Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to create hope and opportunity for investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs by ending bailouts and Too Big to Fail, holding Washington and Wall Street accountable, eliminating red tape to increase access to capital and credit, and repealing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that make America less prosperous, less stable, and less free, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reliable, replacement transportation so that I could get to

work and continue to provide for my family. Please ensure

that financing car and truck dealerships are not stymied by

Dodd-Frank's CFPB.

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

Last February, we were awarded a major catering contract

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

new contract will require us to make a major investment in

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

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

turned what should have been a golden opportunity into an

unbelievable headache. Three banks informed us that our

rating, according to new bank regulations imposed by Dodd-

Frank, disqualified us from consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are so happy that the Financial CHOICE Act has been

endorsed by over 100 groups, including the Concerned Veterans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, I brought the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to the floor of the House as chairwoman of the House Rules Committee. This law was a statement from Congress on behalf of the American people that unchecked corporate greed will never again bring the United States of America to financial collapse.

My colleague began his speech this morning by saying that this law had not worked, but I am not aware of major bank failures or bank failures of any kind since we passed it, and I would say, indeed, this law has worked.

Since it has been enacted, our economy has had over 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth. That is pretty good. In fact, it is a record-setting streak. More than 16 million jobs have been created, and business lending has been increased by 75 percent. I am not getting all the complaints that I used to get that they could not borrow money from banks, particularly the small businesses.

Along the way, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established under this law has helped 29 million people in all of our 50 States to receive nearly $12 billion in relief from companies that engaged in irresponsible or predatory practices.

One group that sent us a letter begging us not to do away with Dodd- Frank was the Veterans of Foreign Wars who said that far too often their veterans were the victims of predatory lenders--shysters, people not telling them the truth--and that is exactly what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established to do.

You can't argue about whether or not it has been a success if 29 million people in 50 States have gotten back $12 billion in relief of bad practices. But this legislation completely will do away with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the only thing we have left to protect Main Street and the small investors.

These gains weren't a coincidence, Mr. Speaker. They were the result of the Dodd-Frank law. Gutting Wall Street reform will be a historic giveaway to special interests.

The Wall Street firms who plunged our country to the brink, in 2008, would be free once again to take advantage of consumers and force middle class families to go it alone, without the protections this bill has provided them.

The CHOICE Act is the wrong choice for consumers and families. Instead of standing with financial lobbyists, I urge the majority to uphold the trust of the people we all represent.

Five years ago, Democrats and Republicans came together to almost unanimously pass my bill to end insider trading in Congress. The STOCK Act passed this Chamber by a vote of 417-2, one of the most bipartisan bills of that entire session of Congress.

It wasn't easy. I led a 6-year fight to get it signed into law after learning that Members of Congress and their staffs were abusing their positions by making money from the information that they gleaned and that was not available to everybody else in America. They gleaned this information while

working on behalf of the people whose information they were stealing. It took a ``60 Minutes'' investigation on television and a groundswell of public support, but the bill became a reality.

For me, upholding the people's trust is the most sacred responsibility I have as a Member of Congress. That is why I am waging a new battle to strengthen the STOCK Act, after learning that some in this Congress have used legal loopholes to get around this law.

Once again, we see the importance of investigative journalism and a free press, which has shined a light on the fact that some Members of Congress have purchased private, discounted stock deals and taken a part in initial public offerings outside of the United States. These special deals are not available to the general public.

All this would have remained in the dark, had the STOCK Act not put into place a new requirement to timely disclose sales and purchases of stock. This is precisely the kind of outrageous conduct we intended to outlaw under the STOCK Act. It plays directly into the public's most cynical view of Congress.

This, Mr. Speaker, comes at a time when just 20 percent of the public approves of how Congress is doing its job under the majority's leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup.

This Chamber put aside partisanship and took a strong, bipartisan stand against this abhorrent behavior just a few years ago. It has become increasingly clear that we need to act again today to hold ourselves accountable to both the letter and the spirit of the STOCK Act law.

We are not doing that today. Once again, we are taking away the regulations because some people find them so terribly abhorrent, but they protect the small investor and the people in the banks. We surely will never, I hope, see the day where we will ask the taxpayers of the United States to bail out the enormously rich, big banks. One of the worst things of that whole era was not a single fraudulent banker went to jail.

Just 535 of us in a country of more than 300 million people have been chosen to serve on the American people's behalf in Congress. It is a sacred responsibility, one we should not be squandering, doing the bidding of the financial lobbyists or Wall Street firms, who are the ones behind the CHOICE Act.

The majority should stop fulfilling the wish list of Wall Street and act on behalf of millions of Americans outraged by insider trading and other chicanery that still permeates the halls of Congress today. This Chamber must take action so that Americans recognize we came here to represent them, not enrich ourselves.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

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

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

With each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and links to Russia and the Trump administration. Just last week we learned that President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, attempted to establish a back channel of communications with Russia and the Trump transition team before they were even inaugurated.

Tomorrow, former FBI Director James Comey will likely testify that President Trump attempted to influence the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian Government.

Who knows what further ties to Russia we will uncover from his testimony.

Without President Trump's tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing if he himself has financial ties to Russia, as news reports have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not our President has any business dealings with Russia or other foreign governments. It is imperative that we prevent the White House from becoming another arm of the Trump organization.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

If the President has nothing to hide, including financial interests or business dealings with Russia, then he should freely release his tax returns to reassure the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the majority why we enacted the Wall Street reform in the first place.

Our country was plunged into the worst recession since the Great Depression after big Wall Street firms played Russian roulette with our future for years. During the 2008 financial crash, more than 8 million Americans lost their jobs, $13 trillion in wealth vanished overnight, and 11 million homes were lost.

After years of excesses and dodging regulation, the financial firms were finally brought under control by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The perverse notion of too big to fail was finally ended, and the financial playing field was tilted back toward consumers.

We have all seen the results of the law in the form of record-setting private sector job growth, millions of new jobs, and historic rates of business lending. It is beyond me why anyone in the world would want to repeal this law and threaten this progress. Instead of doing the bidding of the financial lobbyists who don't really care for the law, we should be acting to uphold the trust of the people who sent us here.

This begins with passing the End Congressional Stock Market Abuse Act to bring an end to the egregious use of exclusive stock deals and foreign initial public offerings by Members of Congress.

The American people must be able to trust what we are doing here and trust that it is right for them without concern that we are using our position to enrich ourselves.

My bill would enhance the STOCK Act, which passed the Chamber virtually unanimously--two ``no'' votes--in 2012, with provisions that I think we could all agree on: no exclusive stock deals for Members of Congress, no initial public offerings, regardless of where they are offered.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be focusing on today, not dismantling a law that has brought financial security to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the underlying legislation, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 may 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 provides a

structured process for debate and makes in order six amendments to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to return hope and opportunity to Main Street America through the Financial CHOICE Act. This legislation touches at the very heart of our economy, ensuring that our financial system facilitates job creation, economic growth, and fairness.

Nearly 10 years ago, the American economy cratered. The Great Recession of the late 2000s revealed that our financial system was fragile, and many Americans got the short end of the stick.

In 2010, Democrats passed H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. They promised the bill would lift the American economy. They promised an end to Wall Street bailouts. They promised to protect consumers. Seven years later, we know that these promises never came true.

Due to Dodd-Frank's excessive regulatory burden, big banks are getting bigger while small banks and credit unions are disappearing. There have only been six new bank charters since Dodd-Frank--a drastic decline from the 170 on average per year before the bill. In fact, 43 percent of banks with assets under $100 million have disappeared.

Large banks survive because they can afford armies of lawyers to understand Dodd-Frank regulations. In 2010, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein even suggested his bank would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Dodd-Frank. But for community banks with community budgets, the effects of the law have been devastating.

Dodd-Frank also failed to address the too-big-to-fail problem. Under the Dodd-Frank law, big banks are growing larger, and taxpayers are still responsible for bailing them out. Furthermore, Dodd-Frank has made access to banking and credit more difficult for average Americans. Since the passage of the bill, bank fees have increased and millions more Americans are now considered unbanked or underbanked.

Declining liquidity has limited access to credit for small businesses and the regulatory restrictions on mortgages have pushed homeownership out of reach for the middle class. Seventy-two percent of community banks say that the Dodd-Frank regulations restrict their ability to offer mortgage loans.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the price we must pay to be a hopeful and prosperous nation. That is why I am here supporting the Financial CHOICE Act. It repeals Dodd-Frank, replacing the harmful law with reasonable regulations that ensure consumer protection, job growth, economic growth, and strong community banks.

The Financial CHOICE Act ends the coddling of big banks. It implements historically tough penalties on financial fraud and insider trading. It ends taxpayer-funded bailouts and creates new bankruptcy laws designed for failing banks. It is time that Congress put Main Street ahead of Wall Street.

The Financial CHOICE Act also reins in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency that has incredible power to regulate the financial industry but that has nearly no accountability. The judicial branch has actually declared its structure unconstitutional.

The CFPB is causing problems for consumers. They have a database for complaints from consumers, but it publishes consumer complaints before even checking if they are true. The CFPB also weighs in on financial regulations where Congress should instead be making these decisions, and the CFPB wasted over $200 million on lavish renovations of their office space in downtown Washington, D.C.

This legislation we are considering today will restructure the CFPB, restoring congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back under the regular legislative appropriations process. We will also be refocusing the CFPB on enforcing consumer protection laws, rather than making up their own laws that only hurt the average American consumer.

Perhaps most important to Coloradans, the Financial CHOICE Act creates economic growth and jobs by making credit easier to access for Main Street America. Thanks to the TAILOR Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), regulators will be able to craft custom regulations to reflect the specific business model of local banks.

This bill also creates jobs and economic growth by requiring more transparent policymaking at the Federal Reserve. We rein in stifling regulations on small, community banks, allowing them to compete against their larger counterparts. We increase consumer choice by ensuring Americans can access a bank and a credit card.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to transform our Nation's financial system. We have the opportunity to level the playing field between big and small banks. We have the opportunity to turn up the heat on financial fraud. We have the opportunity to return regulatory power from the hands of unelected bureaucrats to the people. We have the opportunity to roll back hurtful regulations.

We are here to restore hope and opportunity through the Financial CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair 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 note for the record that the best way for a student to repay student loans is to have a strong economy and not the anemic recovery that we had from the last recession.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman.

I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chief deputy whip of the Republican Conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. The points have been made. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is not for the big banks. It is not for the bureaucrats and their swanky downtown office at CFPB. This legislation was crafted for the American people, the men and women who work hard every day to earn a living. These individuals want choice in the financial products they can buy. They want healthy community banks. They want lower taxes instead of Wall Street bailouts.

The Financial CHOICE Act was written over the past several years with these people in mind. We will restore hope and opportunity for them.

I thank Chairman Hensarling and the Financial Services Committee for their hard work on this bill. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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