Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that information.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the last year, we have continually run up against deadlines on how we were going to keep the government of the United States operating properly.

The omnibus is currently being discussed. The negotiations for the omnibus were made possible by the fact that a significant number of Democrats voted for it, while a significant number of Republicans voted against it. It was a bipartisan statement proceeding.

That omnibus needs to be passed by March 23. We are not scheduled to be here, Mr. Speaker, on March 23. That does not mean that we might not go over, but it means that it needs to pass the House and the Senate and be sent to the President prior to or on March 22.

Negotiations are, unfortunately, not proceeding as effectively as I would hope they would. I am hopeful that there will be a clean bill from either

side without any riders that would lead either side to oppose that bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue. First of all, let me say that the leader has announced a number of bills for consideration next week. I venture to say that an extraordinarily infinitesimal amount of the American people have any ideas what those bills do or are urging those bills to be passed. I do not mean that they are without substance. I mean that they are not the issues on the mind of the American people. This is the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker appeared on television at a townhall on CNN some 14 months ago. He made a promise at a CNN townhall to a Dreamer that asked him a question.

House Speaker Paul Ryan strongly suggested to that young woman that ``revocation on protection for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out.''

Notwithstanding that, the President of the United States put that Dreamer and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers--indeed, close to 2 million Dreamers--at risk by withdrawing their protections, which Speaker Ryan indicated would not happen: ``Will not be carried out.''

That was some 6 months ago, Mr. Speaker. Not the CNN; that was 14 months ago.

I have talked to the Speaker, I have brought it up continuously on this floor, and I have been told by the Republican leadership: Don't worry, we have got until March 5 to do something.

I was told that in October, I was told that in November, I was told that in December, I was told that in January, and I was told that in February: Don't worry, we have got until March 5.

March 5 came and went. No action. None.

That Dreamer to whom the Speaker spoke is still at risk, still worried, and still twisting in the wind. Eighty-six percent of the American public, Mr. Speaker, say that that young woman should not be kicked out of the country that she knows: brought here as a child, went to elementary school, middle school, high school; some to college, some practicing medicine, some practicing law, some being social workers, many being teachers.

I was told: Don't worry. They were told: Don't worry, March 5 is a long way away.

It has come and gone.

And we are told this week that we will consider H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act. I am not sure that any of my constituents have talked to me about the TAILOR Act.

H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, I doubt that a single one of my constituents has talked to me about that act.

They are fillers, Mr. Speaker. They are fillers while we fiddle, while Rome burns.

I have asked, Leader Pelosi has asked, frankly, and leaders of the Catholic Church and other denominations have asked to put the Dreamer bill on the floor in the people's House.

The Speaker of this House, when he became the Speaker, said: We will not duck the tough issues. We will take them head-on. Don't worry, we have got until March 5.

March 5 is behind us, and we consider these bills, which I think are filler bills, and controversial bills at that.

We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the majority party put on the floor three bills on an issue of vital importance to the American people, that every American knows about, that the people's House ought to have the right to speak on, and express the views of the American people and establish policy they support--86 percent of them.

So I will, again, ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to put the Dream Act on the floor; to put Mr. Goodlatte's bill on the floor; to put the bipartisan bill, sponsored by Mr. Hurd from Texas and Mr. Aguilar from California; put them on the floor.

Take the issues. I know they are tough. The Speaker said he wants to take the issues head-on, Mr. Speaker, not duck. Show some political courage. And not only that, respect this institution and every Member in it who wants to express their opinion on this legislation of critical importance to at least 1.8 million Americans, vital to their future, to their life.

And 86 percent of Americans believe they ought to be protected, just as Speaker Ryan pledged they would be 14 months ago when he said revocation of protection for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out. Mr. Speaker, that bill ought to be brought to the floor to carry out that representation and that assurance.

I have been patient. I have talked. I have worked. I have come to meetings. I met with the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague and friend, the majority leader, and Mr. Durbin and others, 25 of us sitting around the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, when the President said we will take care of DACA, and he said: You send me a bill; I will sign it, and I will take the heat.

He was not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker, because we had a bill, called the commonsense crowd, about 25 United States Senators brought a bill to the floor. It took care of a couple of the things the President wanted to take care of, but it wasn't good enough for him, notwithstanding the fact he said: You send me a bill. You decide, i.e., the Congress, the coequal branch of government that now stands suppliant in the face of saying we will pass something only if the President will sign it.

That is not what the framers meant, Mr. Speaker. We are a coequal branch, not a subservient branch of the government of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, if we brought those three bills to the floor that I just referred to--the Dream Act, cosponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, and Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat; and the Goodlatte bill, sponsored by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and a bipartisan bill sponsored by many Republicans and many Democrats, Mr. Hurd, a Republican from Texas, and Mr. Aguilar, a Democrat from California--if we brought those bills to the floor, the problem is they know the Hurd-Aguilar bill would pass, which would reflect the views of 86 percent of the American people.

No, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the American people are overwhelmingly for that, we are going to be considering H.R. 1116, H.R. 4545, H.R. 4263, ignoring that 1.8 million people, ignoring that promise that the Speaker made to that young woman that she would be protected.

The Speaker has told me over and over again: Oh, I want to do this. I want to do that. I am going to have some task force. I am going to do this, that, and the other.

March 5 has come and gone. Nothing has happened.

I used to be the majority leader. I could bring a bill to the floor. If I said something was going to happen, I tried to make sure it happened.

If I sound angry, it is because I am angry. If I sound frustrated, it is because I am frustrated. The people's House ought to be given the opportunity to express the will of the American people on this issue.

There is another issue, and we do have a bill, the so-called Rutherford bill that we are bringing to the floor on suspension. We are probably all going to vote for the Rutherford bill.

But we are going to ignore a bill, as we have been ignoring for years under Republican leadership, a bill that is supported even more than the DACA, Dreamer bills, and that is comprehensive background checks, which clearly will save lives, which will close the loopholes, which will make sure that those with criminal records don't get guns, will make sure that those with mental health issues don't get guns, will make sure that terrorists who can't fly on airplanes can't get guns.

Mr. Speaker, we have been urging and pleading for that bill to be brought to the floor over and over and over again. The National Rifle Association is not for that bill. I can't understand why. Rather, we bring a bill to the floor that will help schools--I think that is positive--do what they can do right now.

Should we help them? Of course. But we ought not to pretend that we are doing something to make our children safer in their schools, to make concertgoers safer at their concerts, to make churchgoers safer in their church, to make people who go to a nightclub safer in that nightclub, to make people who go to shopping centers safer in those shopping centers. We ought not to pretend the Rutherford bill is going to do that.

Will comprehensive background checks do it all? It will not. There are other things I think ought to be done. But at a minimum, the American people think that we ought to make sure that everybody who purchases a weapon has a background check to make sure that they are not a criminal, somebody with a substantial mental health problem that makes them unsafe to own a gun, spousal abusers.

Mr. Speaker, the bills we are going to consider next week I am sure have some merit from some perception, from somebody's perception, but the two bills that I have just discussed are on the minds of the American people, and millions are at risk if we do not pass legislation dealing with that issue.

I do not criticize the Rutherford bill, but it will not solve the problem, and everybody knows it will not solve the problem; nor, frankly, will universal background checks in and of itself solve the problem, but experts say it will save thousands of lives over time. It would have saved lives in Charleston, South Carolina, the nine people killed in Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I like to work in a bipartisan way, but that requires respecting one another. My Republican friends wrote a book in which they were very critical of the way we ran the House because it wasn't open and transparent. I would ask them to reread that book. I have read it.

My friend is smiling.

In that book, they really wanted to change the way this House runs, make it open and transparent, take the tough issues head-on. That is what the Speaker said.

Mr. Speaker, they are not taking the tough issues head-on. They are hiding from the NRA. They are hiding from some of their hardline people who want to kick people out of America, who want to take that lamp that the Statue of Liberty holds high and bring it down.

Yes, I am disappointed. Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am frustrated. I came to this body to express my opinion on the important issues confronting my country and to try to make it better.

Mr. Speaker, I would plead with the majority leader to perhaps delay those four bills. Rutherford's could be on suspension. It won't take much time. Delay those three bills that a miniscule amount of Americans, there may be 100, there may be 200 Americans who would be concerned those bills aren't brought forward, and put on the floor the three bills I referred to--the Dream Act, the Goodlatte bill, and the Hurd-Aguilar bill--and let the people's House express its opinion. That is not an unfair request.

And let the background check, universal background check bill come to the floor, and let the House vote. I know that there are some Republicans who don't want to vote on that bill because the public is so overwhelmingly for it and they may upset the NRA. That is what this business is about, Mr. Speaker, expressing openly and clearly what we think the policies of our country ought to be to make our public better, to make our country safer.

Mr. Speaker, I would end on those two issues, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to just make a correction.

I said a significant number of Democrats voted for it and a significant number of Republicans voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader talked about a lot of issues, one of which was NICS. What he didn't say was they put a poison pill in the Fix NICS bill, which is why so many of us voted against it on concealed carry. There is a disagreement in this House on that. We disagree, for the most part, on that provision. We don't think that makes America safer. There are differences of opinion on that.

My suggestion to the majority leader is, the Rutherford bill is on the floor. By unanimous consent, let's put the Fix NICS bill in the Rutherford bill without the poison pill in it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to see if he will be agreeable to doing that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my question was, will you agree--you talked a lot about NICS and where it is failing, and we can fix it. We agree with that.

So what I am asking you--you put the Rutherford bill on. I think most of us are going to vote for the Rutherford bill. Maybe all of us will vote for the Rutherford bill, which says let's help schools make themselves more safe.

Why should anybody be opposed to that?

What I say to you is: you just spent a significant amount of time talking about how we could make the NICS process work better, but that many of us voted against it and it hasn't moved in the Senate.

I guarantee you--I don't know that I can guarantee you, but my thinking is: if you do the Rutherford bill, and if you add in the Fix NICS bill--not with concealed carry, but the Fix NICS bill that you talk about in the Rutherford bill--

I will work with you to get that passed in the United States Senate, and I think we will be successful.

My question to the majority leader: Will you agree to a unanimous consent request to add the Fix NICS bill into the Rutherford bill on the suspension calendar?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no, because we want to continue to have that on which we agree defeated by that on which we do not agree. That is the pattern. And when the gentleman says all those bipartisan bills, there were some, obviously, Democrat votes on many of those bills, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a word about a bill that has the majority's support on the floor of the House of Representatives that I spoke about, and that is Hurd-Aguilar. Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said if Goodlatte was put on the floor, it will lose 50, 60, 70 Republicans. Mr. Goodlatte said that, and that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee. It hasn't been brought to the floor because it would fail.

Hurd-Aguilar, which has not been considered by the committee, but which has the majority of votes on this floor, that bill has not been brought up; just as the bill that passed the United States Senate 5 years ago, to deal with so many of the problems that immigration confronts us with, including security at the border, 5 years, has not been brought up. March 5, nothing happened. Come and gone.

The majority leader spent a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about things that are important but were not on the subject because he doesn't want to deal with the subject. Apparently the Republicans don't want to deal with the subject and they won't put it on the floor. They are obstructing the will of the American people and they are putting thousands and thousands and thousands of people at risk.

The majority leader, with all due respect, is wrong. All of the DACA recipients are not protected, and many of them are not signing up again because they are afraid their government will come after them. They feel they were flim-flammed.

I disagree with the majority leader, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe what the President did is absolutely legal. It is consistent with what Ronald Reagan did, with what George H.W. Bush did, with what Bill Clinton did, and what George W. Bush did.

Every President, since I have been serving here, has modified immigration consistent with their executive authority. There was nothing mentioned about the quote of the Speaker that was clearly directed at this young woman to say that revocation of protections for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out.

Nobody can sign up for DACA protection now under the court order-- nobody. You can re-up, but you can't sign up--1.8 million. The President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, sent a message down here, or maybe he tweeted it, they would agree to 1.8 million and a pathway to citizenship, parenthesis, if you agree with this, if you agree with that, if you agree with the other.

That is not what was said at the White House, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the majority leader. He brought up some other points, said we need to agree to discuss those. I agreed to discuss them. I didn't agree to agree to them, nor did anybody else in that room. And the President of the United States, 25 Members of the House and Senate sitting around the Cabinet table, said: Are we agreed that we are going to solve the DACA issue first?

Not a single Member demurred. Not a single Member said no--not a single one, Mr. Speaker, yet we can't get that bill to the floor. And the majority leader says: Oh, well, we are bringing up a bill that will create jobs.

I am for doing that. And, frankly, if we do that the week after or the week after that--frankly, I don't know the bills well enough to be speaking about them with much depth of information as to how they were voted on in committee, but my inkling is that the majority Democrats--I don't know what is in there, in these bills--may well have voted against them. Most of those bills coming out of committee are pretty partisan.

We didn't discuss the three bills that I brought up. The majority leader didn't mention them. They have bipartisan support on two; and one, the chairman of the committee admits, does not have the votes on this floor. He would get no Democratic votes, and he would lose a substantial number of Republican votes, and the majority leader knows that, Mr. Speaker.

And we talk about NICS. I want to fix NICS. I don't want concealed carry to be part of that. And I regret that the majority leader would not agree to let's fix NICS and put the Rutherford bill through. That would pass the Senate, but he has got a bill over there he knows won't pass the Senate but maybe it makes a good talking point.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what we have to do. We have been waiting a long time, not just the 6 months since September, waiting for March 5 to come and go. We have been waiting for a long time to have bills on the floor with an open amendment process so we can, in fact, do the people's will on immigration and on protecting our students and our families and our citizens from the irresponsible use of guns.

We are not against the responsible use of guns. We believe the Second Amendment protects people on owning handguns and hunting guns; but the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, said there are things that the community could do. There are things that the government can do to protect its people and to make sure that gun use, within the framework of the Second Amendment, is responsible.

I don't know what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. I don't think anybody doubts that the Hurd-Aguilar bill has the majority votes in this House. I would urge people to, if they believe in this issue, sign a discharge petition. They refused to bring the Export-Import Bank bill to the floor for 1\1/2\ or 2 years. Some of the leadership weren't for it. As a matter of fact, the two highest weren't for it. But 127 Republicans to 117 Republicans, they were for it, and over 300 votes were for it, and they would not bring it to the floor short of a discharge petition.

That is not transparency; that is not openness; that is not taking the tough issues head on. That is obfuscating. That is undermining democracy in the people's House. If the gentleman wants to respond, I will yield to him. If not, I will yield back the balance of my time.

I did not.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the leader what I said, and I knew what I said, and I know what the facts are. The Republicans could not pass that bill on their own. There were over 60 Republicans who voted ``no'' on that bill, and they got 167. You may have given me--or 170.

That is, Mr. Speaker, almost 50 short of passage. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, when I was majority leader, we didn't get much help from the other side, and we always had 218 to pass what we wanted to pass on our side. Seventy-three of our Democrats voted for it, which is why it passed. Not the majority, because the majority of us were so frustrated.

Again, the majority leader has not spoken to the bills. He has spoken about what we have passed. And the CHIP bill, by the way, was brought up weeks after its authority expired. Weeks after it expired.

He says it was because of our committee. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can't stop anything in committee. They have a majority on every committee and can bring a bill up tomorrow--the next hour if they decide to do so.

No, after.

It expired on September 30. You didn't bring it up until weeks after that.

I have consulted with the staff person for whom you have great respect and affection, and she says that I am right. Now, she is my staffer, so maybe she is somewhat biased, but I will tell you that we believe we are right on that.

But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is not what we have done in the past--particularly what we have done. And we all are for CHIP. That is not the point. The point is we have two critical pieces of legislation this House must address and that the overwhelming majority of the American people think we ought to address and think we ought to pass and are for. And I don't mean 51 percent or 52 percent of them. I mean 86 percent of the people or more. It is not a close question.

And rather than talking about, well, we did this, we passed 5,950 bills, I am not talking about those bills. I am talking about bills we haven't brought to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't allowed the House to consider; that we have hundreds of thousands of kids, young people who we respect and who are teachers, are doctors, are workers in our factories making a difference, working in restaurants and hotels.

I was with the Chamber of Commerce in Maryland just the other day, and three different CEOs came up to me and said: We have got DACA people working for us and doing an excellent job, and they are worried that they are going to be kicked out of the only country they know.

But we talk about NICS, and we talk about this, that, and the other. Bring those bills to the floor. That is what we are asking for. We want that respect. We want that respect for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to the majority leader again. It is those two bills that we believe would pass with significant majorities in this House--the three bills, and we can choose between them. We have offered the queen of the hill, with the explanation for those who may be watching and not bored stiff. One of those three bills that I have mentioned, one a Republican bill, the other two bipartisan bills, Ros- Lehtinen-Roybal-Allard bill and the Hurd-Aguilar bill, both of those bills are bipartisan. Certainly one of those will get a significant majority of this House, and I am not denigrating the bills.

I may or may not be for them that are on the schedule, but there are no issues that the country feels are more important right now than background checks, and there is no issue more timely than fixing--as the Speaker pledged to do 14 months ago, putting at risk that young woman and hundreds of thousands of other individuals in our country similarly situated. That is what we ought to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the leader spoke in a very calm and reasoned way. I will do the same.

As an aside, I will tell you the CHIP bill passed on November 3, over a month after its authorization expired.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader talks about coming to compromise. I went down to the White House. Mr. Durbin and I talked about whether we would go to the White House. We went to the White House out of respect for the Presidency, out of a hope that the discussions that we had at the White House would lead to resolution of a serious issue threatening hundreds of thousands, indeed, close to 2 million individuals who know America as their country and who 86 percent of Americans think ought to stay here in America.

In that meeting, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States said--and he said it on television. You don't have to take my word. There is a video record of what the President said. What he said is we would take care of the DACA issue, consistent, Mr. Speaker, with what Speaker Ryan said to that young woman when he said that the revocation of protections for Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out.

There was no parenthetical addition, if we do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, W. There was no parenthetical phrase. He said: We will not put you at risk, young woman, and those similarly situated.

We have a bipartisan coalition on this floor, but the leader speaks about going into a room--if you want to have a pejorative, a back room, privately--to try to resolve issues not directly related to the DACA protectees.

They are here. The President said they ought to stay here. And the President made a representation, Mr. Speaker, that if we passed a bill, he would sign it. But as the Senate considered a compromise piece of legislation, agreed to by Republican Senators and Democratic Senators, just a few hours before it was brought to the floor, the President said he would veto it. That was not what he said on television in the White House. He said that he would take the heat, if heat there is, and sign the bill that we sent down.

Now we have a Speaker of the House and a majority leader of the Senate who say we won't send something down to the President unless he agrees to sign it, meaning that the House and Senate will not act independently of the President's imprimatur. How sad a position it is that the people's House and the United States Senate have subjugated themselves to the President of the United States.

I presume, Mr. Speaker, that prolonging this discussion apparently will make no difference. But, Mr. Speaker, our side of the aisle represents just short of 50 percent, maybe 48 percent, of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are saying let us consider. Let us have on this floor--not in a back room, not in somebody's office, not somewhere privately--on the House floor, the people's floor, let us vote.

Let the American people see who raises their hand ``aye'' and ``nay'' on propositions that have been worked on in committee, the Goodlatte bill, and for months between Republicans and Democrats, bipartisan bills. Let the people speak through their Representatives. Don't bottle it up in somebody's office. Let the people's House work its will. Have the courage to pursue that which you said you would do and take the tough issues head-on, not duck them.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope, on behalf of that 86 percent of the American people who support the Dreamers, and even more who support comprehensive background checks, that we have the ability to consider those bills and consider them next week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

One worth highlighting is H.R. 4909, the Student, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, sponsored by former sheriff, Representative John Rutherford.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House were saddened and horrified by the tragic events in Parkland, Florida. Sheriff Rutherford's bill will provide local communities with critical resources to upgrade our schools and keep our children safe. I look forward to the House speaking with one bipartisan voice next week and passing this important bill without delay.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider several bills from the Financial Services Committee. This includes two bills sponsored by Representative Scott Tipton: H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act; and H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act; as well as H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, sponsored by Representative Tom MacArthur.

Taken together, these bills will consider House Republican's work to create an economic environment that is both pro-competition and smart and balanced in its regulatory approach.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible, including potential legislation making further appropriations for FY 2018. I will be sure to inform all Members as soon as any additional items are added to our schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have great respect for the gentleman, and there were a lot of questions inside there, I believe.

Out of my respect for the gentleman, I am quite concerned that if he is fact-checked, he is going to get quite a few Pinocchios, so let me walk through, first, how he started the debate.

The gentleman started and the first question was concerning government funding to March 23. He then felt that work was not being done, and he used the phrase--and I may get it a little incorrect, but he said we only were able to pass a budget agreement because of the majority of the Democrats, and not the majority on the Republican side, passing it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So I think it would just be helpful on the record to actually state what the vote was.

There were 167 Republicans who voted for that budget agreement, 67 who did not. There were 73 Democrats who voted for it, but the majority of Democrats, 119, voted against it, which Mr. Hoyer was in that group, as well, voting against it. So I would make one point, and that is 71 percent of Republicans voted for this budget agreement.

And just to make the facts correct, Mr. Hoyer's concern about the appropriations process, this House passed all 12 appropriations bills, and we did it on time and we sent it over to the Senate. In the meantime, the Democrats shut the government down before we could ever get there. So I think history should actually play to facts.

Yes, I am concerned about the March 23 deadline, but I am pushing hard. I would actually like to take those bills up next week. And as Mr. Hoyer knows, being a member of the Appropriations Committee as he was in the past, when you get to this point where we already have the numbers set, it is really what is called a four corners, the four leaders.

Now, the committees are all working through it. They are actually making great progress. There are a few things left to actually close out. I would like to get it done a week ahead of time, and I hope Mr. Hoyer's side would as well.

So let's walk through some others.

First of all, I was a small-business owner. The idea is having a bill on this floor that creates more jobs, that brings more access to capital. Mr. Speaker, I heard from the other side, the leader, she thought crumbs was the idea of Americans getting $1,000 in a bonus. That is about equal to what I am hearing, and I am offended by it. It is not insignificant that someone wants to create a job and have access to capital. The gentleman is wrong about that.

Then the gentleman talks about our Speaker. Our Speaker has worked a great deal, and, yes, he has kept his word.

Mr. Hoyer was in that meeting with me when we were in the White House. Before we left that bipartisan, bicameral meeting with the administration, we agreed to work on this issue in four areas, and we have had numerous meetings in my office about that as well.

I don't know, maybe you forget to state that we are a rule of law Nation. In doing so, that is why we are in this position we are today, because there was a past executive branch that thought they were a legislative branch and they did something that everyone would agree they do not have the power to do. So the current President said to move it to the legislative branch like it should be because there are court cases coming. In doing so, that is what we are working on.

The courts have now come back, giving further time. The Supreme Court has now given a timeline that wants to make sure the Ninth Circuit before there--so this gives us time to solve the problem.

I am more concerned about solving a problem than just passing a bill for some political favor. I do not want to be back at this place in another 2 years and having kids sitting here who are questioning where they are going to go.

I know you raised some issue about individuals. Not one person is in jeopardy that is registered within DACA. You have been in meetings where you heard that from the Secretary of Homeland Security, where you heard that from the Chief of Staff to the President as well.

The President even went further than talking about DACA to even making the point solving, but he also had three other pillars. As you know, we need a secure border. You also know the current law does not treat everybody equally who comes here illegally, so you are going to perpetuate the problem if you maintain the current law.

Thirdly, the idea that we want to make sure the nuclear family is closer together sooner--you have got a 30-year wait when someone wants to come in and petition a brother and sister.

Why don't we help them be able to bring their children and their spouses in together?

That is one of the proposals as well.

Then the whole concept of merit. Those are all common sense. I think they could be bipartisan. And the sooner we solve that problem, we will solve it for a long term.

So on this side of the aisle we want to get this job done long before the courts even have to act. I think that would be the proper thing to do. So, yes, that is what we have been working upon.

Now, another issue you brought up was about guns, and you talked about this Congress. I first want to give you a few little facts. I appreciate that you always mention my book. That is why I smile. We don't get any royalties from it, but the veterans do, so please mention it as much as you like.

If I take--and let me just give you the numbers. Quorum does this. Some bright kids out of Harvard created a company and it is all about data.

There are more bills out of committee, 643 in this Congress; and there are more bills out of this House, 558, than any Congress in the last 25 years. And in that meantime, we also passed tax reform that hasn't been done in three decades.

I know some people on your side of the aisle refer to it as crumbs or Armageddon, but I will tell you, to those families out there that got extra money, that are actually fixing their car or actually paying their hospital bills, or those 1.2 million people who just work at one company that now have a longer maternity leave, they don't think it is crumbs, and they don't think having a bill on the floor that let more people take a risk and create a small business is insignificant.

Now let me talk to you about what we did because we believe background checks are important as well. Let me give you a little background. The background check is only as good as the database of what you have.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, referred to as the NICS database, is currently administered by the FBI. If the NICS check indicates a person as being in a prohibited category, the FBI will signal a deny on the firearm transfer. However, the NICS database is incomplete and outdated.

For example, on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Devin Patrick Kelley murdered 26 and injured 20 others. Kelly was prohibited by law from purchasing or processing firearms or ammunition due to a domestic violence conviction in a court martial while in the United States Air Force. However, the Air Force failed to record the conviction in the FBI NICS database.

That is why this House, this Congress, this majority acted. We put the Fix NICS bill in December--it is sitting in the Senate--which would strengthen our background check system and make it more accurate. It would require Federal agencies to certify twice per year that they are uploading criminal record information to NICS, requiring agencies to establish an implementation plan to ensure maximum coordination and reporting of records. Now you are on record to voting against that.

We have another bill on the floor from a former sheriff from Jacksonville, Florida. He is looking at school violence. Let me walk you through that one.

As I mentioned, Congress will vote next week on the STOP School Violence Act. This bill is proudly supported by Sandy Hook Promise, who note that it will ensure that millions more schools will be trained in prevention and lives will be saved.

Now, this isn't the only thing we are doing. Just this week, we are having oversight. We took the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in this Congress and the Judiciary Committee in this Congress this week, and brought the FBI in, and they will come back again; because there is not one person in America who wants to see what happened in Florida to happen again.

But let's walk through this situation, because I think it is important that we examine it because we want to solve these problems. There were multiple red flags that were raised to the FBI about the behavior of Nikolas Cruz.

The very first red flag: On September 25, 2017, a YouTube channel host took a snapshot of a comment under his video that said: ``I am going to be a professional school shooter.'' He sent that comment to the West Virginia FBI tip center, where all tips are supposed to go, which deemed it a credible threat and opened an investigation.

FBI agents searched for files on Nikolas Cruz, but they were unable to identify the individual and did not even reach out to YouTube in an attempt to recover records on Cruz, so on October 11, 2017, the FBI formally closed the inquiry. That was one red flag, but that is not where it ended.

A second red flag: On January 5, 2018, a second tip came via a phone call to the FBI from a concerned family member. They described in detail problems with Cruz he was showing with regard to social media, cruelty to animals, school trouble, and dealing with a recent death in the family.

When the FBI searched the database again for Nikolas Cruz, the previous tip popped up. However, despite the call from a family member, from a previous red flag, from a YouTube comment from the individual himself that he wanted to be a professional school shooter, they closed the investigation. The shooting happened on February 14, 5 months after the first tip.

This House has not stopped to act. This House acted in December. The background checks have to be fixed. That is why we passed it and put it into the Senate. That is why we are taking up more action now for the schools and adding that to what we already took up in this House. Those aren't insignificant.

I believe there is a path forward. Just as we did all appropriations bills, just as we have been through numerous meetings when it comes to DACA, there is not one child in jeopardy today. The only jeopardy that we will have is if we don't get together and solve the problem.

We have narrowed it to four areas. You and I know what has been said in those meetings. You and I know where it is. We can find compromise. We can solve this problem. But let's make a pledge to the American public that we don't do a bill for the sake of something politically. We create law that solves something so we are not back here in a future Congress taking up the exact same issue putting other people in jeopardy. That is my promise, and that is what I will continue to work for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

That would be the same outcome that is already sitting in the Senate. The Senate has the Fix NICS bill now. We will add more to it.

I hope you are just as frustrated with the Senate as I am.

Why can they not pass something?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Let me give the gentleman a few facts. There are 426 bills that have passed this House that sit over in the Senate. Of those 426, there is less than 10 that are partisan. The rest of them all have bipartisan votes.

There are more than 200 votes on bills that sit over in that Senate that were passed here by voice unanimously. So I am not one to do something politically just so somebody else feels better that now they can vote for something because they voted against it before. I am for making law and saving children.

So from this point, we are going to pass the STOP School Violence Act. We are going to send it to the Senate, just the way they already have our Fix NICS bill over there. And let's have the Senate--and I will take you up on this. Let's work together right now to get that bill back over here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually have the same question. I don't know what we have to do.

You know, we come here quite often to have these colloquies. They are supposed to just be for what is happening the next week, but we talk about more issues. For a long time, I heard: What about the Children's Health Insurance Program? You know what, this House brought it up early. We tried to work through committee. The Speaker knows how many times I went on the other side.

They wouldn't even let their committee work on it. So what did we do? We took the ideas that the Democrats had, we put it in the bill; we passed it bipartisan; they still said no. They didn't say no once, they said it numerous times to the Children's Health Insurance Program. And I sat here wondering: What more do we have to do?

Disaster relief. I know, Mr. Speaker, the heart of the minority whip. We went together to Puerto Rico. We went together to the Virgin Islands. We went to Florida. What more do we have to do? Then we brought it to the floor, and he still said no. But you know what? We still got it done.

Government funding. He started this whole discussion about government funding. He misspoke and said it was because of the Democrats that we were able to make this plan. He said a majority of them; and it was not a majority, it was a minority.

It was a majority of the House.

Legitimately, may I respond?

May I ask the gentleman: Are you stating that we brought CHIP up just weeks before it expired?

After?

With all due respect, I think you might want to ask your staff before you put that on record, with all due respect. Well, I am not sure you are correct because we brought it, and it passed this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know you reclaimed your time the time before, but let me finish what I was saying.

With all due respect, what do we have to do? Yes, we have Fix NICS sitting over in the Senate. And, yes, we are going to add to it for school violence. We know that it does not have to be partisan, but the background check system is broken. Let's not make it partisan. Let's get it done.

When it comes to the challenge for DACA, we are just down to four items. Border security. Not one person in here would probably argue against that. And I know my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I know his heart. He is a good man. He was, as he stated earlier, majority leader. They had the majority here. They had 60 votes over in the Senate. They had a lot of Members in the Senate, and they had the Presidency. Same problem at that time, too. They did not fix it.

I don't want to be in that same place in the future. My commitment is to fixing this problem. So let's sit down. Let's talk about border security, but let's make sure our borders are actually secure.

When I look back--and people talk about that Gang of Eight bill--you put more money in there for border security than was even being requested today. But people still, on the other side, say no, Mr. Speaker.

But the other point, too, is, if somebody comes from Mexico or Canada and illegally comes across the border, why are they sent back to their country but everybody else is not? Let's secure the border correctly. Then, when it comes to really protecting the nuclear family, why don't we make it a little faster that you could have your children and your spouse with you? And do you know what that would do? I think that would make everybody a little stronger.

When it comes to the idea of coming to America, should it just be the luck of a lottery, or should it be merit? I think merit is a fairer process for everybody's opportunity.

Now, I don't think anybody out there that is listening or can hear this later would say those are partisan ideas. But when we sat in the White House and we discussed it and we said let's narrow it to those four items, I know the way our government is designed.

It is not designed that one person gets all their way. It is based upon compromise.

This city, our capital, was because of a compromise. The creator of the banking system, Alexander Hamilton, made this our capital. George Washington, our first President, never served here. He was sworn in on Wall Street and served his second term in Philadelphia.

As my good friend knows, Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes out of committee, it gets worked on, then it is brought to the floor. That is exactly what is happening with Mr. Goodlatte today, so we can bring something to the floor and pass it, that everybody, hopefully, can vote for.

This Congress has acted on so many items, but so many times this year it has felt like the election has never ended. I know the heart of many of the Members on the other side. They wanted to vote for disaster relief. They were so frustrated that they shut the government down.

Do you know what? We have all learned from that lesson before. It is not productive.

I also watched people when they talked about health facilities. They wanted that funding, but they couldn't vote for it.

Then they said the whole problem was, when we brought all 12 appropriation bills to the floor, that they couldn't vote for them because they needed a budget agreement. They needed more money. So, yes, it took a long time to work that out because you want to hold that with other issues as well.

Finally, after the shutdown, that was able to be broken apart. But when we finally got that budget agreement that really is negotiated by both sides, even the individual on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, came to the floor and said she was going to vote ``no,'' but she negotiated and wanted to tell how she got victories inside the bill.

That is not compromise. You can't sit in a room and say, ``Okay, I will give here and you give there,'' and based upon the formation of our government, with the Senate as well, we come to an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what goes on in people's minds and why they wanted to be there. I will make this promise to the American public: I will stay in the room, I will take the ups and downs, but at the end of the day, I want to solve a problem. I don't want a political bill.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the room many times with this President. He said on this very floor, he went beyond DACA. For those in the American public must understand. It is a much higher number. And for him to find that compromise, he just asked for three other things. That doesn't mean we are going to get them all, but that does mean we could find compromise in those three.

Mr. Speaker, the one sad part, if we had this debate with the American public, they would find compromise with those three items. They would probably find it very fast. They would want their borders secure; they would want the nuclear family closer together sooner; and they would probably want to see some merit.

So I know there are times here that we get heated, but the majority of bills that pass this floor are bipartisan.

As I stated earlier, more than 200 of those more than 400 bills that are sitting in the Senate passed by voice, all the Democrats and all the Republicans.

We are going to differ on some items, and that is right. I want you to keep your principles. But there is a window, and there is an opportunity. And I know, as the days get closer, the election will be sooner, but let us make a promise to one another. Let's keep that election on the outside, and let's find solutions on this side, in this House.

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

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

This is a very important bill that I am asking the Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on because we don't want to empower the megabanks and huge conglomerates to be able to skirt adverse supervisory decisions about regulators.

The bill would give all financial institutions, regardless of their size, an additional method to appeal, thereby significantly delaying adverse determinations by creating a new independent review office to conduct de novo reviews without concern for the institution's safety and soundness or the protection of consumers.

This bill goes far beyond relief for community banks and credit unions by enabling megabanks and nonbanks, like payday lenders and Equifax, to pursue limitless challenges to the agency's actions in court.

If you take a look at the examples that we have prepared for you, take a look at Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has been at the center of attention in this country for the fraudulent accounts that it established using their customers' accounts and information to create more accounts without informing their customers; and then they had the illegal student loan servicing practices that we have all been so concerned about; and even after the fraudulent accounts were exposed and a fine was made because of the harm that they had caused to their customers, we then found that they had inappropriate force-placed insurance, which means that people who were already paying for their insurance were forced to pay again because the bank basically forced them to have additional insurance.

And then there is J.P. Morgan with illegal credit card practices and discriminatory lending, sale of bad credit card debt, and illegal robo- signing.

And Citi with deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices; inappropriate fees, marketing, billing, administration of add-on products; and foreclosure abuses.

Bank of America, also mortgage abuses, deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices, credit monitoring abuses, deceptive marketing for add-on products, violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Now, we find that these banks have determined--they act in ways that we know that fighting is just the cost of doing business. It is a slap on the wrist. And they are going to continue to be able to get away with this. And if they are saying that the bank examiners who come in and find these adverse conditions somehow will be ignored and they can literally get around them, then we are going to add to the problems of our consumers in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly asking for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I always have these lively debates with my chairman, and he never fails to point out that I voted for the bailout. And, of course, oftentimes when he comes with one of these deregulation bills, he talks about bipartisan and how he had Democrats. Well, I want you to know the bailout was a bipartisan thing. It was appointed by both Democrats and Republicans at a time when we were in great difficulty in this country.

It was the Bush bailout, and it was Mr. Paulson, appointed by Mr. Bush, who was the Secretary who led it and gave us the advice and had us participate in saving our economy based on the information that he had uncovered about the risk that was now proposed for our country.

So I am not for bailing out big banks at all. We had an emergency situation in this country where, again, it was the Bush bailout that we had to deal with the fact that we were in great danger. But let me just also say this: we have something now that we put into Dodd-Frank reform called the Orderly Liquidation Authority scenario that we are able to look at banks, and, because of the stress testing that they have gone through, if there is a need for an orderly resolution because there are problems with the bank, we cannot only recommend breaking off parts of the bank, but reordering parts of the bank and doing what is necessary to ensure that the bank does not get into a situation where it fails and triggers the failures of others in our economy.

So it is the Orderly Liquidation Authority that I am referring to, and I do not support bailing out big banks. This is one thing that I join with my chairman on. We both agree that we should not be bailing out these big banks. And, of course, that is what Dodd-Frank is helping us to avoid.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the offer from my good friend to join him, but I don't think I will be doing that today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record organizations that have sent us information in opposition to this bill. It includes the National Consumer Law Center, AFSCME, the Center for American Progress, and Americans for Financial Reform.

National Consumer Law Center,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Re Oppose S. Amdt. 2140 (Moran), HR 4545, The Financial

Institutions Examination Fairness Act; creates roadblocks

to bank supervision for safety and soundness, consumer

protection.

Senator,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

On behalf of our low income clients, I urge you to oppose

Senate Amendment 2140 to S. 2155, which incorporates HR 4545

(Tipton), The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness

Act. The bill would create unprecedented barriers to

effective prudential and consumer protection supervision of

banks, allowing banks to resist corrective actions to address

law violations or safety and soundness risks, bogging down

agencies with frivolous appeals.

HR 4545 would grant regulated banks the right to appeal any

supervisory determination made by any prudential banking

agency or by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

to a new ``Office of Independent Examination Review''

established in the Federal Financial Institutions

Examinations Council (FFIEC). Upon appeal by a supervised

bank, this new office would be required to undertake a

repetitive de novo review of the agency's supervisory

decision. No deference to the initial examination findings or

the agency's judgment would be required in this review.

This new process is duplicative to appeals processes and

ombudsmen already present. The CFPB, FDIC, OCC, Federal

Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration each

already have an agency ombudsman and an intra-agency formal

review and appeals process. In addition, banks may bring a

court challenge to any formal regulatory enforcement action.

HR 4545 would enormously increase the ability of banks to

resist supervisory decisions. This effect would be most

pronounced at the largest banks, who could appeal dozens or

hundreds of material findings from every examination,

creating enormous roadblocks to supervision. The bank

supervision process has been the first line of regulatory

defense against threats to bank safety and soundness for a

century or more. HR 4545 creates unprecedented roadblocks to

the effectiveness of bank supervisory determinations and

could be devastating to effective regulatory oversight in

areas ranging from basic

prudential oversight to key consumer protections that make

our financial markets fairer.

I urge you to oppose HR 4545 and any amendment that

incorporates the bill.

Yours very truly,

Lauren K. Saunders,

Associate Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read one of the paragraphs from the Center for American Progress that I think is so profound.

``The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, would give financial institutions the authority to appeal any material examination decision rendered by the Federal banking regulators or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, to the Office of Independent Examination Review--a new office created by the bill. Financial regulators already have internal appeals processes in place through their respective ombudsman offices and financial institutions can pursue legal remedy for flawed examination decisions through the judicial system.

``This new office and review process is simply an additional hurdle for regulators to contend with when supervising financial institutions and an additional point at which institutions can slow down or avoid punishments. H.R. 4545 would undermine the examinations process at a time when supervisory authority and penalties for financial sector malfeasance should be strengthened.''

In addition to that, there is another paragraph in the letter from Americans for Financial Reform that I think is extremely important in explaining why this bill should be opposed.

It says: ``By layering an entirely new appeals process on top of existing processes, this bill would greatly increase the ability of banks to resist supervisory oversight and ignore or delay changes called for by supervisors. The impact would be most pronounced at the largest banks, which can receive dozens or hundreds of material findings from every examination. The ability to appeal every one of those material supervisory findings, or just to threaten to appeal them, would create an enormous new barrier to effective supervision of big banks.''

In essence, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, we have our bank examiners who are going in and looking for ways to strengthen the banks and hoping that they will not find these adverse conditions, but, if they do, they have a responsibility to the consumers to try and get them corrected or to try and get changes made.

This bill says, despite adverse conditions that are discovered, we don't want to have to comply; we don't want to have to change; we don't want to have to correct. We want to fight you. We want to use our vast resources to say your examiners didn't know what they were doing.

They are not so much concerned about the consumers; rather, they are more concerned about just being a part of the bureaucracy.

It doesn't make good sense what they are saying about the examiners and why they are not important.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4545 is yet another harmful bill that would help out Wall Street and predatory lenders. It has become a theme for the majority to claim that their legislation is meant to provide relief for small community banks, when, in fact, the legislation plainly benefits the Nation's largest banks, including abusive megabanks like Wells Fargo and even payday lenders. This bill is yet another example.

The bill would allow any bank as well as any nonbank supervised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to appeal negative supervisory determinations made by regulators in the examination process.

H.R. 4545 makes it more likely that bad actors, including predatory megabanks like Wells Fargo, would avoid or delay accountability when they break Federal law. It takes our system of financial regulation in exactly the wrong direction.

Megabanks like Wells Fargo already treat the fines they are required to pay for violations of the law as simply the cost of doing business. They don't need more escape routes to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing.

I have made it clear many times that abusive megabanks with egregious patterns of harming consumers should face steep penalties from regulators. Last year I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, which would require the Federal prudential banking regulators to fully utilize existing authorities, such as the ability to shut down a megabank and ban culpable executives and directors from working in the banking industry.

To get tough on megabanks that repeatedly engage in practices that harm consumers, Congress should be focused on measures that strengthen consumer protections, provide tailored, responsible relief for community banks, and ensure that abusive megabanks are held accountable. This bill, which would help megabanks and predatory lenders get off the hook when they break the law, should be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment is fairly straightforward. It would limit the applicability of the exam reforms under H.R. 4545 to only depository institutions with assets less than $10 billion.

I have only heard about community banks and credit unions with respect to concerns regarding their exam process and the ability to enhance the opportunity to appeal exam findings. As Ms. Maloney made clear, when the committee marked up this bill, the sole purpose of the bill was to help community banks and credit unions, so my amendment seeks to narrow the scope of the bill's relief to these small firms.

Congress used a similar $10 billion asset threshold in Dodd-Frank to exempt small banks and credit unions from the Consumer Bureau's supervision, so applying a similar threshold for the purpose of appealing bank supervisory findings makes sense.

Today, 98 percent of all banks and 99.8 percent of all credit unions have less than $10 billion in assets. While I am in favor of sensible relief for smaller financial institutions, I believe that the 2007-2009 financial crisis showed the dangers of weak oversight of these big banks, including a $30 billion bank like IndyMac. The bank's costly failure was the fourth largest in the history of the United States and contributed to the most damaging financial crisis in generations.

As the largest firms pose the greatest risk to the country's economy and the safety and soundness of our financial system, it is only prudent to apply a stringent supervisory approach for the largest institutions. In fact, the GAO issued a report last year criticizing the

Federal Reserve's large bank supervision program, underscoring there is more work that must be done.

I have been pushing bank regulators to deploy the full suite of their enforcement tools against megabanks like Wells Fargo that repeatedly and carelessly break the law and harm millions of consumers. That is why I introduced, again, H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act.

So, no, I do not think it is appropriate to let megabanks like Wells Fargo hijack what should be regulatory relief for community banks so that they can challenge their exams. Nonbanks regulated by the Consumer Bureau, like Equifax or payday lenders, do not need this kind of regulatory relief either.

My amendment narrows the scope of the bill on what should garner broad bipartisan support: sensible relief for the community banks and credit unions that need it.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues who truly want to help community banks and credit unions rather than Wall Street megabanks to support my amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 4263) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company capital formation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act.

I want to thank the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur). He has been a huge leader on all capital formation issues within our committee and in this Congress. He is a real asset. His business acumen is well positioned to help serve us, and his leadership on this bill should be commended.

Mr. Speaker, although small companies are at the forefront of technological innovation and job creation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining funding in our capital markets. These obstacles generally stem from the disproportionately larger burden that securities regulations, written principally for large public companies, instead place on small companies when they seek to go public.

In 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, known as JOBS Act, sought to modernize and better tailor some of these regulations, including Reg. A, under our securities law. Reg.

A is a longstanding exemption from SEC registration that permits public offerings without formal registration as long as certain conditions are met.

Prior to the JOBS Act, a small company seeking to use Reg. A was limited to raising $5 million of securities in a 12-month period. As you can imagine, over time, Mr. Speaker, Reg. A offerings became increasingly rare due to the relatively small offering size that was available and a requirement that Reg. A securities still comply with 50 different State securities law registration and qualification requirements.

Title IV of the JOBS Act attempted to address the antiquated Regulation A by directing the SEC to update it, which the SEC did in 2015, under the moniker Reg. A+, by creating two tiers of Regulation A offerings and allowing certain securities to qualify for preemption from State securities law.

Under the second tier, the SEC increased the amount companies can offer from $5 million to $50 million. Mr. MacArthur's legislation only pertains to the Tier 2 limit.

Since Reg. A+ was implemented in 2015, small businesses have increasingly been able to use this tool to raise much-needed capital to expand their businesses and create new jobs in our economy. According to the SEC Office of Small Business Policy, as of November 2017, 69 completed Reg. A+ offerings had raised a total of $611 million.

Unfortunately, the $50 million cap leaves significant opportunity on the table for our startups, opportunity that could be better realized if the limit were increased to $75 million, which the Treasury Department has recommended as a potentially less costly alternative for startups to raise capital. Moreover, increasing the Reg. A+ limit will better position companies that want to use the exemption as an on-ramp to list publicly to bear the corresponding compliance burdens and still invest in jobs and growth.

Mr. Speaker, more and more, we have seen IPOs of companies with products that we use every day--Uber, Facebook, Spotify, Snapchat--come after the company is already valued over $1 billion. For everyday investors, this often means missing out on some of the most dynamic growth stages of the company that would provide the highest rate of returns for them and their family, all while the wealthy, accredited investors and venture capital firms can invest early, and they get to rake in the better rates of return.

With regulations disproportionately stacked against them, it isn't surprising that small companies so often are choosing to stay private. Many have no other choice. Again, after all, the SEC has estimated that the costs of going public, on average, are $2.5 million in regulatory costs for undergoing an IPO and annual compliance costs averaging $1.5 million thereafter.

Those costs stand in stark contrast to the $111,000 the SEC says is the average legal and auditing cost for Reg. A+ offerings. In other words, by utilizing Reg. A+, small businesses can raise significant capital while saving more than $2 million--$2 million that can be invested in jobs and research and other growth opportunities. This is why Reg. A+ is so important: it provides a more cost-effective way to raise equity capital early on in the growth stages of these companies.

Additionally, Reg. A offerings enjoy preemption from State securities laws. Mr. Speaker, I hope every Member pays close attention to this. They may not know it.

In 1980, when a startup computer company, by the way, called Apple decided to go public, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided the stock was too risky and barred its sale to individual investors in the State. Today, Apple's market valuation is almost $1 trillion. It is an American iconic brand and one of the largest companies in the world. And it is, again, potentially going to be the first public company with a trillion-dollar market cap. If you had bought 45 shares of Apple when it was offered at its IPO, by the end of last year you would have over $394,000. That is hardly crumbs, Mr. Speaker.

In short, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a very smart but modest improvement in a popular JOBS Act provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the sponsor of this legislation and a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), from the land of moose and maple syrup, a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), an entrepreneur, someone who brings years and years of experience in capital formation of building a business to help grow jobs and our economy.

H.R. 4263, again, is, in part, an expansion of the JOBS Act, something that was signed into law by President Barack Obama. I didn't agree with that particular President on many occasions, but he got this right, and this has been something good for the American economy.

But what I fear is that, if we don't go forward, we end up going backwards. And what we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle is: Let's keep the status quo.

But, Mr. Speaker, the status quo is what brought us a 1.6 percent economy. The status quo is what brought paychecks to become stagnant. The status quo ensured that Americans did not recover their savings from the great financial crisis.

Now we have the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and now we have 3 percent economic growth; now we have the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years; now we have seen the greatest growth in paychecks in almost a decade; now we are seeing 90 percent--90 percent--of wage earners seeing a bigger paycheck, better take-home pay, because of the economic policies of this Republican Congress and of the Trump administration.

So the gentleman from New Jersey has brought us, really, in some respects, an important but modest proposition: that we ought to increase the threshold for Reg A+ to $75 million.

Again, we don't know where the next Uber is coming from. We don't know where the next Spotify is coming from. We don't know where the next Apple is coming from. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We all know they need capital. And this is a valuable alley, chain, path in order to bring capital into our startup businesses.

Now, a constant theme we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle is consumer protection. Do you know what? Back in the 1980s, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to protect their people from this fly-by-night company called Apple, which now is looking at an almost $1 trillion market cap valuation, and had you invested at the IPO, you would have a 45,000 percent rate of return. You could buy a home; your children could buy a home; your great-grandchildren could buy a home. You could achieve your American Dream. But a government decided: No, you are too stupid to make this investment decision on your own. We must protect you.

Nothing--nothing--in the bill from the gentleman from New Jersey alters the vast, vast array of consumer protection laws that are already on the books. Nothing in H.R. 4263 prevents the Department of Justice from pursuing criminal prosecutions of fraud. Nothing in the bill impacts the SEC's ability to pursue civil actions for those

who engage in fraud, negligent misrepresentations, negligent transactions.

Nothing in this bill prevents the SEC from entering into cease and desist orders and imposing civil liabilities for those who violate SEC rules. Investors get to pursue Federal civil actions against those who defraud them, those who make untrue statements. So there are plenty of very important laws that are on our books.

What we shouldn't do, though, is protect our hardworking constituents from the ability to make decisions for themselves and participate in these early growth companies that now are only restricted to accredited investors. It is only the wealthiest who get to make these decisions. Well, in the land of the free, maybe a few more should, and maybe we ought to have a few more Apples, a few more Ubers, a few more Spotifys.

I want to thank, again, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), who has been a great leader in capital formation and job creation on our committee and in this Congress, and I want to urge all Members to adopt H.R. 4263.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, when I have said something incorrect, I wish to correct myself in front of my colleagues in the public. I earlier said that my colleagues were trying to give us status quo. I wish to correct myself. This motion to recommit is worse than status quo. It would take us back even further.

The gentlewoman from Ohio should admit when she is wrong. She is wrong when she says this will not kill the bill. This will kill it. It will gut it. It will bury it 6 feet under. I think she knows that. So she is entitled to her opinion about what Reg. A+ should be, but she absolutely eviscerates the bipartisan bill that is before the House.

Because many who are watching this may somehow think, ``Oh, my Lord, there are no consumer protections for Reg. A+ offerings,'' the basic requirements that are applicable to both Tier 1 and tier offerings include company eligibility requirements, bad actor disqualification requirements, issuer disclosure requirements, ongoing reporting requirements.

And then for Tier 2 offerings, additional requirements: providing audited financial statements; requirement to file annual, semiannual, and current event reports; and limitation on the amount of security nonaccredited and accredited investors can purchase.

Then those that are offered on an exchange have to adhere to the exchange's listing standards, including corporate governance requirement, background checks on the management and board, shareholder approval of certain corporate actions, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good case here. Anybody who picked up a newspaper recently would find out that, yesterday, the SEC charged Theranos with raising more than $700 million from investors through exaggerated and false statements about the company's technology.

Guess what. In announcing the enforcement decision, here is what the SEC noted:

The charges make clear that there is no exemption--no

exemption--from the antifraud provisions of the Federal

securities laws simply because a company is nonpublic,

development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media

attention.

In other words, the SEC was thoroughly able to do their job, and they were ready and willing to investigate and bring enforcement actions, as they well should. This is part of their job, investor protection. But guess what. So is capital formation. Capital formation is part of the mission of the SEC. That is why it is so important that we not protect our constituents against great investment opportunities, like Apple, like Uber, and like Spotify.

So when we have so many Americans who are still living paycheck to paycheck, when they finally get a little savings together, shouldn't they be able to invest in great opportunities of early growth companies? Shouldn't these early growth companies have access to capital?

I think so.

You can't have capitalism without capital. Let's get more capital circulating in the system. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has done so much good, but we need so much more. We need capital circulating the system, particularly for our startups and our early growth stage companies.

We need to reject the MTR, and we need to vote in support of H.R. 4263.

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository institutions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act.

It is a strongly bipartisan bill, having come out of our committee by a vote of 50-10. It is authored by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who serves as the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and is, indeed, one of the leaders in the House in bringing regulatory relief to our community financial institutions. I want to thank him for his leadership on this very, very important issue.

H.R. 4545 creates transparency and accountability among regulators by improving the timeliness of examinations, while also creating a new more independent examination appeals process.

Madam Speaker, this is about, again, transparency. It is about due process. The Office of Independent Examination Review created under this bill will ensure accountability and fairness for financial institutions during their supervisory examinations. It does so by providing the right for these institutions to obtain an independent review of a material supervisory determination contained in a final examination report.

The creation of this independent review process is particularly important for our Nation's community banks and credit unions that will now be able to appeal their examination decisions without fear of reprisal from their regulator.

By reforming the process for examining financial institutions to ensure it is fair and consistent, Congress will indeed enhance the safety and soundness of the financial system overall while ensuring Main Street businesses can access the liquidity and capital resources they need to grow and create jobs. Again, Madam Speaker, this is why this is so important. Ultimately, this is about ensuring a free flow of credit to Main Street businesses and families.

Many of our community financial institutions have felt a very, very heavy hand of burdensome Federal regulations that were intended--or so we were told--for the largest and most complex institutions; and regulators, unfortunately, seem to ignore congressional directive and apply each one of these standards to our smallest institutions. Thus, yesterday, Madam Speaker, we voted on the TAILOR Act, also authored by the gentleman from Colorado, that would also help ensure these regulations are tailored to the size and complexity of the institution.

Without having due process and fairness in this exam review, the result has been catastrophic. This regulatory burden, of which this is a part, has been resulting in the closing or merger of one community bank or credit union per day, on average. And again, they are not being lost to natural causes.

Our community financial institutions serve as the backbone of our American economy, and we simply cannot afford to lose them. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in my sixth year, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are all too familiar with this problem. I hear from credit unions and community banks every day.

I heard from West Community Credit Union in Missouri, who wrote: ``This one-size-fits-all approach is simpleminded and has real consequences. We are beginning to make changes that will negatively impact our ability to continue to serve members in meeting their home equity lending needs.''

In fact, Madam Speaker, we know that a number of banks and credit unions have had to leave mortgage lending because of the regulatory burden.

Then there is County-City Credit Union in Wisconsin, who said: ``Small credit unions are dropping every day. Unless we get immediate relief, there won't be any left. That would be tragic for our members and the very fabric of our country. Please help us, and help us right now.''

I have good news. Help is on the way if we can get a good, solid vote this afternoon.

The CEO of Commonwealth National Bank in Tennessee wrote: ``The fact remains that there are fewer community banks today than there were several years ago, a trend that will continue until rational changes''--for example, like the ones we are speaking of today, Madam Speaker--``are made that will provide some relief to America's hometown banks.''

Again, we are hearing this plea every single day. So there is good reason why H.R. 4545 was reported by this committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 50-10, including a majority support of the Democrats on the committee.

Again, the bill is strongly bipartisan, it is practical, and it is necessary. H.R. 4545 will allow financial institutions, again, to have supervisory determinations reviewed by a newly established independent examination review board. This will allow for uniformity among regulatory agencies, again, while making the overall exam process more fair and more efficient.

The bill does not prevent a regulatory agency from conducting examinations or imposing restrictions on financial exams, but, again, it will restore fairness, due process, and accountability for the sake of our community banks and credit unions; and, more importantly, for the sake of those who still have the American Dream of either buying their own home, starting their own business, or sending that first kid to college, it is imperative that we enact H.R. 4545.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my friend from Missouri, as he recounts his parade of horribles, that this bill was supported by a majority of Democrats on the committee, including Mr. Crist of Florida, Democrat; Mr. Delaney of Maryland, Democrat; Mr. Foster of Illinois, Democrat; Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Democrat; Mr. Gottheimer of New Jersey, Democrat; Mr. Heck of Washington, Democrat; and Mr. Himes of Connecticut, Democrat.

I think my 30 seconds is winding down, but perhaps I can share the rest of the Democratic Members who supported this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is back with us again today. He is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and is the author of H.R. 4545.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Service Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to say that I just find some of the comments of the ranking member curious.

I know if she continues this attack on the so-called Wall Street megabanks, I just continue to be so curious why she supports bailing them out? She voted against the Financial CHOICE Act that would have ended bailouts to these megabanks. And so she supports a bailout fund in Dodd-Frank to continue to bail out these banks.

Second of all, if she continues to attack them, I guess I am curious also why she supports the Federal Reserve's program to pay interest on excess reserves. She supports taking taxpayer money to pay the so- called Wall Street megabanks not to loan money to Main Street, something that I have opposed as have many other Republicans on this side of the aisle.

And then to make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, on this interest on excess reserves, these banks are getting almost 10 to 15 times what our constituents are getting on their savings accounts.

In many cases, it is the difference between 0.07 percent, versus 1.5 percent. And so I understand, again, she attacks them, but then I am just curious, why does she find so many ways to support them?

So personally, I think in this economy, there is a need for community banks and credit unions. There is a need for regional banks, and there is a need for global banks as well. What we want is accountability. We want less Federal control, and what we want is more private capital. We want to ensure that there are never more taxpayer bailouts.

And again, as I said earlier, as this so-called parade of horribles was brought to the attention of the House, why is it that a majority of Democrats on her committee support this legislation? Sixteen of them support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a very commonsense bill, which is one of the reasons it is strongly bipartisan. I am sorry that the ranking member has not chosen to be part of that bipartisanship, but over half of the committee Democrats on our committee support it. Why? Because they understand that it is part of our American DNA to have due process.

When we continue to lose a credit union or a community bank every day in America, on average, with their loss, we are losing home ownership opportunities, opportunities to grow businesses.

Because of that regulatory burden, these exams can mean the difference between a credit union being open and not being open. They can mean the difference between a community bank being open or not open. Thus, it means the difference in our constituents getting homes and small business loans and auto loans.

This is common sense. It simply says you ought to be able to appeal an exam, have a third party take a look at it.

Everybody deserves due process in America, including our community banks and credit unions, so that is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4545. It came out of our committee with a huge bipartisan vote. Let's make sure credit continues to flow throughout America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4545, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, what we are talking about here is fundamental due process: due process for every American, due process for every institution regardless of its size, regardless of its geography. This is about due process.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: ``Whatever disagreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase `due process of law,' there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial, with opportunity to be heard.'' He is one of the most famous jurists in all of American history.

We are trying to ensure, again, that a bank examiner or a credit union examiner is not tantamount to judge, jury, prosecutor, cop on the beat, and executioner all rolled into one. There is no due process if your only practical appeal is to the person who rendered the judgment in the first place.

So, number one, it is important that all Americans, all institutions receive due process, which is perhaps why even over half of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee chose to support H.R. 4545.

The ranking member's amendment would set a threshold here, but her threshold, as she talks about these so-called megabanks, at $10 billion, that is one-half of 1 percent of the size of J.P. Morgan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in too-big-to-fail banks. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle do. That is why they voted for the bailout fund to support these too-big-to-fail financial institutions with taxpayer funds.

I don't believe in too-big-to-fail institutions, but if I did, Mr. Speaker, if I did, it would be limited to maybe eight or nine banks in America. It certainly wouldn't be applicable to any community bank, credit union, or regional bank.

We have to remember, regardless of the size of the bank, it is their capital that is helping to capitalize our businesses.

I am from Dallas, Texas. One of our major employers is American Airlines. I wish they could do business with First State Bank of Athens, but I suspect they do not. And so sometimes, yes, global banks are necessary to our economy, regional banks are necessary to our economy, community banks and credit unions are necessary to our economy. They are suffering under the sheer weight, load, volume, complexity, and expense of the regulatory burden, which the examination process is part of it.

Let's give them due process. Let's give them fairness and ensure that credit can flow to every small business, every household that is worthy in America. Let's reject the ranking member's amendment, and let's support the underlying bill, H.R. 4545.

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