Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying legislation. Quite frankly, I had hoped that, when we returned from our Easter break, we would be debating and voting on legislation that would help people. I had hoped that maybe we would be able to finally help the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers whose lives are now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end DACA and that we would be able to pass a bill called the Dream Act to actually provide them some peace of mind. But, no, we don't see that on the schedule.

I had also hoped that maybe we would do something to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Millions of young people all across the country have been protesting in front of congressional offices and have been holding rallies demanding that Congress debate the issue of gun violence and do something. No, we are not doing that.

Instead, what we are doing is another bill to help the financial services industries, and in that effort, we are doing something that I think is going to make consumer protections less relevant. This week, again, the Republican leadership of this House is ignoring the most pressing issues facing our country and our constituents in favor of more legislation to roll back financial protections put into place to prevent another financial crisis.

Need I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle how damaging the 2008 financial crash was? Millions upon millions of Americans--our constituents, Mr. Speaker--lost their homes, and they lost their jobs and their life savings. Many of these families have still not fully recovered from these terrible financial blows.

In response, Democrats in Congress came together to pass the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, landmark legislation to address risk in our financial system and ensure our constituents are protected from another damaging financial crisis.

Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Nobody in this Congress says it is. But I strongly object to the calculated campaign by Republicans in this House to continue to chip away at the law, making our financial markets more vulnerable just to benefit their billionaire donors.

One of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank is the Volcker rule. It prohibits banks from engaging in risky trading activities that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Simply put, it prevents banks from acting like casinos and gambling with our money.

The rule we are considering today provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, legislation to undermine the Volcker rule by exempting certain banks from the requirements. The bill also puts rulemaking authority solely in the hands of the Federal Reserve, making it easier for the Trump administration to further weaken or eventually repeal this vital consumer protection.

Now, that is, of course, the goal of my Republican colleagues in the first place. They have continually advanced legislation to roll back and weaken the rules put into place to prevent another financial crisis. It is deeply frustrating, and more importantly, it is very dangerous to the financial security of the American economy and American families.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for additional debate time on the Republican majority's misguided balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 2.

Normally, when legislation of this magnitude is debated, the leadership of this House brings it through the Rules Committee to set the terms of debate and to allow for alternative proposals to be offered and debated. This will be the seventh time a balanced budget amendment has been voted on in the House.

In the past, it has generally been considered under a structured rule granting many hours of general debate, making in order substitute amendments, and providing the minority with a motion to recommit. But as they did in 2011, Republicans will once again bring this legislation to the floor under suspension of the rules, providing no opportunity-- none--for Members of the majority or the minority to offer any substitute amendments.

Now, why does this matter, Mr. Speaker? It matters because this legislation, the so-called balanced budget amendment, could do irreparable harm

to our economy. It would hinder Congress' ability to respond appropriately to an economic crisis and could potentially even create one. It could even require Congress to cut funding for safety net programs that millions of our constituents rely on, programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP--which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--Supplemental Security Income, and veterans' pensions.

We owe it to our constituents to have a full and open debate on this legislation, to hear from experts and to thoughtfully consider alternatives. But this Republican majority didn't even take the time to hold a hearing or a markup on H.J. Res. 2. They are rushing it to the floor under suspension of the rules with no opportunity for us to consider any alternative proposals whatsoever.

We are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States. Why in the world would we want to use such a flawed process on such an important issue? Mr. Speaker, because maybe this isn't a serious effort in the first place. My Republican friends know this awful legislation will never become law.

So why are we wasting the House's time on this effort? I have a simple answer: to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party in an election year and to give the impression that these guys, these Republicans, are somehow fiscally responsible.

You don't have to take my word for it. Republican Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania confirmed in the press this week that this is merely a messaging vote. If you think this is cynical, consider for a moment the impetus of bringing this legislation to the floor.

Press reports indicate that Speaker Ryan agreed to a vote on the balanced budget amendment in exchange for votes to advance the Republican tax scam. Can you believe that? Speaker Ryan, the leader of this House, is advancing legislation that could do irreparable harm to our economy and our safety net just so he could jam through his precious tax giveaway to corporations and wealthy donors last December.

Let me remind everyone just how terrible the tax scam Republicans rammed through Congress really is:

It raises taxes on 68 million middle class families to give 83 percent of the tax cuts included in the bill to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

It gives a $1.3 trillion tax rate break to the largest corporations in this country and rewards these same corporations for shipping jobs overseas.

Here is the other part: it explodes the deficit by $2 trillion, jeopardizing the future of Medicare and Medicaid.

But this balanced budget amendment is supposed to trick people into believing Republicans still care about fiscal responsibility. It really is disheartening.

There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. At every turn, House Republicans favor the well-off and well-connected while ignoring the needs of those in the middle class and working class and certainly turning their backs on those struggling in poverty.

I meet with constituents in my district every day. Quite frankly, they don't ask what we are doing to repeal Dodd-Frank. They certainly don't ask us to ransack Social Security and cut Medicare to give tax breaks to big corporations.

They want better jobs and they want better wages. They want us to fix our crumbling infrastructure in their communities and to invest in education. They want us to protect our water and air from pollution. They made it clear to us last month, when over 1 million young people took to the streets across this country, that they want action on legislation to protect our communities from the plague of gun violence.

But the Republican leadership is ignoring this call, and it is ignoring any call for progress in favor of legislation to help the wealthy and well-connected donor class.

I get it. They need all this money for reelection. But the price is being paid by the American people. They are getting legislation that is not in their best interest but is in the best interest of a few wealthy donors.

It is reckless and it is wrong. Over 56 percent of the legislation that we have considered in the Rules Committee this year--that is over half--has been bills to roll back regulations on Wall Street and the financial industry. I don't see millions of people protesting in the street to give Wall Street a bigger break. I don't hear the voices being raised all across this country to say: ``Let's make the rich even richer. Let's do more to give corporations tax breaks.'' I don't hear that, and yet that is what the focus of this Congress has been about.

By the way, the vast majority of these bills to help the well- connected and the well-off haven't even gone through regular order. This whole process has been a joke. The legislation we are set to consider later this week is no exception.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, to oppose efforts to weaken the Volcker rule, and to oppose the balanced budget amendment when it is considered later this week.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican majority is on full display today. After passing a $1.5 trillion tax scam bill that showers all the benefits on the wealthy and very rich corporations, we are now going to consider an amendment to the Constitution to balance the Federal budget on the backs of hardworking Americans by eviscerating social safety net programs.

According to the AARP, this balanced budget amendment could subject Social Security and Medicare to deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of our most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment would put the pillars of our social safety net at risk. If you don't believe me, again, maybe you will listen to our friends at the AARP.

They said, this week, in a letter: ``A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of individuals.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the AARP's letter.

Mr. Speaker, this uncertainty could devastate the nearly half of older American households whose principal incomes come from Social Security or the over 50 million Americans who depend on Medicare. Even small cuts to Social Security checks or increases to Medicare premiums could impact the finances of older Americans and disabled Americans.

Now, the same week that the Congressional Budget Office predicts this Republican majority and their tax scam bill will lead to the return of trillion-dollar deficits, we will consider a balanced budget amendment that has been subject to no hearings and no markups. Even for this record-breaking closed Republican Congress, to attempt to amend our Constitution for only the 28th time in our Nation's history in this manner, quite frankly, is stunning.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule which would amend the bill to exempt Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, vital pillars of our social safety net.

I would just say to my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle who go home to their constituents and regularly talk about how great Social Security is, how great Medicare is, and how important Medicaid is, if you really believe it, you are going to vote to defeat the previous question so we can offer this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is attempting to amend the United States Constitution with a bill that has had no hearing, no markup, and will be considered without any opportunity to offer amendments or even a motion to recommit.

We have only amended the Constitution 27 times in our Nation's history. Why isn't the Republican leadership treating this with the seriousness that it deserves? Maybe because even conservative members of their own party know that this vote is a charade.

In a Politico article titled ``Conservatives irate over GOP spending hypocrisy,'' Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said: ``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.''

I couldn't agree more. Republicans just added almost $2 trillion to the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. As the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in the same article: ``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather than a serious process proposal.''

But we are here because Republican leadership is trying to check a box, as the Club for Growth put it, in hopes that people will forget their tax scam giveaway. And no wonder why Congress' approval rating is at just 15 percent. This is a dangerous gimmick that my Republican colleagues are pushing. If this is successful, it will lead to major cuts to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid. We need to take that seriously, and we need to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Politico article titled ``Conservatives irate over GOP's spending hypocrisy.''

[From POLITICO, Apr. 10, 2018]

Conservatives Irate Over GOP's Spending Hypocrisy

(By Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris)

House Republican leaders, stung by President Donald Trump's

rebuke of Congress' recent trillion-dollar spending spree,

are moving to give their rank and file cover by passing a

balanced budget amendment this week.

But many conservatives, including a good number of House

Republicans, say the vote is insincere at best--and blatantly

hypocritical at worst.

``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on

Main Street, that will take this vote seriously,'' said

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), on the heels

of a $1.3 trillion spending package that Republicans approved

just last month.

``Leadership is just trying to check a box here,'' added

Andrew Roth, vice president for government affairs at the

Club for Growth. ``I don't see how voters can distinguish

between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to

spending.''

One conservative commentator, Barbara Boland, equated the

upcoming exercise to ``gorging on a sumptuous feast while

insisting that you want a svelte physique.'' And other

members of the House Freedom Caucus, all of whom voted

against a $1.3 trillion spending package in late March, are

calling it little more than a charade.

``The time to get spending under control was four weeks

ago,'' said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), again referring to the

late-March spending vote. ``Coming back four weeks later and

saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan

and say we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not

going to fool anybody.''

Jordan and Meadows support the balanced budget amendment as

a marker for fiscal austerity--it's the timing of the vote,

on the heels of the spending bonanza, that rankles them and

other conservatives.

The proposal requires supermajorities in both chambers to

pass, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the

states, an impossible hurdle. But with Republicans swimming

in red ink--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

projected regular trillion-dollar annual deficits starting in

2020, despite a growing economy--the party feels pressure to

do something.

The CBO's deficit forecast hasn't been that bleak since the

Great Recession. And this time, Republicans can't blame

Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Rather, it's a result of a combination of GOP-approved

bills: tax cuts that CBO now expects to add $1.9 trillion to

the deficit over 10 years; a newly passed bipartisan deal to

raise strict spending caps by $320 billion for two years; and

a recent $100 billion infusion of cash into emergency

disaster coffers--almost entirely unpaid for.

The balanced budget amendment has been a staple of the GOP

playbook going back at least to Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract

with America. It often resurfaces after major spending

battles that leave conservatives feeling jilted. The last

vote, for instance, followed the 2011 debt ceiling crisis,

when Republicans were anxious about the national debt, which

now tops $20 trillion.

Republicans are returning to it two weeks after Trump

chided Congress for wasting money in the omnibus spending

deal--a scolding that came as the president backed away from

a threatened veto and signed it.

``I will never sign another bill like this again,'' Trump

vowed, adding that ``there are a lot of things I'm unhappy

about'' with it.

His remarks, GOP lawmakers and aides say, effectively threw

every Republican who backed the bipartisan deal under the bus

at a time when the party already faces an uphill battle

retaining its majority this fall.

Hill Republicans were shocked because White House staff

members were in the room negotiating the budget deal with the

top four leaders in both chambers. They had reassured some

skittish Republicans that it was OK to take the vote because

Trump would have their backs.

When they returned home afterward for the spring recess,

some Republicans caught flak from constituents, which in turn

sent GOP leaders into damage-control mode.

``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather

than a serious process proposal,'' said Maya MacGuineas,

president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget,

who said she'd believe the sincerity of the effort when

Republicans propose a budget with actual spending cuts.

Not all fiscal hawks are scorning the effort. Republican

Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), who asked for

a vote on a balanced budget amendment in October, applauded

the looming vote--even as he acknowledged the uncomfortable

timing for the GOP. Walker argued that it's consistent for

Republicans to back the amendment after voting for the

omnibus, because of the need to fund the military. Walker

added, though, that most members pushing hard for deficit-

reduction votes right now personally opposed the spending

bill, as he did.

``We don't see this as a show vote. We need this. It's

something that we've been talking about for years,'' Walker

said Tuesday.

The balanced budget amendment is one of several measures

GOP leaders might bring to the floor in the coming weeks to

signal their commitment to lower spending. The effort is

being led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.),

who is working with the White House to try to force a vote on

a ``rescissions'' package that would cut billions of dollars

from the just-approved omnibus legislation.

It's still unclear whether the House will take up the

measure, which GOP aides say could cut as much as $20

billion. House appropriators hate the idea, and some more

pragmatic-minded Republicans argue it would cripple

bipartisan spending negotiations in the future.

Republicans clinched the amount they got for defense only

because they gave Democrats some money for their own pet

projects. A move to recoup money retroactively would

infuriate Democrats--even though GOP leaders fully expect it

would fail in the Senate.

GOP leaders similarly expect the balanced budget amendment

to fail this week in the House. It requires 290 votes for

passage; the last time lawmakers voted on one, in 2011, it

failed 261-165, with 25 Democrats backing the bill.

Speaker Paul Ryan was one of only four Republicans to

oppose the measure at the time. It is unclear whether he will

do so again this year. He said the proposal before the House

then could have led to higher taxes to pay for more spending.

A balanced budget amendment would tightly restrict federal

spending and require two-thirds of lawmakers to approve any

tax changes. Critics argue it would trigger hundreds of

billions of dollars in across-the-board cuts.

Ironically, a balanced budget amendment would have

potentially prevented the GOP Congress' biggest legislative

achievement this year: tax reform. With the amendment,

Republicans could not have enacted tax cuts that weren't paid

for; these ones were not. The GOP also probably couldn't have

gotten the huge budget increase for the Pentagon that was

included in the omnibus.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

suggested Tuesday that he might follow suit on a balanced

budget amendment vote. He said a vote is ``likely . . . at

some point.''

Democrats are blasting Republicans for what House Minority

Whip Steny Hoyer called a ``political stunt.'' The Maryland

Democrat on Tuesday said Republicans are ``worried'' about

the midterm elections and ``they're flailing about.''

``It sounds to me very much,'' he said, ``like they're . .

. saying one thing and doing another, speaking out of both

sides of their mouth.''

Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, again another Freedom Caucus member, said on the balanced budget amendment: ``The time to get spending under control was 4 weeks ago. Coming back 4 weeks later and saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan and say we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not going to fool anybody.''

I would argue that the time to get spending under control was when Republicans exploded the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. I agree with Mr. Jordan on this: A sham vote like that isn't going to fool anybody.

Mr. Speaker, while I think everybody knows that what is going to happen on this balanced budget amendment is really show business, I think it is important to stress that it really underlines the values of my friends on the Republican side and what they think is important and what they believe is important to protect. As I said, if this or anything like what they are proposing ever became the law of the land, programs like Social Security, like Medicare, and like Medicaid would be at risk. There are no provisions in their draft to protect these programs that so many millions of Americans rely on.

And again, this is not surprising because we have seen over the years their attempts to privatize Social Security, their attempts to privatize Medicare, their attempts to undermine Medicaid, their constant attacks on programs like SNAP. This is nothing new.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying to my Republican friends that there are some things worth defending, and programs like Social Security and programs like Medicare are worth defending. They are worth fighting for. And I want to make it clear that, on the Democratic side, any Republican attempts to undermine, to weaken, to undercut Social Security or Medicare, we will fight you. We will fight you with every ounce of energy and strength that we have because these programs are important. They are important to our values, but more importantly, they are important to our constituents.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off with a quote from Speaker Paul Ryan in a 2012 townhall meeting. This is what he said to his constituents: ``If you're a bank and you want to operate like some nonbank entity like a hedge fund, then don't be a bank. Don't let banks use their customers' money to do anything other than traditional banking.''

I agree, and that is why Congress passed the Volcker rule in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, to prevent taxpayer-backed banks from engaging in risky, speculative activities like owning hedge funds. But since that time, Republicans have engaged in a relentless attack against the Volcker rule at the behest of Wall Street megabanks.

H.R. 4790, the so-called Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act, is the latest threat to that rule. Specifically, H.R. 4790, contains two problematic provisions that would create a loophole in the Volcker rule and make it easier for the Trump administration to weaken or repeal it.

Leading up to the financial crisis, Wall Street megabanks engaged in proprietary trading, which is essentially speculative, highly leveraged betting that benefits their bottom line but uses federally insured loans backed by the U.S. taxpayer.

These banks gambled on exotic financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations comprised of risky subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, which even the legendary investor, Warren Buffett, criticized as ``financial weapons of mass destruction.''

When the Housing bubble finally burst, these bets led to massive losses and required the Federal Government to bail out the banking industry with trillions of taxpayer dollars to stop an economic catastrophe. To protect the American taxpayer and the economy from this sort of risky trading as well as to return banks to the business of helping consumers and small businesses, Congress included the Volcker rule's ban on proprietary trading as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Specifically, the Volcker rule prohibits taxpayer-backed banks from engaging in risky proprietary trading and from owning hedge funds and private equity funds. It also prohibits banks from owning the very same risky collateralized debt obligations that accelerated the 2008 crisis.

According to Martin Gruenberg, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that is, the FDIC, which is the agency charged with protecting taxpayers from bank bailouts, ``had it,'' this prohibition, ``been in place then, the Volcker rule would have constrained the proliferation of such instruments.''

The result today is less reckless risk-taking by Wall Street megabanks and a stronger financial system. And despite dire predictions by Republicans, our banks have returned to lending to consumers and businesses, and our financial markets are adapting and thriving.

For example, since passage of Dodd-Frank, bank lending to businesses has increased 80 percent; and in the bond market, which has long been dominated by bank dealers, we have seen record-new bond issuance by companies, States, cities, and towns seeking to raise funds and record trading volumes in those bonds. Most other metrics also show a healthy corporate bond market.

Nevertheless, H.R. 4790 is just the latest Republican attempt to weaken the Volcker rule. First, the bill would provide a blanket exemption from the Volcker rule for 97 percent of our Nation's banks which have consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and with less than 5 percent of those assets in trading assets.

To be clear, most community banks do not engage in any trading activities and, therefore, have no compliance requirements under the rule. However, H.R. 4790 would give all community banks the congressional thumbs-up to begin speculative trading instead of focusing on the traditional business of banking. It also makes community banks prime targets for hedge fund salesmen.

Now, why is this an area of concern for me? It is an area of concern because I hear the community banks when they say that their numbers are going down because of mergers and consolidation. This bill does not help with this problem. It makes it worse because it sends a shining beacon to hedge funds all over the country that they can peddle risky and questionable investments to community banks, and the regulators will be none the wiser.

I am extraordinarily concerned with the extent of the affordable housing crisis our Nation is facing. We need banks to invest in housing and in our communities. I believe that community banks can provide those kind of investments.

But I am also concerned that, if the hedge funds can prey on community banks with little oversight, then they will be unable to provide the kinds of investments in housing and small businesses that communities need. Instead, we will see more community banks investing in hedge funds and possibly leaving these communities behind.

So when Members ask: How can we create more affordable housing or address the issues that experts like Dr. Matthew Desmond are raising on the housing crisis in America, one thing that we can do is not think narrowly about the impact of financial services legislation, and, particularly, legislation like H.R. 4790 that can create lasting, unintended consequences if not carefully considered.

We should think broadly and realize that the policies that we make for banks can have real impacts on the communities they serve. And the regulators and experts have done just that. They have carefully considered the bill's provisions and the unintended consequences that could ensue.

That is why the blanket carve-out in this bill is opposed by former Federal Reserve Chairman and the rule's namesake, Paul Volcker, who has said: ``I know from my long experience in banking and savings and loan regulation that plausibly small loopholes can be `gamed' and exploited with unfortunate consequences.'' Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Federal Reserve for part of the savings and loan crisis, which, during that time, more than 1,000 S&Ls failed, fully one-third of the industry.

The exemption is also opposed by FDIC Chairman Gruenberg, FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig, and investors and advocates.

If we truly want to reduce regulatory burdens on community banks that engage in permitted trading activity, we should be looking at other ways to accommodate them, such as by creating a presumption of compliance with the Volcker rule, which reduces compliance costs without opening up a loophole. Rather than encouraging banks, especially community banks, to make speculative bets on hedge funds or derivatives, we should be doing everything possible to ensure banks are focused on supporting their communities by offering mortgages and commercial loans.

Second, H.R. 4790 would repeal the requirement that the Federal Reserve, FDIC; Office of the Comptroller of Currency, that is the OCC; Securities and Exchange Commission, that is the SEC; and the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, that is the CFTC, work together to jointly implement the rule. Instead, the bill would delegate sole rulemaking authority to the Federal Reserve, which could choose to consult or not consult with the other regulators.

This would unreasonably cut the FDIC out of any future rule changes, even though it is the regulator charged with protecting deposit insurance against the very risky, speculative activities the Volcker rule was designed to prevent.

It would also cut the OCC out of the rulemaking process, even though it oversees institutions that account for approximately 40 percent of bank holding company trading revenues.

And it would cut out the SEC and the CFTC, even though those agencies have the expertise and jurisdiction over broker dealers and future traders and their marketmaking activities.

Worse, appointing the Fed a single regulator would make it easier for the Trump administration to weaken and repeal the Volcker rule, even though it was expeditiously promulgated in 2 years and the regulators are now working together to make appropriate changes. While the bill would at least allow the appropriate banking regulators--SEC and CFTC-- to enforce the rule, such enforcement authority is meaningless if the Volcker rule is effectively gutted by the Trump administration.

But this is what my Republican colleagues want. Chairman Hensarling's 600-page Big Bank giveaway, H.R. 10, known as the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, would have repealed the Volcker rule outright. H.R. 4790 is merely the latest attempt to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4790, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Michigan started his remarks, he

accused me of wanting to talk about housing. He is absolutely correct. I want to talk about housing. I believe that if we really understood the needs of our constituents all over this country, instead of talking about megabanks and how we can give them whatever they want in order to make more profits, we should be talking about housing. We should be talking about housing needs in this country.

As a matter of fact, I have said to the chairman more than once that I really would like to have a hearing on homelessness because homelessness is exploding all over the country. In the city of Los Angeles, we have probably over 53,000 homeless people every night without a place to lay their heads.

Oh, yes, we should be talking about housing. You cannot separate trading from housing in the way that maybe some would attempt to do: Oh, this is about Volcker; it has nothing to do with housing.

Oh, yes, it does.

Because, instead of this risky trading that the banks are doing, they should be investing in our communities and providing for affordable housing.

And let me just tell you, African-American homeownership today is as low as it was when housing discrimination was legal. There is not a single county in the United States with sufficient affordable housing.

So, yes, we should be talking about housing, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Thank you for accusing me of wanting to talk about housing.

Last year our Nation's banks reported $164.8 billion in profit. Had it not been for the Republicans' new tax law which required them to take a one-time charge, the FDIC estimates that the banks would have profited to the tune of $183.1 billion, which is an all-time high and an increase of 7.2 percent from 2016 and a 26 percent increase from 2006.

So I think it is a little hard to argue that banks don't have enough money to lend, but let's look at what they did with that money.

The Wall Street megabanks returned a lot of that money to their shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. For example, in June 2017, J.P. Morgan announced a stock repurchase program of up to $19.4 billion, its biggest buyback since the financial crisis. Citigroup also announced its largest ever stock buyback program, worth up to $15.6 billion, and doubled its dividend.

The Wall Street megabanks also handsomely rewarded their CEOs with some of the biggest paydays since 2006. Five Wall Street banks, combined, paid their CEOs a total compensation of $126 million, the highest amount since before the financial crisis. Each chief of the banks--which includes Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley--received an average $25.3 million for their work, and that was up 17 percent from 2016.

Mr. Speaker, we listen to Chairman Hensarling's stories. He shares a lot of stories with us that he receives from his constituents about problems they are having receiving car loans or a mortgage. And I agree, we should be doing more to expand access to credit for consumers; but what I do not agree with is the Republican argument that, if we only repealed bank regulations, then all of a sudden those individuals would receive the car loans and the mortgages that they currently cannot.

Banks are raking in money hand over fist, and they could use that money now to lend to creditworthy borrowers instead of paying millions of dollars in bonuses to their CEOs. Let's be clear about what is really going on. No amount of regulatory relief will cure Wall Street greed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely amazing. We had the gentleman earlier who said this is not the time to talk about housing, and then we have the gentleman from Wisconsin who says, when the banks do well, our constituents do well.

The banks are making millions of dollars; the CEOs are making millions of dollars; and they have bank tellers and people who work who are not even making $15 an hour. We can't even get a minimum wage increase, Federal minimum wage increase for our constituents, and many of them are working in these megabanks where the CEOs are walking away every year with millions of dollars in pay.

So these statements, when banks do well, everybody does well, I wish my good friend would reexamine that statement because I think, when he thinks about it, he might want to retract it and take that back.

``Certainly, we have to do a better job ring-fencing, fire-walling-- whatever metaphor you want to use--between an insured depository institution and a noninsured investment bank.'' That is a quote from Chairman Jeb Hensarling, March 2013. That appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

And this is just what the Volcker rule does.

``If you're a bank and you want to operate like some nonbank entity like a hedge fund, then don't be a bank. Don't let banks use their customers' money

to do anything other than traditional banking.'' Again, I repeat, that is what Speaker Paul Ryan said in May 2012 in a townhall meeting.

``I do support the Volcker rule. I think the concept of proprietary trading does not belong in banks with FDIC insurance.'' That is a quote from Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, January 2017, during the Senate confirmation hearings.

Another quote: ``I think the Volcker rule is very important and it is good. I think the Volcker rule is good. Banks should not be a last resort to sell securities. Banks should not have prop desks buying them.''

That was Carl Icahn, the hedge fund manager and currently special adviser to President Trump on regulatory reform during a 2015 conference.

Another quote: ``Proprietary trading played a big role in manufacturing the CDOs and other instruments that were at the heart of the financial crisis. . . . If firms weren't able to buy up the parts of these deals that wouldn't sell . . . the game would have stopped a lot sooner.''

This is a quote by Michael Madden, a managing director of the investment firm BlackEagle Partners and a former Lehman executive.

We have more quotes. Here is one: ``The industry should be compartmentalized so as to limit the propagation of failures and also to preserve cultural boundaries.'' That is a quote by John Reed, the former Citigroup chairman, in a Senate testimony, February 2010.

Further quoting: ``A strong Volcker rule is one of the most important provisions to prevent `too big to fail' financial institutions, stop conflicts of interest, and support credit in our economy. . . . Failure to comply should be severely punished.'' And this is what Reed said in a letter to regulators, February 2012.

Again, in looking at all of these quotes, we find that there is one from former Democratic and Republican Secretaries of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal, joined by Nicholas Brady, Paul O'Neill, George Schultz, and John Snow.

This is what they said: ``Banks benefiting from public support by means of access to the Federal Reserve and FDIC insurance should not engage in essentially speculative activity unrelated to essential bank services.'' Again, all of these gentlemen said this in a letter, reported in The Wall Street Journal, February 2010. This was a letter to the editor.

And let me just, again, refer to one of the greatest economists in this country and the former Chair of the FDIC, Paul Volcker. What did he say?

He said, in essence: The five banking regulatory authorities have now successfully responded to the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act by setting out a comprehensive regulation restricting proprietary trading by commercial banks in the United States. . . . The agencies have dealt comprehensively with thousands of particular conceptual and practical questions raised by affected bankers, by legions of lobbyists, by other interested parties, and by the general public. . . . The result should help the process of restoring trust and confidence in commercial banking institutions. It is, after all, those institutions which benefit from explicit and implicit public support that we count on to provide a strong, safe, and effective financial system--Paul Volcker, December 2013.

``The Volcker rule will make it illegal for firms to use government- insured money to make speculative bets that threaten the entire financial system and demand a new era of accountability from CEOs who must sign off on their firms' practices. Our financial system will be safer, and the American people are more secure because we fought to include this protection in the law.'' That was President Obama, December 2013.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my friend and champion of consumers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how many more speakers does Mr. Hensarling have?

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

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

This is the third bill that the majority has put on the House floor this week that is a harmful giveaway to the big banks. I could just list you all of the deregulatory bills that they have been bringing forward, but, today, the bill we are considering, H.R. 4790, would threaten the Volcker rule, which prevents banks from gambling with taxpayer money. As we have discussed, the Volcker rule is a key component of Wall Street reform and has prevented risky, speculative behavior by Wall Street and made our economy safer. It must not be compromised.

It seems the Republicans have not learned the lessons of the financial crisis at all. They are working every day to reverse critical Dodd-Frank reforms and to reopen the door to risky and harmful practices that led our Nation to economic catastrophe, so I oppose this bill.

I do not want our Members to be tricked or fooled talking about community banks. This is not about community banks. This is about the megabanks. They always use the community banks to lead on some of these arguments so that people will think that they are doing something for community banks.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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.

The rule makes in order one bill reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services. The committee held several hearings on the topics within this bill in the spring of 2017.

Additionally, it was marked up in committee, and a Democrat amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by voice. The bill was reported by a strong, bipartisan vote of 50-10. The rule makes in order no amendments to the bill. Why? Because there were none offered.

Additionally, the rule provides the opportunity for this House to consider a balanced budget amendment and more than quadruples the time for debate on the floor than it would otherwise be provided.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have the opportunity to come down to the floor and manage debate for a Financial Services bill. Thinking of the process that I just referenced a moment ago, one thing routinely strikes me: so many of these Financial Services bills are overwhelmingly bipartisan within the Committee on Financial Services.

There always seems to be a common theme and political rhetoric that Republicans are shills for the banking industry. Setting a rebuttal to that aside for now, the underlying bill before us contains a wholly bipartisan piece of legislation.

That a committee run by Republicans would have a process whereby we bring to the floor a major piece of reform legislation offered by both a Republican and a Democrat is a real testament to the fact that this House can work. I commend Chairman Hensarling for running the committee in such a way.

Mr. Speaker, our small town and community banks are a much bigger part of our lives than many may realize. Often here in Washington, we get caught up in big players in industry. We talk about Wall Street and Silicon Valley. We speak of countries and international relations. However, all across this great land, Americans in small, medium, and large communities go about their business and conduct their day-to-day affairs without any of the issues that consume Washington touching their lives.

Most Americans just simply want Washington to leave them in peace, to allow them to live their lives without politics and government intruding at every step. This Financial Services bill before us speaks to those concerns. This is legislation for Main Streets all across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 6,000 community banks across this country with 52,000 locations. These banks are the backbone of our communities' finances. Collectively, they hold more than $3.2 trillion in loans to consumers. They provide nearly 50 percent of all small business loans and nearly 80 percent of all agriculture loans.

How is it that they claim such a huge portion of loans within our communities? It is simple. They are also part of the community that they serve, and they extend credit based on personal knowledge of their neighbors and their local economy.

But they are more than just organizations that lend and offer banking services. They are small businesses that employ more than 750,000 Americans. Clearly, community banks are key partners in our communities. They are particularly important lenders in rural towns and counties, such as the ones I represent in eastern Colorado.

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen summed it best when she said: ``We know that community banks serve many customers that large banks do not and provide services that are not offered by large banks in many communities. This circumstance is especially true in rural areas and other small communities, where community banks are sometimes the only retail financial institutions.''

However, even with their importance to Americans, they have borne the brunt of regulation under Dodd-Frank. Each new regulation drives up costs and forces personnel resources to be diverted to compliance efforts. Even if a particular institution is not ultimately subject to a rule, it must spend resources on each new regulation released to verify whether any part of its operations are impacted or not.

These costs place a drain on operations which consumes resources that otherwise would be used for growth.

The Federal Reserve Board recently released data that showed that small bank lending in rural areas had declined by 46 percent since 2005. According to the Independent Community Bankers of America, a 2014 survey of community banks revealed that 78 percent of banks reported adding personnel just to deal with increased regulation.

By consuming resources that could otherwise be placed into serving customers and increasing lending, community banks are many times forced to consolidate just to remain alive. Today, there are 1,700 fewer community banks than there were in 2010. As of May 2017, only three new banks were formed since the financial crisis.

It is clear that our community banks are suffering under an unbearable regulatory burden. And when our community banks suffer, our small towns and rural communities suffer also.

The underlying bill before us today exempts community banks from yet another regulation that lumps small institutions with big banks. The Volcker rule was implemented by Dodd-Frank. It was intended to keep banks from engaging in a practice known as proprietary trading. Proprietary trading is a practice where a financial institution such as a bank uses its own finances to buy and sell stocks and other investments so as to make a profit for itself.

Because of their importance to each individual American, but also to our broader economy, we should consider carefully how we allow financial institutions to operate. However, the real

impact of the Volcker rule on community banks has served to undermine investment options in our smaller communities.

All across this country, particularly in rural communities, entrepreneurs, farmers, and others sell their equity or bonds in order to raise capital to grow and expand. However, if community banks were prohibited from buying these financial instruments, then the sellers would have to find buyers on their own. That is a highly impractical situation.

Under the Volcker rule, an entrepreneur cannot approach their community bank and offer to sell a portion of their equity to the bank. Why? Because Dodd-Frank prohibits the banks from making its own investments. What sense does this make? Where is the entrepreneur supposed to go to find a buyer for their equity? Are they supposed to go door-to-door looking for someone who might want to invest? That is nonsense.

Community banks play a vital role in purchasing these financial instruments and holding them until the bank is approached by a willing buyer. Or maybe the bank holds them for a brief period as they know they have a customer who is searching for this type of investment.

Either way, this is not an evil practice that we should prohibit. The community bank's actions are making a marketplace for these investment transactions, and this should be encouraged. It increases access to capital for small businesses and farms in our communities.

But it is not just on the selling side of the equation that this practice benefits. It also benefits the buying side of the equation. Many Americans have invested a portion of their retirement savings in pension funds, mutual funds, or similar types of investments. These funds need for their investments to be liquid so as to meet demands for cash from the people who have chosen to save their money in the funds.

These funds often place these cash investments into smaller financial institutions through purchasing the stocks or bonds that these banks own. The banks allow these larger funds to purchase the bank's assets and also to sell back to the bank the same assets when the funds need cash.

This isn't a shady practice. This is an extraordinarily important practice and benefits every single American who has saved or is saving money in a pension or other retirement account.

The Volcker rule prohibits this activity. Washington, in its typically arrogant way, decided that it knew better than Americans and banned this under Dodd-Frank.

On December 10, 2013, the five--I repeat, the five--separate agencies tasked with writing and enforcing this regulation released a final regulation that is 932 pages long and contains nearly 300,000 words.

That is astounding. What small town community bank can, on top of all of the other regulations heaped upon them, carve out the necessary resources to comply with such a burden?

When we had this bill at Rules Committee yesterday, one of my colleagues on the committee related a story of visiting one of his community banks. He indicated that it was a fairly small bank. The owner of the bank walked him into the back operations office and pointed to 14 staff members working. All of them were working exclusively on complying with regulations. That is 14 people not serving customers, or seeking new depositors, or helping the community grow. What a sad state to which we have arrived.

Washington heaps, and heaps, and heaps burdens on the backs of Americans day in and day out. Technocrats make it harder and harder to achieve success in this land.

We are still a land of opportunity, but that gift is threatened daily by our bureaucracy. Endless regulation of every meaningful detail of our lives is antithetical to the American way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Before us we have a rule that makes in order an important change to the banking laws. We have seen what happens when arduous regulations are removed from the backs of Americans.

Our economy is booming, growth is strong, even stronger than many expected it would be at this point.

The Volcker rule, passed under Dodd-Frank, is a solution in search of a problem. Our community banks should not have to bear the weight of this overarching regulation. Our small town and rural lenders are active members of our communities. They participate in improving our lives in many ways, even beyond lending. They sponsor little league teams. They are boosters for the local high school. They counsel small businessmen and women. They contribute to our churches and charitable organizations. They offer help to needy neighbors.

We should actively seek policies that free them to do their jobs. That is what the underlying bill does. It exempts them from a regulation that has frozen in place their ability to invest in local startups and farming operations. We should exempt them from this burdensome regulation.

I hope this House will follow in the steps of the Financial Services Committee and approve this bill in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 811, I call up the bill (H.R. 4790) to amend the Volcker rule to give the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System sole rulemaking authority, to exclude community banks from the requirements of the Volcker rule, 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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, another day, another strong bipartisan bill presented to the House by the House Financial Services Committee.

I take great pride in that fact.

Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4790, the Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act.

I want to thank, first, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for his leadership on the issue and so many other issues in front of our committee.

And I want to thank his bipartisan partner, the Democrat gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his leadership on his side of the aisle on this very important piece of legislation.

As a result of their hard work, this bill was reported out of our committee, Mr. Speaker, 50-10, which means 80 percent--80 percent--of our colleagues on the committee supported the legislation, including a majority of the Democrats.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we enjoy, in America, the deepest, strongest, and most liquid capital markets, frankly, the world has ever known, and that helps us have a very strong, strong progrowth economy.

Our capital markets are vital; vital to the job growth and job- creating machine in America. Our capital markets provide very important funding to Main Street businesses and to entrepreneurs for short-term operations and long-term growth.

Main Street businesses, for example, like an equipment and party rental store in my district, whose owner is named Arlis, who told me, ``The number one issue for me to keep the doors open is access to capital.''

That is why it is so critical that we ensure that he has access to capital.

I also heard from Jeff from Henderson County in the Fifth District of Texas that I have the privilege of representing. He owns a farm and ranch store, and he explained, ``During the past year, I have been able to expand my business location and double my inventory. I have been able to hire additional employees as I grow. Without access to credit, things like this would not be possible.''

Just two quick little vignettes about how in our economy capital formation, access to credit, how important that is for the job engine of America.

So again, Mr. Speaker, members of the House Financial Services Committee on both sides of the aisle have been working very hard on bipartisan pieces of legislation that can result in smarter, more efficient, more effective regulation that our hardworking taxpayers expect so that we can have robust capital formation and our job creators, our small business people like Jeff and Arlis, can continue to grow and prosper.

H.R. 4790 is just one example of this type of legislation. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4790 will streamline the regulatory authority set forth in section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, a section more commonly known as the Volcker rule. It provides a framework that will provide increased regulatory clarity for entities that must comply with the Volcker rule. It does this by consolidating--consolidating-- rulemaking authority and interpretation with the Federal Reserve Board, and for purposes of examination and enforcement, designating the primary Federal regulator for a covered entity as the sole regulator in those capacities.

The challenge here, Mr. Speaker, is that some entities can have as many as five different regulators interpreting the Volcker rule and five different regulators enforcing the Volcker rule. Sometimes they conflict with each other, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly, the entity doesn't know what to do. You cannot have an economy based on the rule of law when, frankly, you don't know what the law says.

So the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) brings a very simple bill to the House floor that says we are going to have one--one--regulator in charge of interpreting the rules, and the primary regulator is going to be in charge of enforcing the rule. It is common sense. It creates efficiency.

Now, I want to be clear about one thing: H.R. 4790 does not repeal the Volcker rule. I wish it did, but it doesn't. That is not what we are debating here today.

Outside of providing important relief to community banks--bipartisan regulatory relief that, by the way, has already been approved by a strong two-

thirds of our Senate colleagues--this bill doesn't require any changes to the Volcker rule itself.

I highlight this because this legislation, again, represents something that Members of Congress should agree on, that regardless of how you stand on a particular rule or regulation, it at least ought to be clear, and there ought to be one interpretation and one enforcer of the rule so that you know what the rule is. You can't abide by the rule if you don't know what the rule is. This is only common sense, and it can only lead to, again, stronger, deeper, more liquid capital markets to help our job creators.

So regardless of whether we support the Volcker rule or we wish to repeal it, hopefully, we can at least agree that it shouldn't be unnecessarily complex and burdensome and virtually impossible to abide by. And so that, again, is what H.R. 4790 is simply trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this piece of legislation to all of my colleagues. It is a very important piece of legislation, again, strongly bipartisan. Eighty percent of the Members of the House Financial Services Committee support it.

Again, I want to commend the leadership of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say I am not sure what bill the ranking member is debating. It does not appear to be H.R. 4790, and I have my own quotes.

Paul Volcker, himself, said the Volcker rule is ``much more complicated than I would like to see.''

President Obama's Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, said: ``Implementation of the Volcker rule is, frankly, complex. . . .''

President Obama's Federal Reserve Governor Tarullo said: ``Several years of experience have convinced me that . . . the Volcker rule is too complicated.''

President Obama's former Comptroller of the Currency said the Volcker rule ``has been one of the most complex rulemakings I can remember being involved in.''

That is why we need to simplify it.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the bill's sponsor, one of the hardest working and most knowledgeable members on our committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who has come to actually speak on H.R. 4790 as opposed to H.R. red herring, the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is familiar with the eight-page bill and knows that H.R. 4790 does not repeal the Volcker rule. He happens to be the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has three more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a great member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a good member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listened very carefully to my friend and ranking member describe this parade of horribles that is going to befall our economy if H.R. 4790 is enacted, I would gently remind her that a majority of her own Members supported it. So all of these accusations that she has made against the majority party, I hope, and believe, she has, obviously, foisted upon the majority of her own Members who clearly do not support her in what she is attempting to do.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would remind all Members, contrary to the Volcker rule, that weighs in at almost 1,000 pages, H.R. 4790 weighs in at 8 pages. If you read the bill, you will discover that it does not repeal the Volcker rule. Again, I don't know what bill the ranking member was debating, but it is not H.R. 4790.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just think about it for a second. Paying your taxes--tax day is coming up--is not a pleasant time of year. And as unpleasant as that time is, think if you had to file your taxes with five different Federal agencies. Think about the fact that if you had a question about your taxes, that you had to call the Internal Revenue Service, you had to call the Department of Labor, you had to call the EPA, and you had to call the CFPB. What if you had five different agencies interpreting the Internal Revenue Code, all enforcing it in different ways? That would take one of the worst days of the year and compound it mightily.

What the gentleman from Arkansas is trying to do on the majority side, and what the gentleman from Illinois is trying to do on minority side, is say: If we are going to have a Volcker rule--one of the most complicated, complex rules ever devised by the mind of man--maybe we ought to have one agency interpret it and one agency enforce it.

Why do we do that, Mr. Speaker?

We do that so that capital can be available to the people I spoke about in my opening statement. So that Jeff and Arlis can have capital to expand their small businesses on Main Street. That is what this is all about--so that our small businesses can thrive, so that the people who want to own a home can thrive, and so that this economy can grow. This is commonsense. It is why it is a strong, bipartisan measure-- another strong, bipartisan measure that, unfortunately, our ranking member chooses not to partake in. And it is one of the reasons why, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we listen to that side of the aisle--or at least a particular voice--we will continue to have bad economic growth. We need good economic growth for all of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4790, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the chairman's leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

I think the American people should be very pleased that this bill is coming to the floor in the form that it is, because we are doing two things here, Mr. Speaker, that I hear about from constituents all the time in terms of the way Congress should work.

First, the Dodd-Frank Act was passed 8 years ago this July and has been scrutinized by Congresses since that time on how it can be improved. What are the implications of it? What are the unintended consequences of it?

No section of this bill was talked about more than section 619, the Volcker rule. So we are evaluating it, and we are bringing today a bipartisan solution to something that regulators say is a problem, bankers say is a problem, and our consumers and businesses have had the unintended consequences of being hurt by, because it has not allowed our capital markets to function efficiently.

So, first, Dodd-Frank is subject to review after it was passed. That is something our constituents want. We know no law is perfect when it is passed. It is not a piece of the true cross discovered by St. Helena in Jerusalem. It is not part of the Rosetta Stone. It is subject to the scrutiny of the people--our people--the American people.

Secondly, people tell me all the time: Why can't you be more bipartisan?

So, Mr. Speaker, this is people's exhibit A of bipartisanship.

The Financial CHOICE Act that this House passed last year repealed the Volcker rule. We believe it harms the capital market system of this country. We believe it was an overreaction to the financial crisis.

We had members of the Obama administration who said that proprietary trading didn't even contribute to the financial crisis. But set that issue aside. We proposed repeal. Over in the United States Senate, they passed the bill with two-thirds of the Senate, Mr. Speaker, to say that the Volcker rule is not perfect.

Section 619 is not right, and they exempt community banks under $10 billion that don't have trading activity. They exempt them completely in the U.S. Senate bill passed with two-thirds of the Senate. I think all Americans know that two-thirds of the Senate agreeing on something is shocking. They can't even agree that there are 24 hours in a day.

So this bill represents an improvement. This bill represents bipartisanship. With my friend, Dr. Foster, we have worked from the yin of full repeal to the Senate-exempt community banks. We have identical language to exempt community banks in this bill, Mr. Speaker. That is why we got a 50-0 vote in our committee. It is common sense.

But we add one feature that we think improves that Senate language, and that is the heart of what is changed in this bill and the heart of what Dr. Foster worked on, which is, how do we harmonize the interpretation of this 1,000-page complex rule that our Federal Reserve bank presidents don't understand and our current chairman said that trading desks had to have a Ouija board to figure out how to do a trade? So we want a standard, harmonized interpretation of this rule, and that is what Dr. Foster and I propose today.

They have tried other ways. We have an Interagency Working Group. They sit around, drink coffee, and figure out ways to harmonize stuff. But they have failed. There were hundreds of questions submitted: How do we interpret this rule? They could come up with 21 answers, Mr. Speaker, out of hundreds submitted.

So for that reason, Dr. Foster and I suggest that the Federal Reserve system be first among equals in interpreting this complex rule. Why? Because they oversee all of the bank holding companies in the country, the most complex institutions in the country. In my view, that is what we need to do.

We are bipartisan. We have compromised. We have brought both sides together. We have improved the bill. Like our chairman, I wish it were repealed, but that is not possible right now. So we take a step forward to make it a better rule that provides more certainty for market makers.

If market makers have more certainty, Mr. Speaker, broker-dealers under $10 billion or over $10 billion will have a more clear compliance regime. Our towns and municipalities that require in their municipal bonds having market makers and trading will get better prices, which means our water and sewer systems are going to cost less when it comes to the net interest cost. That is what we are trying to do, is improve our capital markets and let our companies have more market makers.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank Dr. Foster for his support, and I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor.