans haven't received a pay increase. Their small businesses can't get loans. Struggling families have not seen their savings recover from the great financial panic which, oh, by the way, was brought about by government in the first place, with dumb regulation to put people into homes they couldn't afford to keep.

And let's also remember that Dodd-Frank is actually hurting the consumers it claims to help. Free checking was cut in half. Credit cards, there are fewer of them. They cost 200 to 300 basis points more. Have you tried to get a mortgage lately? They are harder to come by. They cost hundreds of more dollars to close.

Instead, what we have is, Washington elites now making the decision on whether or not we get to put a credit card in our wallet, whether we get to put a mortgage on our home.

No, Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. It is why we must enact the Financial CHOICE Act. There will be economic growth for all, bank bailouts for none, and we will, once again, have an America that is only limited by the size of its dreams.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all to support the Financial CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is purely technical in nature that addresses a few discrete issues in the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Specifically, it clarifies the noninsurance-related functions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration subject to congressional appropriations.

This amendment will not--not--affect the ability of the NCUA to determine the appropriate allocation of expenses between their insurance and other functions for purpose of their overall funding, but it will, for the first time, give Congress the power of the purse--our constitutional power of the purse--over many of the FDIC and NCUA's operating expenses.

Additionally, the amendment revises the vesting of the appointment power for certain positions and clarifies congressional access to nonpublic meetings of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I know that my friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle spoke about rhetoric. Unfortunately, that is pretty well all we have heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I am absolutely fascinated, Mr. Chairman, how often Members on the other side of the aisle say: I care so much about community banks; I care so much about small business.

But, Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments that they filed on

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership.

Indeed, the whole issue of data security is so vital to our constituents, so many of them have been victimized by identity theft. So I appreciate his leadership on this issue, and I know that Chairman Luetkemeyer in our committee will be leading on this issue. I support this underlying amendment.

I do have some outstanding questions on what type of multifactor authentication would be required. I want to ensure that we do not specify the technology, that this is a sense of Congress provision. But I look forward to working very closely with Congressman Smucker to refine the concept as it goes forward, and I thank him for his leadership.

May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, the last time this body listened to the minority leader and enacted Dodd-Frank, permanent Wall Street bailouts were enshrined into law. That is what the gentlewoman represents, but somehow we did not hear that in her speech. The last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, what we see is that working Americans have not received a pay increase. Their paychecks are stagnant and their savings remain decimated the last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader. Since we listened to her, we have seen that free checking has been cut in half, bank fees have gone up, mortgages are more difficult to come by and they are more expensive to close. That is the last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader.

Her counsel must be rejected, as should the Washington elitism that is represented by her philosophy must be rejected as well. It is why Dodd-Frank must be rejected and why the Financial CHOICE Act must be enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the gentleman from New York.

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

H.R. 10 is being called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act by the American public because this bill is truly the wrong choice for all of us. Indeed, this is one of the worst bills I have seen in my time in Congress.

This bill is a vehicle for Donald Trump's agenda to deregulate and help out Wall Street. It destroys nearly all of the important policies we put in place in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers. This bill would create vast harm and lead us right back to the bad old days.

We all remember the suffering that resulted from the Great Recession: $13 trillion in household wealth was lost; 11 million people lost their homes; the unemployment rate hit 10 percent. The impact was enormous and felt by all. This bill would pave the way back to economic damage of the same scale--or worse.

The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act guts the highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which works to make sure that hardworking Americans are not subjected to predatory practices in the financial marketplace.

Since its creation, the Consumer Bureau has returned nearly $12 billion to more than 29 million consumers who have been ripped off by financial institutions. This bill would foolishly put a stop to the Consumer Bureau's good work and once again leave consumers vulnerable.

That is not all. Across the board, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act removes essential Dodd-Frank protections for consumers, investors, and our economy.

Despite what Republicans will tell you, banks large and small are doing just fine since the passage of Dodd-Frank. Last year, they posted record profits. Here is the bottom line: Donald Trump and Republicans want to open the door to another economic catastrophe like the Great Recession and return us to a financial system where reckless and predatory practices harm our families and communities. We cannot allow that to happen.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this catastrophically bad bill.

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

Mr. Chair, the Speaker and Mr. Hensarling would have you think this is all about community banks being hurt, but let me tell you what this is all about.

U.S. and foreign banks have paid more than $160 billion in penalties to resolve cases brought against them by the Justice Department and Federal regulatory agencies for cases involving collusion, fraud against consumers, bribery, and other abuses.

There were 144 major cases of $100 million or more against 26 large U.S. and foreign banks. Just look at this: Bank of America, $56 billion; J.P.Morgan, $28 billion; Citigroup, $15 billion; Wells Fargo-- and you know about Wells Fargo and what they did--$11 billion; Goldman Sachs, $9 billion; Morgan Stanley, $5 billion. This is about rip-offs, so this bill will prevent us from being able to assess these kinds of penalties on those who are ripping off the American public.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), ranking member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who is the ranking member of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I have just got to stop some of this misrepresentation.

Exempt from CFPB's supervision and enforcement, Wall Street reform-- that is Dodd-Frank--recognizes community banks and credit unions have a small number of employees and a better consumer protection track record; thus, they are carved out from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's supervision.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's supervision and enforcement focuses on the largest banks that they won't talk about here today and non-banks that compete with small banks and credit unions.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), one of our senior members of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked: Who does not support this bill?

Let me tell him: advocates, experts, civil rights groups, labor groups, veterans groups, pension plans, and company shareholders.

We also received a petition urging a ``no'' vote from more than 220,000 concerned Americans.

Let me just say that AARP hates this bill. That is who opposes this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, continuing to remind Mr. Duffy who opposes this bill, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America opposes this bill.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, continuing to answer Mr. Duffy about who opposes this bill, the Fleet Reserve Association, which includes the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, we have already debunked what we have been told by the opposition about the oversight, CFPB's supervision and enforcement. Of course, we have told you about that. Let's take a moment to tell you that community banks have showed strength in residential, commercial, industrial loans, and small- business lending. In fact, overall loan growth at community banks has been faster than at bigger banks. In the fourth quarter of 2016, lending was up 8.3 percent for community banks and 4.8 percent for larger banks.

Mr. Chair, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, since it has been asked about who opposes this bill, I wanted to make sure that we include in our information to them the religious organizations. The Congregation of St. Joseph, the Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment, the Dominican Sisters of Houston, the Sisters of Mercy, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, the Christian Brothers Investment Services, the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and the Mercy Investment Services all urge a ``no'' vote on this terrible bill.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a senior member now--he has been there for a while--of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Members on the opposite side of the aisle have come here talking about what they are doing for small banks and how they are against the big banks. Let me tell you about a letter that was sent yesterday, June 7, from the American Bankers Association. They said: ``We are pleased that this legislation contains provisions that ABA and our member banks have long supported.''

Who are their members? JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America. Wall Street loves this bad bill.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a senior progressive champion of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Ellison and our ranking member, Congresswoman Waters, for their great leadership on behalf of American consumers, American investors, and American taxpayers.

I rise in opposition to the amendment and to the bill.

Mr. Chair, today House Republicans are pushing a dangerous Wall Street first bill that would drag us right back to the days of the Great Recession. Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that devastated families in every State in the Union: hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs every month, and the unemployment rate soared to 10 percent; more than 11 million Americans lost their homes through foreclosure; $13 trillion in wealth, including families' hard-earned retirement savings and college savings, was destroyed.

On the night of Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Treasury Secretary came to the Capitol for an emergency meeting with congressional leaders, Democrats and Republicans from the House and the Senate, to inform us of the financial meltdown. Secretary Paulson described the financial meltdown, which was horrific. When I asked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, what he thought of what he was telling us, Chairman Bernanke told us that, if we did not act immediately, we would not have an economy by Monday.

We would not have an economy by Monday.

Tens of millions of middle class families across America still bear the scars. You saw on the right the rise of the Tea Party, on the left, Occupy Wall Street.

The Democratic Congress vowed that Main Street taxpayers must never again pay the price for the recklessness of some on Wall Street. I don't paint everybody there with the same brush, but many on Wall Street, the predatory lenders and profiteers, had abused American families for far too long.

With Dodd-Frank, Democrats enacted the strongest Wall Street consumer financial protections in history, critical reforms to protect hardworking Americans and to insist on accountability from Wall Street.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the law created has returned nearly $12 billion worth of compensation to 29 million wronged Americans--many of them seniors, many of them servicemembers.

But with this bill, the Republicans will undo these safeguards, eviscerate the Consumer Bureau, and take our country back to the days of massive taxpayer bailouts. We cannot let that happen.

Our Republican colleagues have named this dreadful and dangerous legislation, this Wall Street-first legislation, the Financial CHOICE Act. The Financial CHOICE Act to prey on investors, to prey on consumers, to prey on taxpayers. That is the choice they want to give the financial institutions.

But let's look at the appalling choices it represents. Instead of protecting consumers, Republicans choose to help those who try to cheat consumers. Instead of protecting seniors, Republicans choose to help those who prey on retirement savings. Instead of protecting men and women in uniform, Republicans choose to help those who take advantage of our servicemembers' families while our heroes are defending our freedom on the battlefield. Instead of advancing an economy that works for everyone, Republicans choose to help the special interests get richer and to stick working people with a bill for a bailout when it goes wrong.

They have always been handmaidens of the special interests. We know that. But even for them, when we think we have seen it all, this really takes them to a new low.

So they call it the Financial CHOICE Act, but these are not the choices that the American people want. They are choices of the Republican Party that puts Wall Street first, that are handmaidens of special interests.

So while Director Comey testified in the Senate earlier today, on this side of the Capitol, House Republicans are feeding working families to the wolves on Wall Street.

As I said, I don't paint all on Wall Street with the same brush. The pervasive incentives baked into the Republican bill will enable the predatory to punish the honest.

Now, here we go. Think of it. We have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 29 million Americans benefitting from $12 billion in compensation. Oh, they don't like that. They want to do away with that.

The Volcker Rule, which would prevent the financial institutions from taking risk at taxpayers' expense, the classic Republican: privatize the gain, nationalize the risk. If we win, the private sector and these banks benefit. If we lose, the taxpayer pays the tab.

Something that had nothing to do with the Dodd-Frank bill, the fiduciary rule, which only simply said that financial advisers should have the interest of the investor they are advising at heart. This bill says no. We are doing away with the very compromised, I might say, fiduciary rule to protect investors.

So as I say, I don't paint all of Wall Street with the same brush. The American people want to know who stands with them. I know you want me not to talk about this because it is the truth about what you are doing to the American people, but as the minority leader, I have the right to speak on the floor. You had plenty of time to spread your malicious legislation to hurt the American people. I am using my time to speak the truth to them about what this bill does to their financial stability.

The American people want to know who stands with them and who stands with the special interests. My Republican colleagues, in the name of hardworking American families, I use my time on behalf of America's hardworking families, not on behalf of special interests.

I urge my colleagues to make the choice to reject this dastardly Wall Street-first bill and to vote in support of our men and women in uniform, our seniors who have built our country, in support of those hardworking Americans who are saving for their children's education, hoping to achieve the American Dream of homeownership, and do not want to be preyed upon by Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the economic downturn in 2008 caused Michiganders and folks around the country to lose their jobs, families to lose their savings, and even some to lose their homes. Since that time, folks on the other side of the aisle have been attempting to convince the American people that the Dodd-Frank Act is ``the answer'' to the financial crisis, despite the law failing to actually address the root cause of the downturn. In reality, Dodd-Frank has made it more difficult for hardworking taxpayers to secure a future for themselves and their children by denying them the economic recovery that they deserve.

Hardworking Americans rely on capital markets to save for everything from college to retirement. We as Congress must act to eliminate the burdensome and unnecessary red tape created under Dodd-Frank to ensure U.S. capital markets remain the most effective in the world so that all investors can receive the greatest return on their investments.

Since Dodd-Frank, our capital markets have become less stable, less efficient, and less liquid, which has made it more difficult for small businesses and American job creators around the country to access the necessary financial resources in order to expand and create jobs. In fact, Dodd-Frank has severed access to the capital markets for Main Street businesses and entrepreneurs who are the heartbeat of the American economy.

In order to succeed, small and growing companies need capital and credit--the lifeblood for growth, expansion, and job creation. Yet the government has continued to construct arbitrary walls that cut them off from essential financing as smaller companies are caught in a sea of red tape created by Washington bureaucrats.

Enough is enough. In order to increase economic opportunity, we must enact commonsense regulatory reform and restore accountability to Wall Street and to Washington. The House Financial Services Committee achieves this goal through the carefully crafted CHOICE Act, which we are debating here today.

The Financial CHOICE Act eliminates Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all regulatory structure which has strangled community financial institutions with overly burdensome regulations that were meant for the largest banks here in America.

Mr. Chairman, by enacting the CHOICE Act, community banks and credit unions can utilize their resources to help their individual customers and small businesses achieve financial independence. If we want small businesses to continue to be the engine of economic growth, we must remove the regulatory red tape that is preventing community lenders from supporting these small business job creators.

We hold Wall Street accountable. We hold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau accountable, and we make it more effective to do its job. No government agency should be unaccountable to the American taxpayer.

Dodd-Frank was a larger social agenda waiting for a crisis, and I understand that from my friends on the other side; but today, small businesses and hardworking Americans continue to pay the price.

The Financial CHOICE Act enacts progrowth reforms, restores accountability, and provides opportunity. I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment offered by Congressman Hollingsworth, who is a great member of our committee.

But folks watching this, you have to understand what is going on. You just heard about how we are trying to roll back things, roll back bipartisan consensus. We have bipartisan consensus on this.

This very issue was in a bill that was proposed by current OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. In fact, when it came out of committee, there were 4 ``no'' votes against it. The ranking member herself voted for this very issue in a Business Development Corporation bill, a BDC bill, that had been sponsored the last Congress. In addition, the omnibus bill that had passed had this very provision in it as well.

So what you are seeing is hypocrisy, at best. Gamesmanship and politics really is probably what is going on.

This amendment builds upon a bipartisan provision in the CHOICE Act that directs the SEC to do something that had been an oversight. It is streamlining these securities-offering provisions.

I know it is complicated and very esoteric, but these well-known, seasoned issuers, or WKSIs as they are known, really have been a secure and safe way of investing for Joe and Janet retirement investor. That is what I like to the call them. It is my mom and dad and your mom and dad, us, and our brothers and sisters. It is retail investors. What this amendment does is conforms the filing and offering regulations for closed-end funds to those traditional operating companies.

With that, I offer my support and encourage support. Let's stop the hypocrisy and politics.