Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. This bill is another Republican-led measure to roll back appropriately tailored policies to regulate the financial services sector that ignores the hard-learned lessons of the catastrophic 2008 financial crisis.

We have seen this same flawed approach in H.R. 10, which I called the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' last year, and we are seeing it again in the Senate as it considers advancing Senator Crapo's Wall Street giveaway, which includes a provision identical to the bill that we are considering today, along with several other harmful provisions.

The Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was first issued in 1980 to enable the transfer of ownership of small community banks by allowing small, noncomplex bank holding companies to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted.

The original policy statement established a threshold of bank holding companies with less than $150 million in assets, but this level was increased to $500 million in 2006.

The policy statement allows certain small bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be allowed by capital requirements if the debt is used to finance up to 75 percent of an acquisition of another bank. Put another way, the policy statement is important because it allows small institutions like community banks and minority- owned insured depository institutions to access additional debt so they can continue serving their communities without compromising bank safety and soundness.

Thus, it is important that the threshold level be carefully calibrated so it cannot be abused by speculative investors. If the threshold is raised too high, it will encourage more mergers and acquisitions, riskier banking activities, and reduced banking services and credit availability to rural, low-income, minority, and underserved communities.

In 2014, Democrats worked with Republicans to examine this threshold and reached a reasonable compromise to raise the threshold to $1 billion. This change was implemented only after closely consulting with regulators to determine the appropriate threshold level to help community banks grow without making them targets for mergers and acquisitions.

The $1 billion threshold is sensible and reasonable in light of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's exhaustive study several years ago on the definition of ``community bank.'' While the FDIC factors in other considerations, their definition of a community bank includes a dollar threshold of banks with less than $1 billion in assets.

According to 2016 data from the Federal Reserve, 87 percent of all bank holding companies are covered by the current $1 billion threshold. This means that a large majority of the industry currently benefits from the adjusted 2014 threshold increase in the policy statement, including all truly small community banks.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the bipartisan compromise reached in 2014 included other important safeguards, such as excluding any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with less than $1 billion that are engaged in significant nonbanking activities. It also gives the Federal Reserve the ability to exclude any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies from the policy statement, regardless of size, if it concludes that the exclusion is warranted for supervisory purposes.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not hesitated to try and push the threshold higher. Last Congress, just a little more than a year after a bipartisan compromise to increase the threshold, Republicans pushed through the House another bill, H.R. 3791, that would have significantly increased the threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion. That bill faced a veto threat from the Obama administration, as it should have, and it went nowhere in the Senate.

Last year, Chairman Hensarling included a provision in H.R. 10, the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' to drastically raise the $1 billion threshold to $10 billion. Because the Senate now appears set to move a bill that raises the threshold, but to nowhere near that level, we now find ourselves back on the floor of the House today considering a new bill to triple the threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion.

While it is a slightly less drastic increase than the one in the bill Republicans pushed through the House last Congress, tripling the policy statement threshold to $3 billion so soon since the last threshold increase is still unwise. There simply has not been sufficient time to see what effect doubling the policy statement threshold from $500 million to $1 billion really means for community banks.

Congress should at least examine the data and understand the effects of the last change before making another one. We should not ignore the concerns raised by experts that this approach will allow small banks to take on more debt than they otherwise need and may actually promote mergers and acquisitions so that we have fewer community banks, not more.

While Republicans push bills like H.R. 4771 in the name of helping community banks, this is yet another proposal that would likely result in fewer, not more, community banks.

Even the Treasury Department under this President, President Trump, only recommended raising the threshold to $2 billion. So they are $1 billion even beyond what the President supports. That was in a report issued last year.

As I mentioned, H.R. 4771 is one of the many harmful provisions in Senator Crapo's financial deregulatory bill that is advanced in the Senate. Senator Crapo's bill also includes many other harmful rollbacks that would fundamentally weaken our framework. It would roll back certain stress testing requirements for megabanks like Wells Fargo and would exempt or weaken enhanced standards for many of the large banks in the country.

The Senate bill also would gut rules for foreign banks like Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse.

It would also eliminate a requirement that many banks collect and publicly report critical Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, data. HMDA data is used for many important policy purposes, including to identify mortgage lending discrimination against many Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups.

I could go on and on, but the list is longer than the time that we have allotted. The bottom line is I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4771 and the other efforts by congressional Republicans and this administration to deregulate Wall Street and the banking industry and roll back the clock to a time not long ago when we had weak

oversight and few safeguards that protect consumers, investors, and taxpayers.

You can see what is happening. At one point, the opposite side of the aisle said: ``Let's jump to $5 billion.'' And then, Mr. Hensarling said: ``No, let's jump to $10 billion.'' This is done without any thought or consideration for what they are doing and the risks that they are placing on these little banks to be bought up and the mergers to take place.

You can see there is no real thought, no real review, no real consideration given when you say: ``Let's go from $1 billion to $3 billion to $5 billion to $10 billion, whatever we can get.'' We are saying: ``No, that is wrong. Don't do that. Don't do that to these community banks.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the other side wants. They want $5 billion at one point, they want $10 billion at one point, and now they want $3 billion. They just throw it up against the wall and hope something sticks, and we are saying: Don't put these community banks at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand the support that community banks have gotten from this side of the aisle.

I know that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, oftentimes, advance the argument that they are the only ones who care about community banks and that we don't understand community banks. And, oftentimes, they have arguments that basically would have one conclude that we don't really advance the cause of community banks.

I would just like to remind my colleagues in this Congress of the work that we have done in support of community banks. We have supported, and successfully supported, less frequent exams for well- rated community banks with less than $1 billion. The exam cycle is now 18 months instead of 12 months for these strong small banks.

We took into consideration the concerns of community banks about the examiners coming too often, disturbing the banks, oftentimes, tying up the personnel in the bank. So we agreed to not have them come in every 12 months and to extend that so that 18 months will give some relief to the community banks so that they don't have to deal with the auditors in such a way that disturbs the bank.

We also moved successfully to eliminate an annual privacy notice for community banks and credit unions whose policies have not changed and the consumer has already notified. Well, we did that. We eliminated these annual privacy notices for the community banks and for credit unions who have not changed their policies, and there is no need to have to continue to insist that they have these annual privacy notices.

Well, we went further with less stringent SEC registration rules for small thrifts, providing parity with other banks; and access to credit for privately insured credit unions, allowing them to join the Federal Home Loan Banks program; improving mortgage licensing for community banks and credit unions by allowing regulator access to the nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry, while maintaining confidentiality protections.

I just cite this because it is so important to understand what we have done on this side of the aisle to ensure that our community banks are strong, that they are there for our communities, that they provide the loans, that they

assist in developing our communities. What we don't understand oftentimes is why our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in the name of community banks, will come with proposals that hurt community banks.

We have pointed out that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have gone so far as to try and get everyone to believe that we should increase this amount of debt that they could carry up to $10 billion. That is totally irresponsible, totally. And even when they attempted to go to $5 billion, totally irresponsible, down to $3 billion, because I guess they just say: Well, we have to try to get some more opportunities for small banks to carry this debt.

Well, they don't answer the question about what happens when these small community banks are burdened with debt that they cannot take care of, that they cannot pay. They don't talk about the fact that that is going to cause the community bank to close. And they certainly don't talk about putting them in a position where they will be brought up.

So I would simply say for those of us who have proven our support for community banks and who continue to engage with community banks about what we can do to ensure their strength, to ensure that they are there to provide the loans in the neighborhoods and in the communities that they serve, I think we have identified ourselves and we have defined ourselves. We would simply ask those who are listening to this debate to continue to know and understand what is happening between these different sides of the aisle, to look at what we have done, and to understand how we have been helpful in our support for community banks.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle that the community banks with $1 billion to $5 billion in assets already have sufficient access to capital markets and, as a group, are exhibiting help and resilience.

Raising a threshold to exempt banks with over $1 billion from important minimum leverage and capital requirements will do little more than encourage banks to take on debt--as I have reminded you time and time again today--endangering their soundness and potentially depriving their customers of much-needed banking services should the bank fail.

Setting the consolidated assets threshold at $1 billion was a bipartisan decision that struck a balance between allowing small banks to access capital to better serve their customers and ensuring their safety and soundness. Raising the threshold would be an unnecessary and risky change.

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

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

Okay. So we have heard it again. We hate Dodd-Frank. We hate Dodd- Frank. We hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We don't believe that Dodd-Frank should have created the reforms that they did.

Just forget about the fact that there was a subprime meltdown in 2008, that this country went into a recession, almost a depression. Throw all of that out of the window. Forget about what was happening when the big banks failed and we bailed them all out. Forget about reforms.

Oh, how much we hate Dodd-Frank. We just blame Dodd-Frank for everything.

Please. I think that, as credible legislators, we are beyond the point of wrapping up everything that we don't like and accusing Dodd- Frank reforms for causing problems to everything and everybody, including the community banks. The fact of the matter is, if we want to strengthen, preserve, and make sure community banks are available to our communities, we won't take on public policy that would put them at risk with having more debt than they can take care of, and we won't put them at risk of being bought up and these mergers taking place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats support targeted, measured relief for our community financial institutions. We recognize that these smaller banks and credit unions intimately know their communities and how best to serve them. But we also know that changes to the rules that are designed to ensure that community banks are safe and sound can have unintended consequences.

While community banks did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, they were at the center of another crisis just two decades before. When I came to the Financial Services Committee, thousands of savings and loan holding companies were failing and causing serious harm to the communities they were supposed to serve. This was due, in part, to the fact that lawmakers thought it was wise to weaken safeguards on these savings and loan holding companies, allowing them to take on more leverage and offer riskier products. I fear that Congress will again pass legislation today that will ultimately cause harm to both the very community banks we want to help and the hardworking Americans that rely on them.

And now, Republicans are trying to raise the threshold as high as possible. In the chairman's ``Wrong Choice Act,'' he would raise the threshold tenfold, to $10 billion. At the end of last Congress, Republicans sought to raise it to $5 billion. A few months ago, the Trump administration recommended raising it to $2 billion, and now, a little less than 3 years after we reached a bipartisan compromise, we are inexplicably considering legislation to raise it to $3 billion.

I tried to tell you just a few moments ago, they don't know. They are just throwing it up against the wall: whatever we can get. Next they will be asking for $20 billion. No, you have moved away from $10 billion; you have moved away from $5 billion; now you are at $3 billion. Your President wants $2 billion. We say, leave it as it is.

Mr. Speaker, if you are listening to this and feeling dizzy, it is understandable. None of these levels are backed by the same careful consideration Congress gave to the threshold 2 years ago, and I am afraid it is exactly the kind of legislating that set the groundwork for the savings and loan crisis and left thousands of communities without access to banking services.

When I came on, Members of Congress were fleeing the old Banking Committee. They wanted to get out of there because they had been responsible for public policy that had put the S&L business at risk, and now that was all failing. They were fleeing it, and they were punishing people, all the new Members coming on, and making them go on this committee because they knew that they had nobody else to serve on it.

So I have been there. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I am a part of Dodd-Frank reforms. I served on the conference committee. I worked with Dodd. I worked with Frank. I know what we should be doing.

Before I close, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill and many of the other one-off financial services bills Republicans are pushing should really be viewed as setting the table for the dangerous deregulatory package making it through the Senate. That package, which our committee has not even considered to thoroughly understand the interactions of all the rollbacks it contains, weakens oversight of Wall Street and the Nation's largest banks under the guise of community bank relief.

H.R. 4771 is one of the many provisions in the Senate bill that, when taken together, will risk further bailouts and harm homeownership in America. Every time this House passes another provision of that bigger bill, we make it more likely that critical safeguards and protections will be eviscerated at the expense of our Nation's homeowners and consumers.

I urge all Members to soundly reject H.R. 4771 today and to reject the larger Senate legislation if it comes to the House. I comfortably say, despite the fact that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are trying to frame this in a certain way, they really don't know what they are doing. Reject this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 725, I call up the bill (H.R. 4771) to raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. It is a bipartisan bill which passed our committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 41-14.

Mr. Speaker, this exact same provision came out of the Senate Banking Committee also with a very strong bipartisan vote of 16-7.

First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) who is a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank her for introducing this legislation and helping lead our congressional efforts to provide regulatory relief to our Nation's community banks. She is a great asset to our committee and widely respected.

The Federal Reserve Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement is a regulation that allows certain bank holding companies that have less than $1 billion in assets to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be permitted by current capital requirements. They do this as long as they meet a number of ongoing requirements and restrictions.

H.R. 4771 would raise that threshold for qualifying institutions from $1 billion to $3 billion, thus allowing more community banks to raise more capital by the issuance of debt. By increasing this threshold, H.R. 4771 provides much needed relief for bank holding companies from overly burdensome capital and leverage requirements that were truly intended, Mr. Speaker, for the largest and most complex global financial institutions.

It is a reoccurring problem, Mr. Speaker. Again, over and over, the regulatory burden on our community financial institutions is causing us to lose one approximately every other day in America. These are rules that have made it, again, more difficult for small banks to raise capital. And while the bank holding companies will no longer have to abide by these rules under this bill, again, there are plenty of safeguards that continue to be in place to protect the safety and soundness of the institution and its customers. But these institutions present no threat to the safety and soundness of our financial system.

First and foremost, the Federal Reserve retains the right to impose capital standards on a holding company if they determine it is needed. In other words, this is a ``may'' bill and not a ``shall'' bill. The $3 billion threshold remains totally within the discretion of the Federal Reserve. It is permissive.

Next, capital rules and regulations will continue to apply to the subsidiary banks of the holding company level. Again, let me repeat, the capital rules and regulations continue to apply to subsidiary banks.

All institutions must continue to meet certain qualitative requirements, including those pertaining to non-banking activities, off-balance-sheet activities, and publicly registered debt and equity. These requirements ensure that the higher leverage the policy statement allows does not pose any undue burden on subsidiary depository institutions.

So the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will indeed make it easier for small, hometown community banks to raise capital. And as they raise more capital, they can turn it into more Main Street jobs, more economic growth, and more home ownership opportunities for our constituents.

In fact, passing this bill will immediately benefit community banks all across America. Not the big banks, not Wall Street banks, as I have no doubt the ranking member will say in her remarks, but again, it will be community banks that will benefit.

If you don't believe me, ask them. Ask the Independent Community Bankers of America and its 5,700 community bank members.

As a matter of fact, the passage of this bill, Mrs. Love's bill, has been an important, longstanding goal of the Independent Community Bankers of America because they have been suffering and suffocated by an avalanche of red tape with massive increases in regulatory burdens, which has caused consolidation with much, much larger competitors. Because of increased regulation and compliance costs, again, many of them have found it difficult to access and raise capital. This is the capital that is needed to capitalize our small businesses.

Small businesses are struggling for access to credit, and the incredible regulatory burden placed on home buyers has simply complicated the buying process.

These higher costs are being felt at the same time that paychecks are only now beginning to grow for working families thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Just don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Let's listen to just one community banker who happens to be from West Virginia. They wrote in and said:

What no one in a position of power seems to realize is that

many customers in our

country prefer to deal with a smaller, hometown institution,

with people they know and trust. If a customer has a question

about their loan or their deposit, they simply pick up the

phone and call or drop by. If we don't know the answer, we

find out and let them know as soon as possible. But it

appears that Congress and the administration are attempting

to get rid of smaller institutions, so there are a lot fewer

institutions to deal with, and those are the large ones who

are too big to fail.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Continuing:

Please just try to remember that small financial

institutions and small businesses are the heart of America.

The American Dream is to work hard, learn, and make a good

life for yourself and your family. In the meantime, it

includes working in your community or neighborhood to help

others out. Even as a small institution as ours, we sponsor

Little League Baseball teams, soccer teams, the county junior

fair, and many other activities. We realize if we don't

support local small businesses, they soon won't be here.

Those words could have been written by almost any community financial institution in America, Mr. Speaker, and they ring so true. In order to keep our small communities alive, we have to keep their small businesses alive and we must keep their small banks alive.

So, again, it is so important that we enact H.R. 4771 and that we reduce this red tape on our community financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for introducing the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, as the ranking member appears to be vexed at where the $3 billion number came from, it is the product of bipartisan compromise, something I invite her to engage in more often, and this particular bill is supported by almost half the Democrats on the committee.

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 myself 10 seconds just to say that I am shocked that anybody would come here and say that they want to support community banks and they supported Dodd-Frank--the very reason these community banks are being gobbled up. The whole idea of this legislation is to allow them to come together and protect themselves and not be gobbled up by the big banks they vilify in the first place.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply use a term popularized on the other side of the aisle. These are crumbs, deregulatory crumbs, offered by the ranking member when, in fact, she and others on the other side of the aisle have their handprints all over Dodd-Frank, which 90 percent of community bankers will tell you is the number one reason they are going out of business, which is why we have to enact this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to request of the ranking member, on her time, if she will begin to name the community banks that were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, ostensibly, that was supposed to be answered by Dodd-Frank. She will have some time to think about that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, our community financial institutions play a vital role in our local communities, particularly in rural areas like the Fifth District of Texas, our east Texas counties, and yet they are being crushed, crushed by the sheer weight, volume, complexity, and expense of regulation brought about by Dodd-Frank.

I hear so much from the ranking member about how much her side of the aisle cares about community banks, but their words are belied by their actions in supporting Dodd-Frank, supposedly meant for Wall Street, but it is hurting Main Street.

We have a bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4771, that will give a little bit of ability for community banks to protect themselves from the onslaught of this regulatory burden. The whole idea, again, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that community banks can at least gather and merge amongst themselves so they are not gobbled up by the big banks that are vilified by the other side of the aisle in the first place.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is actually--you wouldn't know it from the ranking member--a bipartisan proposal, supported by almost half--half-- of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. And again, there is great bipartisan work on our committee. Almost three-quarters of our bills are bipartisan; it is just few of them that are supported by our ranking member.

Let's do one small thing today. Let's have the House do one small thing today, Mr. Speaker, that will help them survive a day more so that they can lend money to a hardworking family to buy that first home, so that they can lend money to somebody to realize their American Dream of perhaps starting their own small business. After having to get that paycheck at the local factory for so many years, now they can finally go out and start their own small business. Maybe it is a matter of sending the first kid to college.

But all of this, all of this disappears. These hopes and dreams disappear with our community banks who are still failing, unfortunately, at the rate of one approximately every other day. This is unacceptable. This is totally unacceptable.

So we have one deregulatory measure here--one--to help our community banks survive. And we hear from so many of them, Mr. Speaker.

Here is one from Indiana that says:

Regulations have significantly reduced our ability to make

judgment calls on credit decisions. When I first came to

First Savings Bank, I had a number of people tell me that the

First Savings Bank gave them their first loan, probably when

they didn't deserve it. Today, they are business and civic

leaders. And I guess we made the right call then. However,

today we cannot make that call. Washington has made that

call, and the answer is no.

One reason, one voice of one banker telling us why we need the bill from the gentlewoman from Utah.

Here is another from a banker in Texas, who said:

When I started banking, the community bank business model

was built around bankers helping their communities to thrive.

Today, customers are confused when they have to sign so many

papers to open a deposit account or borrow money. I can only

think of one explanation, and that is our government thinks

our customers are too stupid to come into the bank and

negotiate a private transaction with their banker, the

community banker that they go to church with, the community

banker whose kids go to school with the customers' kids, and

the community banker whose wife is in the local charity with

the wives of the banker's customers' wives.

Here is another one from Nevada:

I have been a banker for over 30 years, and I have never

been more discouraged than I am now. Good bankers are fleeing

the industry. The days of making a commonsense decision for

the benefit of a customer are gone. For me, retirement can't

come soon enough.

I have got binders and binders full of these testimonies, Mr. Speaker. As the local community banks leave, so leave the credit opportunities of so many low-and moderate-income Americans. It has got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to enact H.R. 4771. Let's stop the carnage, let's encourage community bank living, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 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, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services and one bill reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I just want to take a moment at the beginning to point out that there are no amendments made in order by this rule because there were no amendments offered to any of these bills.

Both of the Financial Services bills were the subject of hearings in the committee last year. Both bills were reported out of committee with bipartisan support of 75 percent or more of the committee members.

The Energy and Commerce bill was reported favorably by the committee with a large bipartisan vote of 39-14.

The rule also provides us with the necessary tools to ensure that we can bring government funding measures to the floor quickly to prevent a government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, we have three bills before us today. Each of these bills deals with one underlying problem: Washington overregulation. That is it. These are not bills protecting Americans from some foreign hostile force. These are bills protecting Americans from the overreach of their own government.

It is a sad time in which we find ourselves when we must dedicate legislative effort to undoing the harmful effects of the American government on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the CFPB issued its rule commonly referred to as the qualified mortgage rule, or the QM rule. The QM rule requires creditors to make a good faith effort to determine a customer's ability to repay a loan if the loan is secured by a home. However, the rule creates a legal safe harbor from liability under the rule for qualified mortgages.

One aspect of a qualified mortgage is that it cannot have total points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount if the loan amount is at least $100,000. However, some fees may be excluded from the points and fees cap if they are reasonable and the lender or any affiliate of the lender receives no compensation from the service.

This all sounds well and good. We certainly don't want predatory lending institutions referring business to themselves just to pad their bottom line at the expense of unsuspecting borrowers.

But this is a great example of how massive, one-size-fits-all Washington regulation often ends up hurting Americans. The result of the points and fees cap within the QM rule has been to place low- and moderate-income borrowers in a position where they end up spending more money to secure a loan.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado has been experiencing explosive population growth over the past decade and longer. Between 2009 and 2016, we added a net increase of more than 600,000 people. But home prices also increased significantly over that time, more than 57 percent.

In 2016, according to The Denver Post, we had the lowest growth we have experienced in many years at only a 30,000-person net increase. In part, the slowing growth rate has to do with rising housing costs. This is why it is vitally important that many first-time homeowners and others have access to affordable loans. Government regulation should not be a part of driving up housing costs.

Why does this happen? Why does a Federal regulation result in hurting the very people it is intended to help?

It is simple: Washington regulators cannot take into account the unique circumstances of each individual American. This is a crucial difference between the common sense of Americans across this land and the self-importance of some here in D.C.

Many in D.C. believe firmly that the Federal Government is able to protect every American from every bad experience. They express enormous faith in so-called experts who believe they can effectively govern from afar the lives of Americans.

I reject this notion. I reject the belief that a class of enlightened experts and bureaucrats in Washington can better run the lives of individuals. That philosophy deprives Americans of the freedom to make their own choices. When Washington's power expands, individual liberty retreats. So we have to have bills like the ones before us today.

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill required the CFPB to issue the QM rule. The QM rule was supposed to help low- to moderate-income borrowers save money, but, instead, the QM rule created a situation where low- and moderate-income borrowers cannot take advantage of discounted services offered by their lender.

The rule forces these borrowers to secure these services from third parties which almost always charge more than the lenders would charge for the same services. The negative impact of this rule is so abundantly clear that half of the committee's Democrats voted with all of the Republicans in support of fixing this provision of Dodd-Frank.

Passing this bill will not magically cause housing in Colorado to become more affordable, but it will eliminate an unnecessary regulation that needlessly drives up borrowing costs.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations, the second Financial Services bill that we have before us today protects the ability of small banks to issue debt and raise capital.

The Federal Reserve generally discourages bank holding companies from using debt to finance acquisitions, particularly the purchasing of banks. However, the Federal Reserve carved out certain small bank holding companies.

In order to be considered a small bank holding company, these companies had an asset cap of $150 million. By 2015, the cap had been increased to $1 billion. The bill before us today increases the cap to $3 billion.

As we have heard last night during testimony at the Rules Committee, there is no science or data behind the level of the cap. Think about that for a second. The government has established a cap that has a negative impact on our community banks, and the cap has no basis in anything, not science, not data, not historical financial patterns, nothing. The cap is simply a whim of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. It is time we allow our community banks to have an avenue to continue being locally owned and based in our communities rather than being bought out by Wall Street.

Today we have two Financial Services bills before us that reduce regulations and allow Coloradans and all Americans greater freedom in the choice of banking services. I urge support of these two bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my friend from Florida that we were both here on the floor as the House of Representatives passed all 12 appropriations bills in early September.

As we look across to the other side of the Capitol, not much work has been done on those appropriations bills since they left the House and traveled to the Senate.

The answer to the continuing problem that we have with continuing resolutions is to find Members of the Senate who are willing to work as hard as the House has and pass appropriations bills and fund the government.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening right now, and I hope we do pass a continuing resolution, I hope we do fund the military, and I hope we give some more stability to this government.

But the finger pointing in this case I don't think is warranted in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to the final bill made in order under this rule, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, I had the privilege to visit with one of my constituents, Lamont Muchmore. Lamont owns a Papa John's pizza franchise and invited me to come to his restaurant. He even taught me how to throw, or how to toss--maybe throw, maybe toss--a pizza. It was a great experience. I got to meet members of his team and hear about their professional goals. I am happy to say that the American Dream is alive within the hearts of the people of Colorado.

However, my visit with Lamont was not without concern. You see, recently, Washington had decided to push a hugely disruptive regulation on our food service industry.

In the interest of ensuring Americans had information on their food choices, Washington crafted a one-size-fits-all mandate that every menu item be labeled with its nutritional content.

As someone who has become extremely aware of the quality of foods that I consume, I certainly understand the do-good intentions behind this kind of regulation. But the impact on businesses like Lamont's has been substantial. In fact, some businesses have no realistic way of complying with the rules.

Further, the law that put these regulations in place, ObamaCare, placed criminal penalties on those who fail to comply. How ridiculous is that? If you mislabel or fail to properly label the calorie count on a menu item, you could be fined and go to jail.

The bill before us today rectifies some of the harm done by this rule. The bill allows multiple avenues for businesses such as Lamont's pizza restaurant to comply with menu labeling requirements in the most cost-effective manner possible.

While I don't believe the Federal Government needs to require the calorie count of a food item on a menu in Colorado, this bill offers a compromise. Americans will still have access to nutrition information about the food they are purchasing, while businesses will be able to provide a variety of prepared and local foods without fear of major penalties if one serving happens to be slightly different in its calorie count than the last serving.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to visit with Coloradans who are working hard to build their businesses, provide for their families and community, and employ people, only to be met with the constant headwind that our Federal Government blows in their faces through its Washington-knows-best regulatory schemes. Washington should get out of the way and let Americans do what we do best: cultivate our resources for the good of our family and neighbors.

I think often of Coloradans like Lamont. It is men and women like him all across this great land that are doing the important work. I am committed to ensuring that this Federal Government stops jeopardizing their hard-won success, and that Washington's so-called experts give honor where it is due: to the hardworking American people.

I thank Lamont for taking the time out of his day to visit with me. This bill answers the needs of his team, and I urge its passage.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

He does.

I don't believe he owns more than 20.

I will pass that information on to Lamont, although I disagree with your reading.

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

Washington is out of step with the vast majority of the American people. It is true that we often do work here that moves our country forward, that protects this great land, but it is also true that there is a competing worldview in this City which seeks to rule over the American people.

In Colorado, we have experienced the negative effects of overreach by the Federal Government.

How is it that regulators living 1,700 miles away from us believe they can create rules that take into account our needs and that respect our way of life?

It is just not possible.

Washington is good at stamping out large Federal programs. The problem is that it usually stamps out individual liberty in the process. This City must stop telling the people of Colorado how to live every detail of their lives. Washington's so-called experts must stop burying Colorado businessmen and -women under piles of rules.

If we truly free our people to grow and pursue their hopes and dreams, we will experience a renaissance of growth unmatched in our history. This Congress has done good work in rolling back the strong arm of the Federal Government, but there is more work to do.

These bills before us continue what should be a never-ending pursuit of giving back to the people their personal liberty which has been confiscated by overreaching Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Walden for their work on these bills. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing these bills to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bills and the rule.

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, before I get into the remarks that I prepared, I think I had better share this information with my colleagues. The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from that so-called tax bill that we passed, which we know was the Republican tax scam law.

Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers, investors, and our economy. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in 9 million people losing their jobs, 11 million people losing their homes to foreclosure, and the loss of $13 trillion in wealth. It was an economic catastrophe that must never be repeated. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to help this President dismantle reforms that are designed to protect us from that kind of devastation to communities.

Republicans are trying to pass this bill off as an effort solely designed to benefit small community banks. But the truth is, the bill is packed with poisonous provisions that benefit the megabanks like Wells Fargo and companies like Equifax. It also weakens critical mortgage protections to ensure borrowers can afford their loans, and prevent discrimination and fraud.

One of the most harmful elements of this bill is its weakening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, referred to as HMDA, which is a key tool to detect and prevent discriminatory practices in the mortgage market. S. 2155 would allow 85 percent of depository institutions to avoid ever having to report new HMDA data required by Dodd-Frank, even though they are already collecting the data, badly undermining efforts to ensure fair lending.

But that is not all. This bill guts many of the protections Democrats put in place to reduce the risk of bank failures and bailouts and ensure that bank failures don't bring down the economy. It weakens stress tests and capital requirements for big banks, and undermines supervision of large foreign banks like Deutsche Bank.

There is more. Despite Equifax's carelessness in exposing the personal data of 148 million Americans, S. 2155 rewards Equifax and the other two national credit bureaus by funneling more business their way. It also takes away Active Duty servicemembers' rights to sue the credit bureaus, even if the bureaus fail to provide required free credit monitoring, or notify them of scams involving their personal information.

Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the many ways the bill would be harmful. Republicans have stacked the bill with provisions that have nothing to do with benefiting hardworking Americans and everything to do with helping out Wall Street.

Donald Trump and the Republicans already gave a huge gift to big corporations with the tax scam, which came at the expense of hardworking Americans. Now they are pushing this rotten giveaway to Wall Street and big banks that harms consumers and increases the risk of another financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. I have to say this over and over again: $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the tax scam bill that was passed.

These banks are just greedy. They will never get enough. They want to do away with Dodd-Frank because Dodd-Frank is protecting consumers from their fraud. Look how much money they are making. All they will tell you is this is all about community banks.

But let me just tell you that community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits, an average of $167 billion in annual profits in the last 3 years. Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending. Credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Mr. Speaker, what more do they want? How much more money do they want from consumers? What is it they would have us do? What is it they would have us get rid of in Dodd-Frank that is protecting the average consumer, everyday working people? What would they have us do so that they can make more money?

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the Senators are saying they wish that they had never voted for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Financial Services Committee.

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

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a very hardworking progressive leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many speakers he has remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again share with you what should be breaking news tonight: the FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018 and reported that banks made more money than they ever have.

Mr. Speaker, $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the Republican tax reform bill that we have called a tax scam law.

The community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits--an average of $167 billion in annual profits the last 3 years.

Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending, and the credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Despite all of that, we have this pay of CEOs of banks that represents so many times more than the median salary in their banks. Specifically, Wells Fargo's CEO made $17.4 million in 2017, 291 times the company's median salary. This is in spite of the fact that Wells Fargo has a track record of consumer abuses while demonstrating that the numerous fines imposed upon the bank have not been a sufficient deterrent to stop its pattern of appalling practices.

Let me just identify some of those practices: opening 3.5 million fraudulent credit card and deposit accounts, for which they were fined $185 million. It was so bad that former Chair Yellen capped the bank's size until it cleans up its act.

In addition to that, they were found to have illegal student loan servicing practices; inappropriate checking account overdraft fees; unlawful mortgage lending practices, such as overcharging veterans for refinance loans; and charging customers for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in some customers losing their vehicles.

They were fined $1 billion, but it really doesn't make them any different. It is just a cost of doing business.

Yet we have my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who come and ask us to be lenient on the banks, to do away with the Dodd-Frank reforms, and to forget about what happened in 2008. Somehow it is all right for these greedy banks to continue the practices that they have. Despite the fact that Dodd-Frank reined them in, they are doing very well.

S. 2155, again, is not a community bank bill, and it certainly does not help consumers, so we should not pretend that that is the case. Instead of considering improvements to this Senate bill or advancing narrowly tailored relief, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rubberstamping S. 2155 and advancing a Wall Street wish list that could jeopardize the stability of our country's financial system.

So, instead of considering a bill to address concerns raised by community banks, one that I am sure could easily pass both bodies with overwhelming bipartisan support, House Republicans have instead decided to take up a bill that is largely designed to fulfill the agenda of Wall Street's megabanks. Passing this bill with broad support would send the wrong message to regulators to accelerate their deregulatory efforts for Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that megabanks have once again piggybacked onto the substantial goodwill and support that exists to help ease the regulatory burden for community banks.

S. 2155 is a dangerous measure that weakens key consumer protections and will make it harder, not easier, to combat unfair mortgage lending practices. The bill takes advantage of people just trying to make ends meet for the benefit of the largest banks that are making record profits.

Make no mistake: I support our Nation's community banks and credit unions, and I support tailored regulatory relief for those institutions. That is a fact that I have made clear through my support of numerous individual measures which have advanced through this Congress, as well as through my community bank regulatory relief bill from last Congress.

I will continue to oppose any efforts to use regulatory relief for community banks as a vehicle to ram through deregulation for bad actors and megabanks.

If my words and the words of my colleagues here today are not enough of a warning, then I would urge Members to listen to the pleas of hundreds of consumer, civil rights, veteran, religious, and labor groups that strongly oppose S. 2155.

Though some of my colleagues in Congress may have short memories, the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their wealth during the 2008 financial crisis did not.

So I oppose this bill. I want the Members of Congress to stand up on this very important legislation and say to the greedy banks and the megabanks: No, you are not going to get away with these kinds of actions anymore.

Everything that you have done to try to undermine the Dodd-Frank reforms have resulted in more groups coming out to say: Congress, when are you going to stop these banks? They are making plenty of money. They are increasing their profits. Their CEOs are making high salaries. What more do you want from them?

I think that our consumers deserve better than any attempt to try and relieve them of those regulatory actions that would support our consumers. I would ask for a resounding ``no'' vote on this bill that would only feed into the greediness of the major banks of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I call up the bill (S. 2155) to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, 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 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, far too many people in our country have struggled to make ends meet. They have struggled to buy a car. They have struggled to buy a home. They have struggled--they have struggled for their version of the American Dream.

I hear from these people frequently, Mr. Speaker. I hear from Colton in Terrell, Texas, who said that he and his wife have been unable to get a mortgage due to credit and that they were 25, 30 years old and they had good credit but they were getting denied. They needed a home to provide a sense of stability, but they couldn't get it due to Washington's bureaucratic regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from Dirk in Dallas. He said he used to have a $100,000 line of credit from his bank. He had an unsecured signature line of credit that he used for working capital for his small business. He often paid it down to zero, and cash flow was ample, but then the bank canceled it because of the bureaucratic government burden on the banking system.

I heard from Sherry in Eustace, who said:

After a divorce 4 years ago, I needed to buy a car because

my car was over 10 years old. I had a checking account in my

name at my credit union, but they didn't loan me money for

the car.

Mr. Speaker, we hear these stories far too often. The Main Street banks and credit unions that these people depend on have been suffering for years under the weight, the load, the volume, the complexity, and the cost of heavy Washington bureaucratic red tape. They haven't been able to serve these people to help get them into homes and to help get them into cars.

As one west Texas banker told me, Mr. Speaker: ``My major risks are not credit risks, risk of theft, or risk of some robber coming in with a gun in my office, my number one risk is regulatory risk.''

We have been losing a community bank or credit union every other day in America and, with it, the hopes and dreams of millions. But today, that changes. Help is on the way with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most pro-growth banking bill in a generation. You would have to go back to 1999 to Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Although we didn't have a formal conference with the Senate, I am proud that over half of the bills in this package, including three-quarters of the regulatory relief provisions, came from the House. These are the provisions to help hardworking, struggling taxpayers get into home mortgages, get into car loans, and get into their small businesses. This is what will help drive 3 percent economic growth, which is the birthright of all Americans.

Today is an important day in the history of economic opportunity in America, and I encourage all of us to support the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the leading voice in Congress on trying to bring rationality to the SIFI designation and accountability to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the lead voice in the House for capital formation for our start-ups and small businesses, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the author of the Family Self-Sufficiency provision in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the vice chairman of the committee and the Chief Deputy Whip of the majority and author of two provisions of S. 2155 to promote capital formation and hold credit bureaus fully accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade and the author of two provisions on access to manufactured housing and portfolio lending in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the committee's majority whip and the author of the amendment dealing with the Volcker rule.

Mr. Speaker, I now am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to give more flexibility to private companies and small banks with respect to their call reports.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to bring clarity to the complex capital rules and flexibility to our savings associations.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the author of the MOBILE Act, Making Online Banking Initiation Legal and Easy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the author of the key regulatory relief provision for small banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the author of two provisions in S. 2155, the Senior Safe Act and supporting capital formation for small companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a fellow Texan who is an incredibly strong advocate on our committee for small business to obtain credit for their customers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), who is the author of a key regulatory relief provision to provide small banks the opportunity to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is the author of two key regulatory relief provisions for our community banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on this side.

I believe I have the right to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since Dodd-Frank was passed, the big banks have become bigger and the small banks have become fewer. Free checking at banks has been cut in half. Credit cards: 200 basis points more, 15 percent fewer. Many creditworthy borrowers are having to pay almost $600 more for their auto loans.

Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is shrinking. We have 1.6 percent economic growth, stagnant paychecks, decimated savings, and a diminished American Dream. That is the legacy of Dodd-Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe 10 percent of what I heard from the other side of the aisle. I wish it did gut Dodd-Frank. It didn't. You can't find something in here. It is hard, challenging, to find anything in this bill that helps what the ranking member calls the so- called Wall Street megabanks.

Mr. Speaker, listening very carefully to this debate, it is clear that there are some voices that appear to be driven by their loathing of banks and credit unions, and there are other voices that are driven for our love and respect of our fellow citizens, hardworking taxpayers like Dirk in Colton and Sherry, who I mentioned in my opening statement, who are trying to capitalize a small business, who are trying to buy a car that is 10 years old, who are trying to buy that home. It is their American Dream, and they are being challenged due to this law.

I have heard so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, I believe in taking away bureaucracy and red tape from community financial institutions, and I believe in bipartisanship.

Well, they may believe in it, but they are not voting for it. The opportunity is right here in front of us with S. 2155, a strong, bipartisan bill that has come over from the United States Senate. So, again, they claim they believe it in theory; they just don't believe it in practice.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, 3 percent economic growth counts. If you look at the history of our Republic, 3 percent growth is where all the job creation takes place. It is where the paycheck increases take place. It is where the poverty reductions take place. It is the birthright of the American people.

Thankfully, due to the leadership of our President and this Congress, we now have a 3 percent tax policy. We need a 3 percent regulatory policy, especially for our community banks and our credit unions, who help finance the American Dream for all of our citizens.

We should join in unison on this historic day to pass S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, for the help of all our citizens.

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

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