Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 787 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 787 provides for the consideration of two important bills whose focus is to empower the people of this Nation by removing governmental obstacles standing in the way of life and prosperity in this country.

The first bill, H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, is a bipartisan effort from the Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Jeb Hensarling, authored by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

The second piece of legislation in today's rule, H.R. 5247, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2018, authorizes the use of certain drugs to eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or a condition for which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking members of the Committee on Financial Services.

The rule makes one amendment in order, authored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member. Further, the rule provides for the consideration of one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

For H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the Chair

and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Although no amendments to the bill were made in order, the rule does provide for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the substance of the two bills under consideration in the rule before us today, I do want to take a minute to honor our colleague and the Rules Committee's ranking member, Louise Slaughter, who passed away unexpectedly last week.

I have known Ranking Member Slaughter since I first joined Congress in 2003. We spent countless hours debating every issue one can imagine in the Rules Committee upstairs, often long into the night.

When I joined the Rules Committee in 2013, Ranking Member Slaughter was then the ranking member, but it was under her chairmanship where she ushered through the Affordable Care Act, where my largest memories reside. During the debate for the Affordable Care Act, I went up to H- 313, the Rules Committee hearing room, with 18 amendments under my arm, a small selection of the many ways I felt the law needed to be changed.

Certain that I would only be able to get through a small portion of those amendments before I was cut off, I began my testimony. To the chairwoman's credit, she let me go on and on and on, and despite my being convinced that she was going to gavel me down at any second, she allowed me to finish speaking on all 18 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until I actually became a member of the Rules Committee several years later that I discovered there is, in fact, no time limit for Members and witnesses to speak, much to the chagrin of many Members when we debate the National Defense Authorization Act.

Ranking Member Slaughter was always proud of her background as a microbiologist, and it served her well during her tenure in Congress, because, after all, we deal with, sometimes, almost miniscule, microscopic issues, so time as a microbiologist would be good preparation.

One moment where I was glad to be able to work with Ranking Member Slaughter was in 2007. This was right after the Democrats took control of the House. Ms. Slaughter had been pushing for years for legislation that would prohibit the discrimination of employees based on genetic information.

The legislation was forward leaning, long before companies offered DNA testing kits in every pharmacy of the country. And, in fact, it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich himself who brought this bill to my attention, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which I was proud to support as it moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee and was eventually signed into law by President Bush.

I would also like to mention Don Sisson, the staff director for the minority on the Rules Committee. Don has been with the committee for years--even at one point working under Chairman Drier--and has been with the ranking member of the Rules Committee through many events in the past years, including the death of her own husband, who, in fact, often sat in the audience of the Rules Committee and joined Ms. Slaughter during our late-night Rules hearings.

Don is, indeed, a loyal staffer, himself hailing from Rochester, New York, and is a great example of how Ms. Slaughter's life and passing is affecting so many people. I do want to thank Don for his written remarks that were read into the record of the Rules Committee last night from the staff perspective on the passing of Ranking Member Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to hold off making further comments on the legislation before us to allow others to speak.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it was indeed incredibly disappointing last week when our Democratic colleagues did not join us in supporting what was very carefully crafted right-to-try legislation.

The President came and talked to us at the beginning of February, and right to try was one of the issues that he highlighted there from the podium. So it should be to no one's great surprise that this House would indeed take up and work on that issue that the President himself highlighted. Right to try was the one piece of legislation that President Trump specifically promised to the American people in the State of the Union address.

Today, I want it to be known that I stand with the President. I stand with the thousands of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their friends in getting this important bill passed.

Since 2014, 37 States, including my home State of Texas, have passed a version of a right-to-try law, and through a strong grassroots movement, they have accomplished that.

Today, the House is considering H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, which would improve access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients and offer them a chance--a second chance, a third chance--at life.

Over the course of the last decade, our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Thanks to researchers in our academic institutions and those working in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, American patients have access to innovative treatments.

Regardless of these achievements, I hear from patients with serious life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from north Texas, who are frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers from trying and experimenting with new therapies when every other avenue has failed.

It does seem we are at a crossroads when lifesaving treatments, while not yet approved, both exist and remain unavailable to patients.

As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for themselves or loved ones with a serious and life-threatening condition.

It is crucial to mention the multistakeholder efforts that have gone into improving the original right-to-try bill. Chairman Walden of the Energy and Commerce Committee led negotiations with the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and with other stakeholders to ensure that this legislation opens the door to innovative experimental drugs for these patients without necessarily compromising the vital work and the mission of the Food and Drug Administration. The product of those negotiations is a bill that strikes the proper balance between ensuring patient safety and granting access to these treatments.

I also want to mention that the Subcommittee on Health did have a hearing in this regard October 3. We heard from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during that hearing. We heard from a number of patient groups and stakeholders who felt that it was, in fact, in their best interest for us to advance legislation.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration conducts an expanded access program aimed at helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials to gain access to therapies that the agency has yet to approve. While this program makes a good faith effort to help those patients, right to try would create an alternative pathway for those individuals, allowing them to access eligible investigational drugs.

The fact is that individuals may not qualify for a clinical trial if they do not meet very specific patient inclusion criteria, which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions. There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far from where those academic clinical trial sites exist.

Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition fall into one of these categories. This legislation allows those patients to participate in the alternative pathway so long as they are certified by a physician who is in good standing and abides by the rules laid out in the bill.

Again, we worked closely with the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the new alternative pathway does not hinder or conflict with the critically important oversight that that agency conducts. While some people may have reservations about the safety of a new pathway, this bill protects patients from manufacturers mislabeling or misbranding drugs, requires sponsors and manufacturers to report adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration, and provides certain liability protections for parties participating in the new pathway. This alternative pathway would also be limited to individuals who have exhausted all FDA-approved treatment options.

Additionally, only certain investigational drugs are considered eligible under this legislation. In order to qualify, the drug must have completed a

phase one clinical trial, must have an active application, must be under active development or production by the manufacturer, and must not be the subject of a clinical hold.

Eligible patients include those suffering from a stage of a disease or condition for which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months or that would result in significant irreversible morbidity that is likely to lead to premature death.

This revised right-to-try bill also provides certainty to manufacturers in the drug approval process. It is essential that we do not create additional hurdles in that process. The legislation clearly states that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ``may not use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an eligible investigational drug . . . to delay or adversely affect the review or approval of such drug.''

Since the Health Subcommittee first considered the right-to-try legislation, the bill has passed in the Senate, and we have had many conversations with patients, advocates, the administration, and stakeholders on all sides of this complex topic. That collaborative effort was necessary, and I am certainly grateful to all who participated in those discussions.

Madam Speaker, this represents months of hard work and thoughtful discussions and decisions. I believe this legislation is a positive step forward in our shared goal of improving care for American patients. Again, this was the one aspect of the President's State of the Union Address where he asked us specifically to act on this legislation.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Dallas Morning News from 2010. The title of the article--and I am not going to read the whole thing--is: ``Pelosi Pulled Strings to Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Try Experimental Cancer Drug.''

[From the Dallas Morning News, 2010]

Pelosi Pulled Strings To Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Baron Try Experimental

Cancer Drug

(By Todd J. Gilman)

Washington.--Dallas' top Democratic donors will cut big

checks to share dinner later this month with House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi. Most will be motivated by a desire to protect

the party's congressional majority.

Lisa Blue will have an extra reason: to say thanks for

Pelosi's efforts when her husband, Fred Baron, was dying of

bone marrow cancer. His only option was an experimental drug

whose manufacturer refused to give permission to use it for

Baron's condition.

``He was a big fan of hers, and now I am as well,'' Blue

said.

Baron, the ``King of Toxic Torts,'' built a fortune suing

on behalf of asbestos victims. He died the week before

Election Day 2008 at age 61.

A prolific Democratic fundraiser, he served as finance

chief that year for his friend John Edwards, who also made

his fortune in court. Baron later acknowledged funneling

large sums to Edwards' mistress--a scandal that gave

ammunition to those who already despised trial lawyers.

But to Blue, first and foremost, Baron was a husband.

The tale she tells of his final weeks is not so different

than any widow might tell, except, of course, that the couple

had friends in especially high places--friends like Pelosi,

who will headline the Aug. 24 dinner to raise cash for the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In 2002, Baron was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By

October 2008, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic were telling him

he had just days to live.

They also offered a glimmer of hope. Over the years, the

couple had donated about $1 million to Mayo. The staff was

especially diligent, Blue said. They tested an arsenal of

drugs and finally discovered that Baron's cancer responded

surprisingly well, in the lab, to a drug called Tysabri.

Mayo had an ample supply, but the drug was--and still is--

approved only for treatment of multiple sclerosis and Crohn's

disease. The manufacturer, Biogen Idec, refused to give

permission, even under special ``compassionate use'' rules

that protect a drug-maker from a black mark in case of an

adverse outcome.

Biogen said it didn't want to jeopardize the drug's

availability to other patients. (The company did not respond

to a request for comment last week.)

``I told Mayo, `I'll sign anything, I'll release anything.

Just give him the drug,' '' Blue said.

Blue, also a top lawyer, began making calls. She started

with Lance Armstrong, the bicyclist and cancer survivor, whom

she had represented.

``I started going through Fred's Rolodex,'' she said. ``I

called every politician, every celebrity that I knew and just

begged them to help. . . . I must have made 200 calls.''

She called clinics in Canada, trying in vain to find

doctors willing to administer the drug without Biogen's OK.

She hired a lawyer and prepared to sue Mayo to force it to

dispense the drug. She even bought some Tysabri online from

Australia, intending to send stepson Andrew Baron to smuggle

it back, she said.

The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen,

noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy

of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head

of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to

reconsider.

``You talk about mental anguish,'' Blue recounted. ``Fred,

every day, would wake up and he said, `Am I going to get the

drug?' ''

Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi ``put her

heart and soul'' into the cause, as did Harkin.

Somehow--Blue still isn't sure how--Pelosi cajoled the FDA

to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the

drug, even without Biogen's consent.

``Nancy figured out a way,'' she said.

The drug beat back the cancer for a few days, but not

enough.

Blue has no illusion that a typical family could pull such

strings.

``There are so many cases like Fred's,'' she said. ``One

thing he taught me was politics matters. What a personal

experience for me to understand how politics matters.''

And no, she added, ``It's not fair that other people can't

pick up the phone and make the government give them a drug. .

. . It was just such an awakening about how the drug

companies have so much power.''

That's what she'll tell Pelosi over dinner.

Mr. Speaker, this article references events that occurred in 2008.

In 2002, this individual was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By October of 2008, his doctors were telling him that

he had just days to live. They also offered a glimmer of hope. There was perhaps one chance of therapy. It was an unproven therapy that might, in fact, be helpful to him.

The family made inquiries, made entreaties, but they were not successful until they invoked the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who actually helped this lawyer get access to this medication. Unfortunately, it was not successful. His disease spread to a point where the therapy was not helpful. But the family observed, ``Nancy figured out a way.''

How about that. The Speaker of the House figured out a way to get this medication to an individual who was dying of a disease, who obviously was very important--a large Democratic donor, and I get that.

But the Speaker of the House intervened because the clinic where he was being treated felt that they did not have the authority to give him the medication. The company that was manufacturing the medication did not feel that it was in anyone's best interest to give him the medication. But Nancy found a way.

Well, Mr. Speaker, today, we are going to find a way. The President asked us, and we are going to find a way for those millions of Americans who are asking for that same chance.

So today's rule provides for consideration of two important consumer- driven pieces of legislation:

H.R. 4566, by Mr. Poliquin, will help alleviate some of the regulations that were put in place under the Dodd-Frank Act.

H.R. 5247, the right-to-try bill which garnered a majority of bipartisan support last week, will give patients who have nowhere else to turn another option to fight the potentially fatal health conditions with which they have been diagnosed.

I do want to thank President Trump and Vice President Pence for their leadership on this issue and helping us understand here in this body how important it is to move forward with this patient-centered legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, like my friend from Texas, I was overcome with sadness by the tragic news of Louise's passing, who was not only the ranking member of the Rules Committee, but the first and only woman to have chaired the committee.

For 30 years, Louise poured every ounce of energy she had into serving her constituents in upstate New York. She never hesitated to speak her mind, and she never wavered in espousing her beliefs. I will always be truly grateful for the time that I had to serve alongside her.

Louise was one of my dearest friends in Congress, having not only served with her on the Rules Committee but also on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission.

Her legacy speaks for itself. She was not just a champion of women's rights. She was a champion of working families everywhere. This Nation has lost one of our fiercest public servants, and her absence will leave an unfillable void.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest condolences to Louise's daughters: Megan Secatore, Amy Slaughter, and Emily Minerva; her seven grandchildren and one great-grandson; as well as to her friends, constituents, and congressional staff during this extremely difficult time. Her spirit and loving memory will forever live in the Halls of Congress. She will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, turning to today's rules, this rule brings the number of closed rules for the 115th Congress to 74. In other words, more than 50 percent of the legislation coming to the Rules Committee has been closed off from an open and honest debate by my Republican friends.

At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican colleagues that they would run the government in an open manner. They even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been jettisoned in favor of an overly partisan approach to governing.

By way of example, one of today's bills, H.R. 5247, was introduced last Tuesday, brought to the House floor for a vote on the same day without the committee of jurisdiction holding one single hearing on the bill or Members having the opportunity to offer their amendments.

Not surprisingly, the measure failed to pass under suspension of the rules.

What was the response of my friends on the other side of the aisle when the vote failed? Did my Republican colleagues insist that the Energy and Commerce Committee hold hearings on the measure? Did my Republican colleagues on the committee of jurisdiction invite experts to speak on what the consequences would be if this bill were to become law? Did my Republican colleagues work with Democrats to come up with a bipartisan solution? No.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you what did happen. The Republican leadership ignored the problems with the measure and brought it to the Rules Committee last night for it to be considered on the House floor today.

Now, this flies in the face of regular order, to ask the entire membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if this bill were to become law.

Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with this bill can't get much worse. Yet it did get worse when the Republican majority blocked the ranking member's, Mr. Pallone's, substitute amendment, an amendment which was both germane and had bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority took it a step further when they extended the Holman rule for the remainder of the 115th Congress. My friends on the other side of the aisle are yet again seeking to scapegoat Federal employees, make cuts to the Federal workforce, and politicize the civil service system that was established to professionalize agencies and offices, all while ignoring the waste and abuses in the reality show of the Trump administration.

Madam Speaker, challenged by the American people to bring up comprehensive gun reform, House leadership instead brings up one bill that hasn't gone through anything resembling regular order and another bill that weakens and undermines a valuable tool that gives financial companies and regulators an opportunity to identify and correct problems before they could lead to another financial crisis.

Every year, roughly 35,000 people are killed by guns. Moreover, 2,700 children and teens are shot and killed, and over 14,000 more are shot and injured every year. That is an average of 47 American children and teens shot every day.

And the effects of gun violence extend far beyond those struck by a bullet. Gun violence shapes the lives of the millions of children who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting. We have witnessed the effects over the last month with the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

This weekend, hundreds of thousands of students and their supporters will descend on Washington, D.C., to demand that the Federal Government take action to stop the epidemic of mass shootings, which have become all too familiar.

No less than this morning when I turned on the television, less than an hour and a half away from here, in yet another school, yet another shooting. Fortunately, it appears that the resource officer there engaged the shooter early on and may have caused there to be less damage, although some people were injured, and one or two critically.

We can no longer ignore what gun violence really is in this country. It is an epidemic.

But do not just take my word for it or the students who witnessed 14 friends' and 3 teachers' lives brutally cut short. The American Medical Association, following the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, declared gun violence in this country ``a very public health crisis,'' a crisis which the Republican majority's only answer is to offer thoughts and prayers and further block any Democratic measures to address this crisis and to continue to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from even researching gun violence.

Instead of finally making permanent the status of Dreamers in this country as full citizens, the Republican majority ignores their calls and the calls of the vast majority of Americans and, instead, brings up one bill that undermines a valuable early warning system of our Nation's economy and another bill that has gone through a completely closed process.

Enough is enough. President Donald John Trump says he wants to fix this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it already.

Madam Speaker, last week, when I was managing yet another useless financial regulation, I commented and I asked the American public to respond:

Would you rather us stop banks from having stress tests or would you prefer that we deal with the deferred action for children in this country, 800,000 of whom are Dreamers, 120 of whom lose their status every day?

Would you prefer that we deal with the measure that is on the floor today or that we deal seriously with a variety of issues having to do with gun violence in our society, which I have described as an epidemic?

Would you prefer as a priority, America, that we deal with these trivial matters that are going nowhere fast or that we center ourselves and focus on those measures that are vital to the survival, security, and safety of all Americans?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, I had dialogue with the author of this legislation and also the ranking member, Mr. Pallone. I indicated to them that I have very strong sympathies regarding persons who are in the apparent throes of death and seeking some hope, and medication can have its advantages, and experimental medication can have its advantages.

My quarrel with the legislation is that it didn't go through regular order. I don't understand why, with all of the experts. I introduced into the Record in the Rules Committee last night a substantial number of organizations and individuals who have come forward. They all agree that something along the lines of what is being sought ought be undertaken, but it would allow for those persons to have added input into what ultimately may be significant legislation. But my friends on the other side plow right ahead on this matter that I reiterate was brought on suspension last week that failed, and then brought here last night for purposes of a rule along with financial stress legislation.

So it is not that many of us are not sympathetic to the underlying principle that is being offered. It is that it is rank process and that we should not allow legislation to continue to come to the floor of the House of Representatives that blocks out a significant number of persons who may have input that would make the measure be much more salient to a more significant number of people.

It is for that reason that I continue to ask the questions: What are our priorities here? What is the rush with reference to this matter while we are ignoring a significant number of other matters that we could be undertaking?

In addition to that, we were supposed to go to the Rules Committee this afternoon on the omnibus bill; and now, evidently, there is wrangling going on between the parties and bicameral between the Senate and the House, and that measure isn't ready to come to the floor.

Yet we are dealing with something that isn't the highest priority of the moment. I commented last night, anything that will help a person who is facing death is the kind of thing that we would want that person to have that opportunity to deal with. But we have children who have been killed and we have children who are facing the potential for that kind of horror, yet we are doing nothing.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to appeal to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Please, listen to the American people and do more to help end the epidemic of gun violence that has plagued our Nation and that the American people are demanding Congress to do more.

For example, in a recent Gallup Poll, nearly two-thirds of adults wanted stricter laws on the sale of firearms. According to a recent NPR/Ipsos poll, 75 percent of respondents said they think gun laws should be stricter.

As I indicated earlier, just this morning there were reports of another school shooting just an hour and a half from Washington, D.C., in Great Mills, Maryland. The American people are begging this body to do something to end this epidemic, so I offer the majority this opportunity:

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research Act.

These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on the causes of gun violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can finally do something to address gun violence.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Texas that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close when he is prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would say to my friend from Washington what I said last night: We would do a great service to Louise's memory if we were to make more open rules here on the House floor; and I will argue for her in that regard.

Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to again reiterate the tremendous loss felt in this Chamber with the passing of our longtime colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter. She was a champion of all the issues she cared about and a giant here in the House of Representatives. Her wisdom will be missed every day.

Madam Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the appropriate committee of jurisdiction holds hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in the field are consulted, and in a manner where Members of both parties have the opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bill.

The process we are witnessing here today is truly a slap in the face to regular order. A bill that has zero input from members on the Energy and Commerce Committee or that has been the subject of any thoughtful discussion is suddenly on the House floor for a vote.

Now, I respect my friend from Texas' view that last year in the Senate, and even perhaps since that time, and throughout the country, right-to-try measures have passed in several States to some degree. But this particular bill that is on the floor that we are making a rule for has not gone through regular order; and that, then, disallows a significant number of persons who would have an opportunity to have input to what could be legislation that all sides could agree upon. Our failure to undertake to do that is a disservice, in my view, to the institution and to the measure that is being sought to be passed here today.

This is not just an affront to normal House procedure; it is downright undemocratic and emblematic of the Republican majority's inability to govern. I think it will redound to their discredit that they are not allowing this House to proceed under regular order.

As I indicated earlier, more than 50 percent of all of the measures that have come to the Rules Committee and have ultimately come to the floor of the House of Representatives have been under closed rules, which means that Members who represent millions of people in America do not have opportunities to offer amendments that might make the measure better or, at the very least, have their views heard with reference to substantive legislation that is moving through this body.

If we continue down this path for the remainder of this session, we will probably break the 100th barrier on closed rules. We have already had more closed rules than in the history of legislating in this country.

That is not fair. That is basically all we are arguing. Open up the process. Let every Member have an opportunity for input on behalf of his or her constituents. It is the right thing to do. What has been happening is the dead wrong thing to do.

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

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 787, I call up the bill (H.R. 4566) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements under such Act, 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 to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act.

Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), one of the most hardworking, enthusiastic, cheerful members of the House Financial Services Committee for all the work that he has done to advance this very strong piece of bipartisan legislation, which, incidentally, passed the Financial Services Committee again with another strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.

Now, the financial crisis led to questions, both domestically and internationally, about how to address financial stability and create a regulatory framework to mitigate systemic risk, all the while ensuring robust economic growth.

At the heart of this bill of the gentleman from Maine is a recognition that our economy can suffer when we get it wrong, when government attempts to dictate the business models and operational objectives of so many of our businesses. It is also a recognition that one-size-fits-all regulations can stifle economic growth and ultimately harm consumers and harm our constituents.

Current bank-centric standards and assessments to nonbank industries, such as the asset management industry, have needlessly saddled Main Street investors with increased costs while they are trying to save for college or retirement or some other important need, and this is perhaps no clearer than in this stress testing regime.

As a former SEC chief economist observed in 2016, who said that, in the current law, ``stress test the big banks; and, oh, you might as well go ahead and do the asset management companies.'' That is his take of what the law says.

In other words, asset management firms that, again, our constituents depend upon for their retirement security or for their financial planning are now subject to bank regulations simply because they operate under the financial services umbrella, even though such firms plainly have legal, structural, and operational characteristics that make them very, very different from banks.

By the way, none of the asset managers had anything to do with the financial crisis that brought about the legislation that we are debating in the first place. For example, unlike banks, asset managers do not have access to the deposit insurance fund or the Fed's discount window.

If that is not enough for you, Mr. Speaker, here is more. Asset managers are legally separated--legally separated from the funds they manage, meaning that the asset and liabilities of the manager are distinct from the assets and liabilities of the funds.

On the other hand, the bank business model directly subjects the bank to the risks and obligations of its assets and liabilities. Again, applying a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure--in this case, a bank-centric model--is not only bad for the asset management industry, but, far more importantly, for our constituents that they serve, who choose to save and invest.

Registered funds are the investment vehicle choices for millions of Americans seeking to buy a home, pay for college, plan for financial security and retirement. Application of unnecessary, ill-suited, bank- centric stress testing requirements to register funds

and advisers will undoubtedly increase cost for these funds and advisers, and, ultimately, this gets passed on to investors without any corresponding benefits that we can discern.

The recent asset management and insurance report issued by the Department of Treasury confirms these concerns. The bill of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) would fix this unequal regulatory structure by exempting certain nonbank financial institutions that have not been designated for supervision by the Federal Reserve Board from the act's stress testing requirement.

Further, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for recognizing the underlying need for this relief and for working with Mr. Poliquin to offer an amendment during markup that allows the SEC and the CFTC to issue regulations to require certain financial companies they supervise to conduct periodic analysis of the financial condition of such companies under adverse economic conditions.

The approach is common sense. It is not one size fits all. It recognizes that the primary regulator of nonbank financial companies is better suited than a bank regulator to determine whether these stress tests might be useful to address risk. And it recognizes that, as a general matter, stress testing asset managers is difficult and often needless.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this great bipartisan legislation. I believe we have an amendment forthcoming from the ranking member, which I expect our side of the aisle to support. I am led to believe that, with the adoption of her amendment, she would support the underlying bill. I hope that proves to come to fruition, in which case we can have a very strong bipartisan vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), who is the vice chairman of our Financial Services Committee and the chief deputy majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that anybody from North Carolina, after being beaten by Texas A&M by 21 points, would make any allusion to basketball whatsoever. I trust our next speaker will not make that mistake.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who is a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4566, the legislation from the gentleman from Maine. I want to commend him once again. He is one of our most hardworking members on the committee, and he cares passionately about his constituents in Maine.

I also want to commend him for once again working on a very bipartisan basis. He has managed to change his bill from its original concept many times to try to garner more support from the other side of the aisle.

With the acceptance of the ranking member's amendment, again, I am hopeful that we will have a very, very strong vote in the House. Again, this came out of committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.

Mr. Speaker, very often we debate regulation. I think that now, fortunately, we have a 3 percent growth Tax Code which has been passed by Congress, but, unfortunately, I do not believe we have a 3 percent growth of finance in the banking system.

That is important. It is important to our constituents who still need credit to buy that first home, a factory worker who needs to get their transmission repaired so that they can go to work, some parent trying to send a kid to college, or people trying to plan for their retirement.

Too often, I think we have a dichotomy between regulation and deregulation, when the real dichotomy is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. It is always incumbent upon us in Congress to look very carefully at these regulations. Sometimes they look very good on the chalkboard, but in reality, they don't quite render the results or benefits that we had hoped for. So we always have to take a look at what this is doing not just to consumer and investor protection, but what it is doing to economic growth as well.

I agree with the ranking member. Stress testing is a good concept. It is one of the reasons why banks and other financial firms typically stress-test themselves daily, weekly, monthly, annually.

What doesn't make sense, though, is that there be no recognition to the cost that it imposes, as the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, was very articulate in reminding us that these submissions can cost us millions and millions of dollars. The reports are not measured in pages; they are measured by the pound. There can be 10- and 20-pound submissions of paper that we wonder if anybody ever reads.

But what especially doesn't make sense is trying to apply a bank stress test to a nonbank financial institution, particularly an asset manager. I know the ranking member was talking a little bit earlier about using an analogy to auto inspections: It makes no sense to have the home inspectors inspect your auto; it makes no sense to have the auto inspectors inspect your home.

The gentleman from Maine is ensuring that whatever stress test is applied, it is applied properly to the business model that needs to be tested for its potential stress of our financial system.

So, again, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maine for his hard work, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of H.R. 4566 because, indeed,

maybe it is not a catchy title, but it is an accurate title. As we alleviate stress test burdens, we do help investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I am not thrilled with the amendment, but in the spirit of compromise and the spirit of bipartisanship, we have worked with the ranking member and the sponsor of the legislation. It wouldn't be my preferred approach, but that is often what we do around here.

I want to thank the ranking member for working with the majority side in order to advance this, again, as a very strong bipartisan vote in the House, which I hope and anticipate with the inclusion of this amendment.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, again, I am very happy. On the other side of the Capitol, they have recently advanced a number of kind of smart regulatory measures and capital formation measures. We look forward to negotiating with our friends in the Senate. I am hoping that an overwhelming vote on a bill like H.R. 4566 is one that could be in a final package before it goes to the President's desk.

Again, I still think that, although we have all compromised a little something here, I think we all advance our principles. I think it is something that will help, actually, both financial stability and investor protection, including protecting their opportunities to have a better future.

So again, I want to thank the ranking member for working with us, and I would urge the House to adopt her amendment and adopt H.R. 4566 by Mr. Poliquin of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

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