H.Res. 736

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today, sadly, we find ourselves considering legislation that would actually make it easier for unscrupulous payday lenders to actually skirt State interest rate caps and another bill that guts enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act that puts an unfair burden on people with disabilities.

These bills hurt the American people. Instead of spending our time here debating a very important immigration bill, like the Senate is doing across the way, we are considering bills that will only harm our most vulnerable populations.

Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is having an open debate about immigration in our country. This House owes the American people no less. The Senate is trying to find solutions to help the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, to improve border security, or to address family reunification. The Senate is debating different proposals from both sides of

the aisle. We will see what they come up with.

Again, this House is simply not doing its job. This House is doing nothing to improve border security, nothing to address the DACA recipients or family reunification. Over here, there is not even a plan to bring any immigration bill or amendment to the floor. In fact, there is no commitment at all to actually address the issues that the American people care about. We have bipartisan bills today that Speaker Ryan could bring to the floor. They would pass with probably 70 or 60 percent of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the March 5 deadline for DACA protections is rapidly approaching. There is no plan in place to protect Dreamers like Anareli, Marcos, and Javier in my district. Instead, over 800,000 young adults are trying to see what happens next, hoping that the court system intervenes, hoping that somebody somewhere does something so they can continue to live and work legally in the only country that they know, the country that they call home, the United States of America.

I have offered the Dream Act as an amendment to every spending bill that has come through the Rules Committee. I will continue to do so until we finally get it done.

But, again, instead of bringing up a bill to help protect Dreamers before the self-Trump-imposed March 5 deadline, the House will consider legislation that undermines the civil rights of disabled Americans, and it also makes it easier for predatory lenders to evade consumer protection laws. And people wonder why the House of Representatives is as unpopular as it is.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act is a bill that hurts consumers. It is one that makes it easier for payday lenders to evade well-thought-out State-level protection laws.

That is why over 200 national and State organizations have written in opposition to this bill, which they fear would open the floodgates for predatory lending with interest rates as high as 300 percent. Additionally, 20 State attorneys general have also written in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two letters.

November 29, 2017.

Re Oppose H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner),

Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned 202 national and

state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299

(McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers'

Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill

will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that

exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to

originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling

predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable

loans have devastating consequences for borrowers--trapping

them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms

such as greater delinquency on other bills.

Specifically, the bill makes it easier for payday lenders

and other nonbanks to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore

state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. The bill

overrides the Second Circuit's Madden v. Midland decision,

which held that a debt buyer purchasing debts originated by a

national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's

preemption of state interest rate caps. The Madden decision

did not limit the interest rates that banks may charge on

credit cards and other forms of credit, but it does limit

nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. Reversing the

Second Circuit's decision, as this bill seeks to do, would

make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online

lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use

``rent-a-bank'' arrangements to charge high rates on loans.

The bill provides that ``a loan that is valid when made as

to its maximum rate of interest . . . shall remain valid with

respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is

subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a

third party, and may be enforced by such third party

notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' In other

words, if a bank originates a loan that exceeds state

interest rate caps, and then sells or assigns the loan to a

nonbank, that nonbank can continue to charge a usurious rate.

This bill could open the floodgates to a wide range of

predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or

higher. The bill could bless arrangements such as the

partnership between the payday lender Elevate and Republic

Bank, through which Elevate is making high-cost loans that

exceed state interest rate caps. Through its Elastic brand,

Elevate offers purportedly open-end loans in 39 states and

the District of Columbia.

Elevate does not disclose an APR, but a $380 advance repaid

with monthly minimum payments would cost $480 to repay over

five months. Including all fees, the annual rate for this

extension of credit is about 100%, which is nearly three

times the 36% legal interest rate approved by voters in

Montana, one of the states where the lines of credit are

offered. Through its Rise brand, Elevate also makes closed-

end loans at rates up to 365% in states where those rates are

permitted, and it could attempt to expand to other states.

Enova, dba NetCredit, also offers high-cost installment

loans in a number of states through a rent-a-bank

partnership. Enova, like Elevate, relies on Republic Bank and

Trust to facilitate this scheme.

Other payday lenders have regularly attempted to avoid

state usury caps through rent-a-bank arrangements. For

example, CashCall has attempted to partner with banks to make

usurious loans in several states. Courts have struck down

those arrangements, finding that CashCall had to comply with

state interest rate caps. The bill could undermine these

decisions, by stating that a loan's interest rate remains

valid even if a loan is transferred or assigned to a third

party and ``may be enforced by such third party

notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' This could

allow high-rate lenders to use banks to originate and then

immediately transfer usurious loans.

This bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection

laws. In a letter by 20 State Attorneys General opposing

provisions in another bill that would have overturned the

Madden decision, the state law enforcement officers warned

that the bill ``would restrict states' abilities to enforce

interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability

of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and

oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt

state usury caps.'' ' In fact, the Colorado Attorney General

is in the midst of challenging online lenders' use of a rent-

a-bank scheme to make loans in violation of the state's usury

limits. This bill aims to thwart actions like these that seek

to enforce state laws.

The potential costs and damage to consumers are

significant. In about 34 states, a $2,000 loan, 2-year

installment loan at an APR exceeding 36% would be illegal.

This bill risks making high-cost loans permissible across the

country. The bill also could potentially expand short-term

payday lending to the 15 states plus the District of Colombia

whose state interest rate limits currently save borrowers

over $2.2 billion annually in payday loan fees.

Fintech lenders also should not be allowed to make loans

that exceed state interest rate caps. State interest rate

caps have not impacted responsible marketplace loans. The

leading marketplace lenders do not make loans above 36% and

the vast majority of their loans are well below that rate,

comfortably within state interest rate caps. But the mere

fact that a lender uses the label ``fintech'' or

``martketplace lender'' does not ensure that it is a safe or

affordable loan. For example, OnDeck, a lender focused on

small business lending, offers term loans up to 99%.

Moreover, many marketplace lenders make very large loans of

$30,000 to $50,000 or higher, and even 36% is a very high

rate for such loans. Many states have tiered rate structures

in recognition that interest becomes more unaffordable the

larger the loan. Iowa, for example, caps interest at 21% for

loans over $10,000.

There are also signs that some online lenders may not be

appropriately underwriting their loans to ensure that the

loans are affordable, and that many borrowers may not have

the ability to repay, especially, if the economy sours.

Recent news reports and SEC filings show that delinquency and

charge-off rates at these marketplace lenders are rising. One

online lender apparently failed to verify a borrower's income

for a full two-thirds of its loans in 2016. Another lender

has had so many of its loans fail, that it has had to repay

investors for their losses in the last three securitizations

of the loans it bundled up and sold to Wall Street.

This bill would weaken lenders' incentive to underwrite

properly by making it easier to make high-rate loans. High

interest rates result in misaligned incentives that can lead

to lender profits but borrower catastrophe. Skewed incentives

are already a problem in the marketplace loan industry.

Moody's credit-rating firms liken this industry to mortgage

lending in the years leading up to the 2008 financial

crisis--``because the companies that market the loans and

approve them quickly sell them off to investors,'' relieving

themselves of the risk of the loan later going bad. This bill

could make that problem worse.

The bill is not necessary to ensure access to affordable

credit. Proponents of this bill claim that the Madden

decision has had an adverse impact on access to credit. They

point to a study that showed a drop in marketplace lending by

three lenders in the Second Circuit after the Madden decision

for subprime borrowers, especially for those with FICO scores

below 644. However, the study showed that these lenders

offered only miniscule amounts of credit in the low FICO

range even before the Madden decision. Thus, the impact on

access to credit was trivial. Moreover, it is likely that the

credit extended before the decision at the lower end of the

FICO spectrum was made to borrowers who had trouble repaying,

and that lenders were relying on high interest rates on large

loans to compensate for high default rates.

The bill wipes away the strongest available tool against

predatory lending practices. Strong state rate caps, coupled

with effective enforcement by states, remain the simplest and

most effective method to protect consumers from the predatory

lending debt trap. Contrary to what lenders often claim,

robust state loan laws do not drive people to find loans

online. In fact, illegal online lending is more prevalent in

states that do not effectively regulate predatory lending

than it is in states that enforce state interest rate caps.

Accordingly, we urge you to reject this bill. For more

information, contact Lauren Saunders at [email protected] or

Scott Astrada at [email protected].

Action NC; Albany Center for Economic Success, Inc.; Allied

Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Arbor Farm Press;

Arizona Community Action Association; Arizona PIRG; Arkansans

Against Abusive Payday Lending; Ashe County Habitat for

Humanity; Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity; Baker

Organizing School South.; Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc;

Billings First Congregational Church; Brazos Valley

Affordable Housing Corp.; Bucks County Women's Advocacy

Coalition; Business Outreach Center Network, Inc.; California

Reinvestment Coalition; CALPIRG; Capital Good Fund; CARECEN-

Central American Resource Center.

Carolina Behavioral Health Alliance; Carolina Jews for

Justice; CASH Campaign of Maryland; Catalyst Miami; Catholic

Charities of Southern New Mexico; CCCS of WNC, Inc. DBA

OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling; Cedar Grove

Institute for Sustainable Communities; Center for Economic

Integrity; Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico Office;

Center for Financial Social Work; Center for Global Policy

Solutions; Center for Responsible Lending; CEO Pipe Organs/

Golden Ponds Farm; Children First/Communities In Schools of

Buncombe County; Church Women United in North Carolina;

Clarifi; CO PIRG; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in

Ohio; College Park: An American Baptist Church; Colorado

Center on Law & Policy; Communications Workers of America

(CWA).

Community Capital New York; Community Council of

Metropolitan Atlanta; Community Economic Development

Association of MI (CEDAM); Community Loan Fund of the Capital

Region Inc.; Connecticut Association for Human Services;

Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action;

Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Covenant

House of WV; Credit and Homeownership Empowerment Services

Inc (CHES, Inc.); Credit Counseling Agencies of NC; Creighton

College Democrats; Davidson Housing Coalition; Demos;

Disability Rights North Carolina; Durham Regional Financial

Center; East LA Community Corporation; Ecumenical Poverty

Initiative; Empire Justice Center.

Faith in Action Alabama; Faith in Texas; Fayetteville Area

Habitat for Humanity; Federation of Democratic Women DAC;

Financial Pathways of the Piedmont; Florida Alliance for

Consumer Protection; Florida Alliance for Retired Americans;

Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Fons Law

Office, representing consumers; Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch;

Gowen Consulting; Greater Ward's Corner Area Business

Association (Virginia); Habitat for Humanity of Catawba

Valley, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of Davie County; Habitat

for Humanity of Greater Greensboro; Habitat for Humanity of

North Carolina; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human

Rights; Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; Hispanic

Federation; HomesteadCS; Housing Consultants Group.

IDA and Asset Building Collaborative of NC; Illinois

People's Action; Illinois PIRG; Indiana Assets & Opportunity

Network; Indiana Institute for Working Families; Indiana

PIRG; Innovative Systems Group; Iowa PIRG; Jesuit Social

Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans; Just

Harvest; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; La Casa de Don Pedro;

Legal Aid Justice Center (Virginia); Legal Aid Society of

Milwaukee; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Long Island

Housing Services, Inc.; Louisiana Budget Project; Lutheran

Episcopal Advocacy Ministry NJ; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--

New Mexico; Maine Center for Economic Policy; Maryland

Consumer Rights Coalition; Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG;

Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.

MICAH; Mobilization for Justice, Inc.; Montana Organizing

Project; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; MoPIRG;

Mountain State Justice; NAACP; NAOMI; National Association of

Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers

West Virginia Chapter; National Consumer Law Center (on

behalf of its low-income clients); National Rural Social Work

Caucus; Native Community Finance; NCPIRG; New Economics for

Women; New Economy Project; New Jersey Appleseed Public

Interest Law Center; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey

Tenants Organization; New Mexico Fair Lending Coalition;

NHPIRG; NJPIRG; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute,

Inc.

North Carolina Assets Alliance; North Carolina Council of

Churches; North Carolina Housing Coalition; North Carolina

Institute of Minority Economic Development; North Carolina

Justice Center; North Carolina PIRG; North Carolina Rural

Center; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina United

Methodist Conference; North Dakota Economic Security and

Prosperity Alliance; OhioPIRG; Oklahoma Policy Institute;

Oregon PIRG; PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches;

Pennsylvania Military Officers Association of America;

Pennsylvania War Veterans Council; People's Action Institute;

Philadelphia Unemployment Project; Piedmont Housing Alliance

(Virginia); PIRG in Michigan; Power New Mexico.

Prince George's CASH Campaign; Prosperity Indiana;

Prosperity Works; Public Justice; Public Justice Center;

Public Law Center; Reinvestment Partners; Rural Dynamics,

Inc.; Safety MD LLC; Samaritan Ministries; Sisters of Charity

of Nazareth Congregational Leadership; Sisters of Charity of

Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South

Central Community; Southern Poverty Law Center; Statewide

Poverty Action Network; Step Up Savannah; Tabor Community

Services; Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; TexPIRG;

The AMOS Project; The Bell Policy Center; The Episcopal

Diocese of North Carolina; The Midas Collaborative; The One

Less Foundation.

Tuscaloosa Citizens Against Predatory Practices; Tzedek DC;

U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative

Advocacy Network; UNITE HERE; United for a Fair Economy;

University of Wisconsin Law School, Consumer Law Clinic;

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Interfaith

Center for Public Policy; Virginia Organizing; Virginia

Poverty Law Center; Virginians Against Payday Lending; VOICE

Oklahoma City; WASHPIRG; Watauga County Habitat for Humanity;

WESST; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; West

Virginia Citizen Action Group; WISDOM; WISPIRG; Women

AdvaNCe; Woodstock Institute; WV Citizen Action Group.

State of New York,

Office of the Attorney General,

June 7, 2017.

Re The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10).

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority

Leader Pelosi, and Minority Whip Hoyer: On behalf of the

undersigned State Attorneys General and the Executive

Director of the Office of Consumer Protection for the State

of Hawaii (the ``States''), we write to express our strong

opposition to H.R. 10 (the ``Act''), which we understand the

full House of Representatives intends to vote on this week.

The proposed Act will eliminate many of the critical consumer

protections implemented as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'') in

the wake of, and in response to, the financial crisis. As the

chief consumer protection officers in each of our respective

States, we write to call your particular attention to those

portions of the Act that would effectively eviscerate the

role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''),

the only independent federal agency exclusively focused on

consumer financial protection. While the Act purports to

protect consumers from over-regulation by federal agencies,

its far-reaching consequences would make consumers more

vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the marketplace. The

undersigned States support the work of the CFPB and oppose

any effort to curtail its authority. While we find numerous

provisions of the Act to be objectionable, we write to

highlight certain provisions that would significantly impact

consumer protection -- a core function of our States.

I. Background

Our States' work to protect consumers from unscrupulous

marketplace actors and practices is greatly enhanced when the

federal government serves as an effective partner. In the

years leading up to the global financial crisis, residents of

our States suffered the consequences of a federal government

that failed to fulfill its basic obligations to U.S.

consumers to prevent fraud and misconduct by mortgage

providers, servicers, and other financial firms. Families

nationwide suffered dire financial consequences as a result

of lax federal oversight and inaction.

Since its inception, the CFPB has emerged as the

independent federal consumer watchdog the nation has long

needed, and as a key partner in critically important consumer

protection work undertaken by our States and by State

Attorneys General across the country. The exceptional record

of the CFPB speaks for itself. As of January 1, 2017, the

CFPB has handled over one million consumer complaints, and

obtained $11.8 billion in relief for 29 million consumers.

The CFPB has taken enforcement actions to stem abuses by

student loan originators and servicers, for-profit schools,

debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders,

and foreclosure ``rescue'' companies, among others. Among its

more recent, significant enforcement actions have been cases

against

mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation for widespread

mortgage servicing failures, including improperly calculating

balances, misapplying payments, and failing to investigate

consumer complaints, student loan servicer Navient for

student loan servicing abuses, including failing to notify

struggling borrowers of their eligibility for income-based

repayment plans and steering such borrowers into more costly

forbearance plans--and Wells Fargo bank for its widespread

practice of opening unauthorized bank and credit card

accounts for consumers. In addition, as part of its statutory

mandate, the CFPB has conducted thorough and nuanced studies

of complex financial issues that impact consumers and has

issued rules intended to protect consumers in a thoughtful,

consensus-driven manner.

II. The Devastating Effects of the Act on Consumer Protection

The Act would effectively cripple the CFPB from doing the

job it has been doing so effectively since its inception.

A. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Rulemaking and Enforcement

Authority Over Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices

Section 736 of the Act would eliminate the CFPB's authority

to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices

(``UDAAP''). The CFPB's authority to prohibit entities it

supervises from engaging in UDAAP violations has been the

basis for many of the CFPB's most significant enforcement

actions, including the Ocwen, Navient, and Wells Fargo

matters discussed above. In addition, several of the

undersigned States have jointly filed cases with the CFPB

against businesses and individuals engaged in unfair,

deceptive, or abusive practices. UDAAP authority gives the

CFPB the flexibility to respond swiftly to new technologies

and practices that harm consumers, without the need to wait

for legislation expressly addressing a given practice.

B. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Supervision and Enforcement

Authority Over Large Banks

Section 727 of the Act would similarly eliminate the CFPB's

supervision and enforcement authority over large banks and

permit financial institutions that meet certain criteria to

elect to be exempted from the CFPB's supervisory authority.

This provision is concerning in a number of ways, not the

least of which is that it is through the supervision process

that the CFPB often learns of systemic issues in the

companies and industries it regulates. The CFPB is the only

federal agency that has been conducting consumer protection

reviews as the focus of their supervisory authority (rather

than safety and soundness), which is important for the

reasons previously discussed. In addition, many of the CFPB's

enforcement actions have been against the large banks.

C. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Authority to Regulate Payday and

Vehicle Title Loans

Section 733 of the Act expressly prohibits the CFPB from

engaging in any rulemaking or enforcement with respect to

payday and vehicle title loans. Payday lending, as the CFPB's

own extensive research has documented, has adversely affected

the lives of millions of financially vulnerable consumers

across the country. The CFPB has been at the forefront of

curbing abuses in the payday lending industry and has

supplemented state enforcement by taking enforcement actions

against payday and other lenders that are attempting to

collect on loans that are void under state law. The CFPB has

been similarly aggressive in uncovering and confronting

abuses in the vehicle title loan industry, where consumers,

risk the loss of their vehicle (with the corresponding loss

in mobility) if they find themselves unable to repay their

loans. The Act will strip the CFPB of all authority in these

areas, including its enforcement authority and the ability to

adopt sensible and common sense rules to prevent consumers

from falling into debt traps that are often the result of

payday and vehicle title loans.

D. The Act Would Permit Third Party Debt Collectors to Charge Usurious

Interest Rates

Section 581 of the Act would restrict states' abilities to

enforce interest rate caps. Currently, there are no federal

interest rate caps that cover financial products and services

offered by national banks. Rather, national banks are

permitted to export the interest rate of their home state and

disregard the more stringent interest rates of other states

in which they do business. Section 581 of the Act would add

language to four federal statutes to provide that, when a

national bank sells or assigns debt covered by the National

Bank Act, the buyer or assignee has the right to collect that

same interest rate, regardless of the law of the state where

the buyer or assignee is located. This would make it more

difficult to ensure that debt buyers, online lenders, fintech

companies, and rent-a-bank schemes comply with state interest

rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of

individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and

oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt

state usury caps.

E. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB Rulemaking Authority Regarding

Mandatory Arbitration

Section 738 of the Act would repeal the provision of Dodd-

Frank that granted the CFPB authority to study and issue

rules regarding arbitration in financial services contracts.

Dodd-Frank expressly authorized the CFPB to study arbitration

provisions in financial services contracts, and to issue

regulations prohibiting or restricting such provisions if the

CFPB concluded that doing so would be ``in the public

interest and for the protection of consumers.'' After a

thorough review, the CFPB concluded that tens of millions of

Americans use financial products or services subject to

mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit proceeding on a

class basis and that the effect of such provisions is to

prevent consumers from seeking redress, particularly for

small dollar claims. Elimination of the CFPB's authority in

this area can only operate to the detriment of consumers.

F. The Act Would Reduce Transparency and Deprive Consumers of a

Valuable Source of Information

Finally, the Act would end the CFPB's current practice of

publicly posting information concerning individual consumer

complaints in a searchable database. This information helps

consumers make informed decisions about the companies with

which they choose to do business, and increases transparency

in the marketplace. Eliminating the release of this

information provides no benefit to consumers, but only to

companies whose practices generate repeated complaints.

III. Conclusion

For these and other reasons, the undersigned States urge

you to support robust and engaged consumer protection in the

financial services industry by voting against the Act. A

rollback of these significant post-financial crisis rules and

regulations would substantially harm consumers and the public

in general. If we can provide any further information or

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

Eric T. Schneiderman, New York Attorney General;

Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General;

George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General;

Matthew Denn, Delaware Attorney General;

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of

Columbia;

Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii Attorney General;

Stephen H. Levins, Executive Director, Hawaii Office of

Consumer Protection;

Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General;

Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General;

Janet T. Mills, Maine Attorney General;

Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General;

Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General;

Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General;

Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General;

Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General;

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General;

Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General;

Peter F. Kilmartin, Rhode Island Attorney General;

T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General;

Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General;

Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, States can, and do, like my own State of Colorado, put limitations on the interest rates of installment loans issued by nonbanks. Banks, on the other hand, have the preemption of State interest rate caps through the National Bank Act.

So in order to get around State interest rate caps, payday lenders often use a bank to originate a loan at a higher interest rate, but the nonbank designs the loan, provides the funding for the loan, services the loan, and guarantees any losses the bank incurs. In all but in name, it is the nonbank entity that is the loaning entity. Essentially, the payday lender is the de facto lender and the bank is simply a nominal participant to evade regulations. These are referred to as ``rent-a-charter'' schemes, and they are not new.

In the early 2000s, Federal banking regulators shut down several of these arrangements between national banks and nonbank lenders. In 2014, the OCC made it clear that banks may not rent out their charters to third parties. Right now, our Federal banking regulations are able to contain these schemes, but this legislation would undermine our ability to stop abusive and predatory practices.

States are leading the effort to stop abusive lending practices. In my home State of Colorado, there is actually a lawsuit challenging this very scheme.

And now that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has delayed a final rule that would have helped protect borrowers, it is actually up to the States to help protect

consumers, and this bill would make it harder. This bill would cripple States', like Colorado's, efforts to stop predatory lending from preying on their citizens.

The Republican assault on States' rights has gone from bad to worse. This is yet another part of the big government Republican war on consumers across the country preempting States' rights for Washington, D.C., control.

It seems the Republicans want to control everything from Washington. That is why we need to make sure that our States are empowered to have the ability they need to protect consumers and protect our law.

Lately, there has been an increased focus on fintech companies and how they can help serve the unbanked or underbanked. And I agree. I am a big supporter of financial innovation and promote financial inclusion, but we can't do that at the expense of consumers or at the very high cost of putting consumers into cycles of debt, which ends badly.

Why are we considering legislation that would put all of the power in Washington, D.C., and take away State-level protections for consumers?

Instead, we should be finding ways to increase access to affordable credit, make it easier for consumers to access the financial services that meet their needs, rather than trying to force a Republican Washington solution on all of the States across our country.

We are considering this bill under a closed rule. There is only one amendment filed to this bill, and it is not even allowed to be debated about, no less voted on.

Now, I want to talk about the other bill under this rule. H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act, is actually a package of several bills that came out of the House Financial Services Committee, some which are more controversial than others. Title I of the package, the TRID Improvement Act, was reported out by a 53-5 vote, and all the Republicans and Democrats supported Title V of the package, Eliminating Barriers to Jobs for Loan Originators.

I support Title II, the Protection of Source Code Act, that is being included in this package. I also support Representative Foster's amendment to that title, which would provide additional clarification to the subpoena requirement and would only apply to the source for algorithmic trading.

The problem is that it takes several bills that have broad bipartisan support and combines them with other bills that should be considered separately, which is forcing Democrats and Republicans to weigh the package as a whole. We simply can't know the ramifications of considering all these bills at the same time, especially when they haven't had hearings on the individual components.

Finally, H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, is, in many ways, the most damaging bill that is discussed under this rule.

We are celebrating the Americans with Disabilities Act that was signed into law 28 years ago to really allow Americans with disabilities to have every kind of opportunity that everybody else does, free from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and transportation. It was a landmark bipartisan effort.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities and sets a minimum reasonable standard for accessibility, which has been the law of our land for three decades.

H.R. 620 would make it more difficult for people with disabilities to have their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under this bill, instead of requiring the public establishment to comply with the ADA, the burden should shift to the victim of the discrimination to prove a violation has occurred. You are forcing disabled Americans to go around with clipboards and inspector goggles, rather than forcing businesses to comply. It is simply not fair.

It has been nearly three decades since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. All title III of the ADA requires is that businesses make their facilities accessible to the extent that it is readily achievable--a very reasonable burden under the law. Businesses have flourished over the last three decades and we have had continued economic growth.

I have heard from so many of my constituents about this bill, including Cari Brown, a systems advocacy specialist with the Arc of Larimer County, serving disabled residents. She said: ``The standards set forth in the ADA are designed to ensure that people with disabilities can access basic public accommodations. Requiring people with disabilities to file a complaint to enforce compliance of a 28- year-old law is a step backwards.''

I think this is a Republican plan to turn everybody with disabilities into an attorney, because that is what they are going to need to be to be able to assert the rights that they already have under the law.

There is significant, if not universal, opposition to H.R. 620 from health and disabilities advocacy groups, including, but not limited to: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation, The Bazelon Center, the National Council on Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.

We knew, Mr. Speaker, that this President has mocked and taken on Americans with disabilities, but I frankly thought it was above the Republicans in Congress to join President Trump in assaulting the rights of those with disabilities.

H.R. 620 will not allow people with disabilities to immediately file ADA violations, essentially denying access to buildings due to a lengthy legal process.

Who has time to wait several years to access a building that you need to be in because of your job?

It simply doesn't make sense. That means that people with disabilities will wait weeks, months, or years just to gain the access that is required under law.

For businesses, there is simply no incentive to adhere to ADA guidelines. All of this combined harms disabled Americans and weakens the legal protections that, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have been proud of in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

President Trump continues to, frankly, offend our sensibilities and values by insisting that somehow Democrats don't care about fixing DACA. Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 22nd time we have tried to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, to the House floor for a vote.

We have made our position clear. We want immigration policies that reflect our values, that make America safer, while realizing, of course, that we are a nation both of laws and of immigrants.

Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again urged Congress to pass legislation that provides permanent relief for Dreamers. Even the conservative Cato Institute estimates that deporting Dreamers would result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't care about the families, about the young people affected, surely you care about $280 billion that will be lost if Republicans fail to act. Protecting these aspiring Americans is not only the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy.

If we defeat the previous question today, for the 23rd time, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would finally help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on paper.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is worse, the fact that we are taking up legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to gain access to buildings in their community, including buildings that they work in, or that we are considering legislation that makes it easier for payday lenders to prey on vulnerable consumers by forcing in Washington, D.C., Big Government Republican values on our States' rights; or is it worse that we are not taking up legislation to protect the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation in the beginning of March unless we act?

My Republican colleagues are working hard to put Washington, D.C., Big Government ahead of people, to force people with disabilities to get law degrees and wander around with notepads to document when they are unable to get into a building, and putting payday lenders ahead of hardworking Americans.

Instead, we should be focused on finding bipartisan solutions to protect aspiring Americans from being forcibly deported from the only country that they know as home.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 620, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017.

H.R. 3978 has been dramatically expanded without input from Democrats to include several highly problematic and damaging bills. If enacted, this amended package of bills would ease the ability of high frequency traders to manipulate the stock markets undetected, encourage a regulatory race to the bottom in our Nation's stock exchanges, and harm investors and small businesses by weakening efforts to prevent accounting fraud at smaller public companies.

Taken together, this deregulatory package could significantly undermine market stability and gut investor and consumer protections at a time when our financial markets are already rattled.

Madam Speaker, from January 26 until last Thursday, the stock markets plunged just over 10 percent, becoming what the financial services industry calls ``stock market correction,'' and for the past two trading days, markets have rebounded the most since 2016.

Although market corrections are not new, what distinguishes today's volatility is that it is driven by complex computer strategies designed to buy and sell stocks and options millions of times a day. As many of us have witnessed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average may be up 500 points and then down 600 in less than a few minutes. For the average American who was hoping to one day retire with dignity by investing her hard-earned savings in the stock market, it can be distressing to see such wild swings always wondering whether the markets are truly fair or whether she is going to be fleeced. Unfortunately, the passage of H.R. 3978 would likely make those swings more extreme and increase the likelihood of problems going forward.

I am going to walk through each of the problematic provisions in this bill. Beginning with title IV, this provision is identical to H.R. 4546, the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act, which would weaken the standards for listing public companies for trading at U.S. stock exchanges. Today, exchanges listing standards set minimum requirements for a company's shares to be sold to the public without having to comply with State law. Exchanges can only revise these standards if the Securities and Exchange Commission first finds that new standards are substantially similar to the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange.

This bill would remove any separate analysis for changing the standards and, thus, automatically preempt State oversight. As a result, the bill would encourage a race to the bottom of listing standards as exchanges compete with each other to attract companies with less restrictions, even if the standards are beneficial to the investors.

I believe that we should be strengthening the current analysis to promote fair and rigorous listing standards and only preempt State law when companies meet high standards. This is why I worked with the cosponsors last Congress to strike a bipartisan compromise which passed the House unanimously to require the SEC to develop a core qualitative listing standard. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have reversed their position in favor of empowering the industry over the investing public.

Turning to title III which is identical to H.R. 1645, the so-called Fostering Innovation Act, this provision would eliminate the independent audit of a company's financial reporting controls for up to 10 years for newly public companies provided that they have $50 million or less in gross revenues and less than $700 million in outstanding shares. Passed in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals, the requirement that public companies conduct an independent audit of financial controls is one of the many accounting provisions required by the bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act that directly benefits investors and public companies by improving the accuracy of their financial reporting.

In fact, companies that are not subject to such review by an independent auditor are more likely to issue corrections to their financial reports leading to investor losses and higher losses for the company.

Investors like these audits because they improve the veracity of the reports they rely on to make investment decisions. Today, truly small public companies--those with less than $75 million worth of shares--are already exempt from the audit requirement. But this bill would extend the exemption to large companies that are nearly ten times that size. The law already provides newly public companies with an exemption for 5 years. Extending it to a decade would harm investor confidence and all such companies, hurting the very companies the bill's supporters purport to help.

Title II of this bill is the same language as H.R. 3948, the Protection of Source Code Act. This bill bans the SEC from inspecting source code used by regulated entities to engage in algorithmic or computer-driven trading and other activities that impact the securities markets and investors without first obtaining a subpoena. This provision would severely hamper the ability of the SEC to effectively examine persons like high-frequency traders and to investigate market disruptions.

The recent stock market volatility, which has seen all of the major stock indices decline by more than 10 percent in less than 2 weeks, has been exacerbated by high-frequency traders using complex computer algorithms to determine when to buy and sell millions of trades per second by making it harder for the capital markets COP to detect and stop bad actors and rein in fraudulent trading schemes. This provision will inevitably harm everyday Americans and retirees who rely on fair capital markets to invest their hard-earned savings.

To make matters worse, Republicans added a provision to pay for the cost of the bill by taking $2 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission's reserve fund. As a result, our financial watchdog will have less resources to support its capacity to oversee the markets through investments in IT and to respond to unforeseen market events like the flash crash.

In short, this bill asks taxpayers to pay for the costs of diminished capital market oversight by taking away SEC's funding to respond to emergency market situations that threaten market stability. This provision doubles down on the irresponsible policymaking we often see by the opposite side of the aisle.

The bill before us today would also make two less significant changes which I believe the Republicans included to garner additional support for the legislation. Nevertheless, even with these provisions, the package should be soundly rejected.

Title I, which includes the version of H.R. 3978, TRID Improvement Act of 2017, that the committee previously considered, would amend a mortgage disclosure known as TRID or the know-before-you-owe disclosure that informs home buyers of the terms and conditions of their mortgage. Responding to the concerns of some in the real estate industry, this provision would amend the disclosure to account for the discounts paid to borrowers in States where simultaneous lender and buyer title insurance is issued. However, the revised form does nothing for bars in States that do not provide such special rates to home buyers, and the provision eliminates the Consumer Bureau's ability to fix this aspect of the form even if a problem arises in the future.

The final provision, title V, is identical to H.R. 2948, the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. This title would ease the ability of individuals employed as mortgage originators to change employers by creating a temporary 120-day licensing regime so that they can continue to work at their new employer.

This bill would effectively treat mortgage originators who work for State registered firms the same as federally registered firms and was unanimously supported by committee Democrats. Unfortunately, because this legislation has been packaged with other deeply problematic and destructive bills, sensible relief to these individuals that has broad bipartisan support is being held hostage by Republicans' efforts to roll back as many safeguards as they can this year.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3978, as amended, threatens many of the important reforms Democrats made to restore investor confidence to our capital markets after the worst financial crisis in generations. As the stock markets continue to wobble ominously in ways that threaten the savings of hardworking Americans, Congress should be strengthening oversight of the financial system, not weakening it.

Not surprisingly, H.R. 3978 is strongly opposed by the North American Association of Securities Administrators who serve on the frontline combating securities fraud on the State level and by nonpartisan organization who speak on behalf of our Nation's consumers, investors, and unions, including Consumer Federation of America, Center for American Progress, Americans for Financial Reform, AFL-CIO, and Public Citizen, and so do I.

Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to reject this harmful package of bills and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3978.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, given the extreme volatility in the stock markets over the past few weeks, I am particularly troubled by title II of this bill, which would make it easier for high-frequency traders to evade regulatory oversight of their potentially disruptive automated trading algorithms.

This provision is widely opposed by nonpartisan consumer and investor advocacy groups who recognize the impact automated trading has on our markets.

Let me read for you excerpts from a few letters from these groups that highlight the dangers of title 2.

Americans for Financial Reform--a coalition of more than 200 consumer, civil rights, investor, retiree community, labor, faith- based, and business groups--wrote: ``Title II would prevent regulators from inspecting not only their raw source code used in automated trading, but also any related intellectual property that `forms the basis for the design of' source code. Examination of such intellectual property would only be possible in an enforcement context pursuant to a subpoena. This implies that the SEC would have to wait until the damage was done through a `flash crash' or similar market disruption before taking any action, which would have to be retrospective.

``In light of the significance of automated trading to modern markets, and the potential risk of high-frequency trading, it makes no sense to tie the hands of regulators in examining detailed trading strategies and methods of high frequency traders.''

The Center for American Progress cautioned that: ``But in an era of fast-moving, `flash-crash'-prone markets, the SEC may have a wide range of regulatory reasons for why it may need to examine source codes, including approvals of new trading products or the supervision of trading venues. The SEC should only exercise that authority carefully and under the strictest protections for confidential information, but blocking it by law dangerously limits the SEC's ability to address the significant technology-based challenges to financial markets.''

The Consumer Federation of America, an association of nearly 300 consumer advocacy groups, similarly opposed title 2 because it ``would weaken SEC oversight of algorithmic trading and hamstring the agency from responding quickly to flash crashes or other market breakdowns.''

Further, the CFA wrote that: ``At a time when algorithmic trading is taking on increased importance in our capital markets, this bill would make it more difficult for the SEC to properly oversee such trading.

``The bill would require the SEC to first issue a subpoena before it could compel a person to produce or furnish to the SEC algorithmic trading source code or `similar intellectual property.' This would undermine the SEC's examination authority by creating a gaping hole in its ability to gain access to firm records relevant to the examination. It would also have a devastating effect on the agency's ability to respond quickly in the event of another `flash crash' or such events in the future. In order to oversee the markets effectively, the SEC needs to be able to accurately and efficiently reconstruct order entry and trading activity, including for algorithmic traders.''

Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group with over 400,000 members and supporters, wrote: ``Market volatility caused not by real events such as outbreak of a war, but by computers, including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to some innocent investors and erodes general investor confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6, 2010 `Flash Crash,' where markets collapsed by more than $1 trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such a robust and urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a flawed algorithmic at one major trader. SEC oversight should be streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it should be no different for those instructions and records generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable.''

These letters demonstrate the wide opposition to title II by groups that truly understand that robust oversight of algorithmic trading is necessary for the help of our makers.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from these groups.

February 13, 2018.

Please vote NO on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978.

Hon. Member,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Hon. Member: On behalf of more than 400,000 members

and supporters of Public Citizen, we ask you to vote NO on

H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978, which are expected to be considered

by the full House on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Provisions

in these bills would expose borrowers to abusive loans,

investors to dubious securities, and Americans generally to a

riskier financial system.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act

of 2017, would allow predatory lenders to escape state limits

on high interest rates. The bill would nullify the Second

Circuit Court ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding. That

decision provided that a financial institution that buys

loans originated by a national bank could not benefit from

the National Bank Act's preemption of state interest rate

caps. While the Madden decision did not limit interest rates

that banks charge on credit, it does limit nonbanks from

evading state interest rate caps. This bill would pave the

way for payday lenders, financial technology (fintech)

companies and others to exploit that loophole and use a

``rent-a-bank'' arrangement in order to charge high interest

rates. Twenty state Attorneys General have written to oppose

this measure, noting that it undermines their efforts to

protect borrowers from abusive loan rates. We urge you to

oppose this bill.

H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017, is actually a

package of bills that were considered separately in the House

Financial Services Committee. One of these is the Financial

Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act (formerly H.R.

4061). This measure would add numerous procedural

requirements for the Financial Stability Oversight Council

(FSOC) when it considers the designation or continued

designation of a nonbank firm as a systemically important

financial institution (SIFI). Current rules already make SIFI

designation a high hurdle. The case of MetLife, for example,

shows that firms enjoy more than ample methods to contest

designation. After FSOC designated MetLife as systemically

important, it contested it in court and the case is pending.

Increasing the government's burden for designation would

restrict its ability to apply enhanced supervision to major

institutions. However, the largest bailout of the 2008

financial crash went to AIG, a nonbank engaged in reckless

derivatives activity beyond the purview of banking

supervisors. We oppose this measure.

Another bill contained in H.R. 3978 is the Fostering

Innovation Act (previously H.R. 1645). This bill amends

Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) law by increasing

from five to 10 years the time that CEOs of firms with less

than $50 million in revenue must attest to the accuracy of

their financial reporting. Congress approved SOX in response

to the accounting scandals at the turn of the millennium. The

rules are designed to promote accounting accuracy to the

shareholders who have entrusted their savings to these firms.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that

companies with inferior financial reporting controls have a

significantly higher likelihood of issuing a restatement of

their financial accounts. Firms that are unwilling to oblige

SOX should not be trusted with the capital of savers.

Extending the CEO attestation requirement from five to 10

years exacerbates the problem. From an investor perspective,

accounting safeguards are more important for smaller

companies, since larger companies generally attract a larger

and more sophisticated base of stock and bond holders who can

perform effective oversight. We oppose this measure.

A third bill that is part of the H.R. 3978 package is the

National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act (formerly

H.R. 4546). This bill would eliminate state supervision of

securities if they are listed on an exchange, even if the

exchange has reduced standards compared with those of major

exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange. Under current

law, state supervision is pre-empted only if the security is

listed on exchanges with rules overseen by the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC). Rules may differ between

exchanges, but they must be approved by the SEC to ensure

that they prevent fraud, serve the public interest and

protect investors. Moreover, exchanges must adopt and enforce

rules that are ``substantially similar'' to the major

exchanges, known formally as ``Named Markets,'' under current

law. The existing system deters a race to the bottom, where

an exchange may attempt to attract companies with weaker

rules. Conversely, this bill would actually promote that race

to the bottom by removing the requirement that the exchange

adopt rules that are substantially similar to those of the

Named Markets. We oppose this measure.

A fourth measure in H.R. 3978 is the Protection of Source

Code Act, (formerly H.R. 3948). This measure would impede the

ability of the SEC to conduct effective compliance

examinations of market volatility involving computer-driven

algorithms. The bill imposes a strict subpoena requirement

before staff could inspect otherwise routine business records

that involve source code. Market volatility caused not by

real events such as the outbreak of a war, but by computers,

including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to

some innocent investors and erodes general investor

confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the

need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6,

2010 ``Flash Crash,'' where markets collapsed by more than $1

trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such robust and

urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly

a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a

flawed algorithm at one major trader. SEC oversight should be

streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records

of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it

should be no different for those instructions and records

generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory

scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as

those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable. We

oppose this measure.

Because of our opposition to these elements in H.R. 3978

and to H.R. 3299 we urge you to vote NO on these bills. As we

are marking the 10th anniversary of the Wall Street Crash,

it's clear that American consumers and investors deserve

stronger financial reforms, not weakened protections that

will make our economy more susceptible to another collapse.

Thank you for your consideration. For questions, please

contact Bartlett Naylor.

Sincerely,

Public Citizen.

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to whether or not the chairman has more speakers?

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

Madam Speaker, it has become par for the course for the majority to recklessly advance harmful deregulatory packages like H.R. 3978. My friends on the other side of the aisle are moving forward with regulatory roadblocks at a furious pace, pushing dangerous bills through the House nearly every week.

It appears that they may have already completely forgotten a way that lacks financial regulation and allowed the crisis in 2008 to occur. That crisis badly damaged the whole economy and harmed all of our constituents. The impact was enormous: $13 trillion in household wealth was lost; 11 million people lost their homes to foreclosure; and the unemployment rate reached 10 percent.

Democrats responded by enacting Wall Street reform to ensure that consumers, investors, and our economy are protected from reckless actors and bad practices, but now Republicans cannot wait to take us back to the bad old days. It makes no sense.

As we have discussed, the package of bills now before us guts important financial protections at a time when markets are already experiencing turmoil. It would allow high-frequency traders to manipulate the stock markets undetected, encourage a regulatory race to the bottom at our Nation's stock exchanges, and harm investors by weakening efforts to detect accounting fraud at smaller public companies. This package of bills threatens important progress we have made to reduce risk in the financial system and return investor confidence.

In recent weeks, we have seen volatile markets that threaten the savings of hardworking American families. These circumstances should serve as a clear reminder that Congress should be strengthening oversight of the financial system, not weakening it by undermining or removing important protections.

H.R. 3978 is strongly opposed by our State's security cops, who are at the front line of combating fraud, and it is opposed by groups representing consumers, investors, and unions.

Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge Members to oppose H.R. 3978, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of opposition.

Center for American Progress,

Washington, DC, February 13, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The Center for

American Progress (``CAP'') is writing today to express

opposition to H.R. 4061, the Financial Stability Oversight

Council Improvement Act of 2017, which is included as Title

VI of the revised H.R. 3978 package. It is our understanding

that the revised H.R. 3978 package will be considered on the

floor of the House of Representatives this week, so we

welcome the chance to share our concerns regarding this

legislation with you and your Members.

In short, this bill erodes a vital new financial regulatory

tool implemented following the devastating 2007-2008

financial crisis. If enacted, the U.S. financial regulatory

structure will be less equipped to handle risks that build up

outside of the traditional banking sector--making the

financial sector as a whole more vulnerable to another shock

and economic downturn. Americans paid for the last crisis

with their jobs, homes, and savings, while banks and other

financial institutions were bailed out. This bill

inexplicably makes a repeat of that economic calamity more

likely.

The 2007-2008 financial crisis demonstrated that excessive

risk could build up outside of the traditional banking

sector. Nonbank financial institutions like Lehman Brothers,

Bear Stearns, and AIG did not face the type of oversight and

regulatory standards warranted by their systemic importance.

The failure or near-failure of these institutions threatened

the stability of the U.S. financial sector. AIG and Bear

Stearns were bailed out accordingly, while the failure of

Lehman Brothers brought the global financial system to the

brink of collapse. The crisis also revealed that no one

financial regulator had a system-wide mandate, meaning

individual regulators were only focused on their respective

segments of the financial sector. This left financial

regulators in the dark regarding risks that built up across

different parts of the sector or that emerged in

underregulated parts of the sector.

In the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama worked

with Congress to pass the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and

Consumer Protection Act--the most significant financial

regulatory reforms enacted since the Great Depression. One

important pillar of Dodd-Frank was the creation of the

Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC''), a new

systemic risk regulatory body. The FSOC was created to bring

the disparate financial regulators together to identify and

mitigate threats to financial stability. The most important

tool given to the FSOC to fulfill this mission is the

authority to subject a nonbank financial company to enhanced

oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve Board if

material distress at the company, or the company's

activities, could threaten financial stability. The FSOC has

used this designation authority sparingly and only after a

thorough, multi-stage review process in which the FSOC

communicates extensively with the company and the company's

primary regulators.

H.R. 4061 would add multiple additional hurdles to the

FSOC's already-rigorous designation process. The proposed

changes would add an estimated two years to the designation

process, meaning it would take roughly four years for the

FSOC to designate a nonbank financial company that could

threaten U.S. financial stability. The four-year estimate

does not even factor in the time it will take for the legal

proceedings to play out when a company challenges the

designation in court. The legal challenge by MetLife took

years, and likely would have taken longer if the Trump

administration didn't agree to stop pursuing the case. If

anything, this bill increases the procedural issues a

designated company could raise in court. H.R. 4061

practically invites a legal filibuster of the designation. It

renders the designation authority nearly useless. Hollowing

out this crucial post-crisis authority makes it far more

likely that an underregulated systemically important nonbank

will cause or aggravate the next financial crisis.

Contrary to critics of the FSOC, it is not a rigid body and

has in the past responded to legitimate process and

transparency suggestions. In 2015, after soliciting public

comment, the FSOC adopted 17 changes to its designation

process and transparency policies The current designation

process in place is rigorous and appropriately thorough. H.R.

4061 would add no less than nine new bureaucratic steps.

These proposed changes are excessive, and the intent is

clear: To prevent the FSOC from using this vital tool.

This legislation is even more concerning given the actions

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Chairman of the FSOC, has

taken since the start of the Trump administration. The FSOC,

under Mnuchin's leadership, has: (i) rescinded the

designation of AIG, the company that received a $182 billion

bailout during the crisis; (ii) slashed the FSOC's budget and

staff; (iii) dropped the legal proceedings regarding

MetLife's designation; (iv) signaled that Prudential's

designation may be rescinded this year; and (v) recommended

some deeply concerning additional changes to the FSOC's

designation process in a report published in late 2017.

Further restricting the FSOC's authority at a time when it is

being dismantled from within would be a grave mistake.

For these reasons, CAP recommends that Members vote ``NO''

when the revised H.R. 3978 package of bills, which includes

H.R. 4061, is considered on the floor.

If you have any questions about this letter or would like

to discuss these issues further, please contact Gregg

Gelzinis.

Sincerely,

Gregg Gelzinis,

Research Assistant, Economic

Policy, Center for American Progress.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current language of title II of H.R. 3978 would require SEC examination staff to obtain a subpoena before it could inspect any source code whatsoever, including, for example, computer code reflecting a firm's adherence to the SEC's cybersecurity regulations.

The amendment offered by Mr. Foster would narrow the requirement in title II to only apply to proprietary source code related to algorithmic trading. While I applaud Mr. Foster and the amendment's cosponsor, Mr. Scott, for narrowing the overbroad language of title II, the amendment cannot fix this untimely and ill-advised legislation. Even as amended, title II would undermine effective oversight of the high-frequency traders that simultaneously create and stand to benefit from the kind of extreme market volatility that we have seen in the past few weeks.

Let's not forget that, on May 6, 2010, in an event referred to as the ``flash crash,'' major U.S. stock indices inexplicably plummeted nearly $1 trillion in less than an hour before mostly rebounding. Alarmingly, market regulators took nearly 5 months to determine that the flash crash was caused by a combination of a flawed execution algorithm of one institutional investor and aggressive algorithmic trading by HFTs.

While it is too early to tell exactly what created the recent volatility in the U.S. stock market, market analysts have suggested that algorithmic trading has played a central role. In fact, just last Tuesday, the day after the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its biggest one-day point drop in history, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified before the House Financial Services Committee that algorithmic trading ``definitely had an impact on market moves.''

Given the importance of algorithmic trading in our stock market, it makes no sense to obstruct the SEC's access to the information that enables such activity merely because it exists in an electronic format. Americans who have trillions of their dollars in 401(k) and other retirement and savings plans deserve the SEC's best efforts in investigating and mitigating computer-driven market disruptions. For this reason and for all of these reasons, and given my broader concerns that the bill would significantly harm investor confidence in our markets even if the amendment is adopted, I am urging a ``no'' vote on

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3299, or the so- called Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. There is a good reason over 200 civil rights, consumer, faith-based, housing, labor, and veterans advocacy organizations oppose this bill. The type of credit that this bill helps consumers access is the kind that makes it easier for vulnerable consumers to sink into insurmountable debt like payday and other high-cost loans.

H.R. 3299 expands the ability of nonbanks to preempt State-level consumer protections by stating that the interest rate on any loan originated by a national bank that is subsequently transferred to a third party, no matter how quickly after it is originated, is enforceable, which incentivizes riskier and predatory lending. H.R. 3299 advances a dangerous precedent by allowing third parties that purchase loans from national banks to collect on interest rates that would otherwise be illegal because they exceed State caps.

Now, this bill is an attempt to overturn a court decision related to the legal concept of ``valid when made'' from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC. In that case, the court held that, when loans are transferred from banks to nonbank third parties, they must maintain the same terms, rates, and conditions as required by the State where the originating bank is chartered.

Despite claims by proponents of the bill, legal experts have explained in testimony that ``the valid-when-made doctrine is a modern invention, not a cornerstone of U.S. banking law.''

The Madden decision is only the rule of law in the States under the Second Circuit, which are Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Some industry advocates, particularly marketplace lender fintechs, have argued the ruling and confusion about valid when made caused such great market ambiguity that it has resulted in reduced lending to needy borrowers in those States, but those claims have not been substantiated.

The only purported evidence we have on the effect of the Madden rule is a single, unpublished study that cannot even be peer-reviewed because it relies on private data from a single, unidentified marketplace lender, and the authors of that study have not endorsed this bill. In addition, 20 State attorneys general, including the attorneys general for all three States under the Second Circuit, oppose this legislative change.

But do you know what? Predatory lenders are worried about the Madden case for a different reason.

Elevate, an online payday lender, is afraid that they won't be able to continue making predatory loans if the Madden decision stays in place. In their public filings with the SEC, Elevate said:

To the extent that the holdings in Madden were broadened to

cover circumstances applicable to Elevate's business or if

other litigation on related theories were brought against us

and were successful, we could become subject to State usury

limits and State licensing laws in addition to the State

consumer protection laws to which we are already subject. In

a greater number of States, loans in such States could be

deemed void and unenforceable, and we would be subject to

substantial penalties in connection with such loans.

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the good actors that may be trying to navigate a difficulty the Madden ruling potentially caused, but this is not just about those businesses, because H.R. 3299 would go much further to allow other third parties, including payday lenders, to evade or outright disregard State-level laws and collect debt from borrowers at unreasonably high rates of interest if they purchase loans from a national bank. These arrangements are called rent-a-bank or rent-a-charter agreements, and they allow payday lenders to use banks as a front for predatory behavior and the evasion of State interest rate caps.

Payday loans drain wealth from low-income consumers, particularly those in communities of color, and payday loans trap their borrowers into a cycle of debt that it takes years to climb out of with high interest rates that are often in excess of 300 percent.

So let's be clear. Instead of simply overturning the Madden decision, H.R. 3299 would go far beyond that and codify an expanded preemption power without any proof that it will benefit consumers. In fact, all we do know is that the bill will make it easier for bad actors to evade safeguards that States have put in place to protect borrowers.

We cannot advance a bill that will allow nonbanks like payday lenders to ignore State interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. While Congress has preempted some State laws for national banks, it did not authorize national banks to extend the privilege to whatever entities they so choose.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Both of the gentlemen, Mr. McHenry and Mr. Rothfus, who are advancing this legislation come from States that don't support it.

Mr. McHenry, North Carolina has banned payday lending. Mr. Rothfus, Pennsylvania has banned payday lending. And here you have a bill that would allow payday lenders to buy up debt from national banks and, basically, charge consumers whatever they would like to charge them. They would get around the ban of your own States. Do you really want to do this?

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

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

I would like to remind Mr. Pittenger that his State, North Carolina, again, along with Mr. McHenry, attorneys general have opposed this bill. They do not like this bill, and I just want to remind them that they don't have the support of their States in doing so.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you have heard those of us who are opposed to this legislation repeat over and over again that this is all about predatory lending; that this bill would open the gates wide to the kind of abuses that we have been fighting so hard against.

Mrs. MALONEY asked the questions: Why do you want to do this to your constituents? Why do you want to do this to the very consumers that we are supposed to be protecting?

I have raised a question to those who come from States where the attorneys general oppose this legislation. The gentlemen from North Carolina and Pennsylvania, who are here in support of this bill, they are ignoring the fact that their State attorneys general are saying that this bill is a bad bill.

Of course, if H.R. 3299 was really about expanding access to underserved populations, as the proponents claim, then they may be surprised to learn that the Nation's leading civil and consumer groups are all opposed to this legislation because it will harm consumers, not help them.

According to a news article from last November, there is a reason the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Consumer Law Center, the Consumer Federation of America, and dozens of churches, women's groups, and antipoverty organizations from around the country have denounced the bill.

In September, those groups wrote a joint letter to Congress warning that H.R. 3299 ``wipes away the strongest available tool against predatory lending practices'' and ``will open the floodgates to a wide range of predatory actors to make loans at 300 percent annual interest or higher.''

The article goes on to say: ``But you don't have to take the NAACP's word for it, just take a look at the companies who are lobbying in favor of H.R. 3299.''

Well, they aren't many, as it is a complicated and obscure issue. But one of them, according to a Federal lobbying disclosure form, is a firm called CNU Online Holdings, LLC. Most customers of CNU Online Holdings don't even realize they use it. They are more familiar with CNU's parent company, payday lending giant Enova Financial; or its flagship brand, CashNetUSA.

The bottom line is that this bill is not helping our consumers, but, rather, lining the pockets of predatory lenders who are looking for any way around State interest rate caps and consumer protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is odd. Here, we have another Member of Congress, whose State attorney general opposes the bill, and who has banned payday lending.

So, here, Mr. Emmer is joining with Mr. McHenry and Mr. Pittenger, whose State opposes the bill, North Carolina. Again, the two of them are in opposition to their own State's attorney general. And now we have Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania and all of these speakers on the opposite side of the aisle who are coming here to support a bill that will open up the opportunity for payday lenders to basically rent a bank and put these payday loans out there at exorbitant amounts.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is rather odd to see so many Members representing, supposedly, their constituents who come from States where payday lending has been banned and their attorneys general oppose this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend on the opposite side of the aisle, the chairman, is right. I must make sure that I am correct in the way that I identify my colleagues, who they are and what States they come from.

So I would like to repeat: Mr. McHenry is from North Carolina. Mr. Pittenger is from North Carolina. The attorney general from that State opposes this bill, and this State has banned payday lending.

Also let me just mention that Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania is another one who is opposed by his attorney general. His attorney general is opposed to this bill, is opposed to his representation, and Pennsylvania has banned payday lending.

Of course, we were joined by Mr. Emmer, who is from Minnesota. Minnesota is in the same position as North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The attorney general of Minnesota opposes this bill, and Minnesota bans payday lending.

So let's be clear. We want to make sure that everybody understands who these Members are who are coming here in opposition to their attorneys general, in opposition to their State. These are Representatives from States that oppose this bill. These are Representatives from States who have banned payday lending.

So I want to be sure that I agree with my chairman. We should let everyone know who they are. We should pronounce their names correctly. We should be sure that all of their constituents understand who their Representatives are and what they are doing here today on this bill that will help to explode predatory lending.

This is the rent-a-bank bill that would allow payday lenders to buy up debt from national banks and be able to charge whatever they would like, 300 percent and more, to the unsuspecting consumers.

So I thank the chairman for helping me to make that clear.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Hensarling has named the Members on my side of the aisle, the Democrats who support this bill. None of them are on the floor at this time. None of them came here to defend the position that they took. Some of them are reconsidering the vote that they took, and so I don't want him to try and wrap this bill around the fact that there were some Democrats who supported it.

This is a Republican bill. This is a bill by the opposite side of the aisle that supports payday lending and the ability for payday lenders to continue to exploit their consumers in a new and different way. They simply allow them to buy up this debt from the national banks to be able to basically overcome usury laws.

So while he would like everyone to believe there is all of this great Democratic support and he keeps saying over and over again how bipartisan this bill is, none of them are on the floor at this time. None of them came here to defend their position. None of them have said, ``I know that I am absolutely correct.'' As a matter of fact, some of them are raising questions about whether or not they should have voted for the bill, understanding it in one particular way, and some now understanding what it really does.

So I thank the gentleman for his position, and I thank him for being a strong advocate for his position. I thank him for at least stepping up to the plate to say, in essence, he believes that he is doing the right thing, despite the fact that he has got Members on that side of the aisle who are going against their own States' attorneys general.

But let us not believe that this is some great Democratic bill. It is not.

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

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

There was a reference to Senator Warner, and he said that the Madden fix bill must address the payday lender loophole. I alluded to some of this kind of thinking about those who may have supported the bill without really giving a lot of thought to this loophole, but I just want you to know that even the author of the bill, Senator Warner, is saying that the Madden fix bill must address payday lender loopholes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3299 is ultimately a bill that would make it easier for bad actors to get around interest rate caps that States have put into place to protect borrowers from predator payday pit traps. Let's be clear: the availability of affordable credit is very important in every community, and we should work together in ways to make sure that underserved communities have fair access to credit and banking services.

But measures like H.R. 3299 do not productively advance that goal. In fact, the bill would do the opposite. It would open the door for nonbanks to ignore States' strong protections and make loans with high interest rates. The bill would usher in a wave of harmful, high-cost payday loans in States where such loans were previously disallowed.

Let's not forget that last month Mick Mulvaney, who President Trump illegally appointed to serve as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, directed the Consumer Bureau to reconsider its sensible and much-needed rule on payday vehicle title and certain high-cost installment loans. That rule, put in place under the leadership of Richard Cordray, would require payday lenders to ensure that consumers can actually afford to pay off their loans.

Essentially, Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney are helping out payday lenders by undermining the Consumer Bureau's rule as well as rolling back and undermining many of the other critical protections put in place by Democrats in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

On top of his pull to reconsider the payday rule, Mulvaney has also drawn a Consumer Bureau lawsuit against a group of payday lenders who allegedly failed to disclose the true cost of loans which had interest rates as high as 950 percent a year.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should be standing up for and enhancing protections for consumers, not legislating to make it easier for hardworking Americans to be drawn into payday debt traps.

H.R. 3299 is widely opposed by over 200 consumer and civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Consumer Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others.

And so I think it is clear what we are advocating on this side of the aisle. We are simply saying that we should not create this loophole, that we should understand the struggle that many of us have been in to try and keep payday lenders from going into the most vulnerable neighborhoods, targeting the most vulnerable people, taking advantage of folks who have no place to turn and who need a few dollars until payday, taking advantage of them and trapping them into these loans and creating all of this debt for them.

This would just go a long way to continue that kind of madness, and so I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 and include extraneous material on House Resolution 736, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule today on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act; H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act; and H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

The rule provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 620, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order multiple amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

It also provides for one hour of debate on the two Financial Services bills, with time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of that committee.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Judiciary Committee members: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Poe, as well as Mr. Langevin. We also heard from Mr. Hill and Ms. Waters on the Financial Services bill.

H.R. 620 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee and enjoyed a rigorous markup process. H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978 were considered and reported by the Financial Services Committee.

The bills before us today address different topics on different segments of our economy and our Nation, but they have something in common. They are all pro-growth bills aimed at righting wrongs, increasing common sense, and improving the way that the current system works.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act and, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have had multiple occasions to talk and listen about this bill. It is sponsored by my good friend from Texas (Mr. Poe), and several of my friends from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this bill because I believe the Americans with Disabilities Act is critical legislation. No individual should ever suffer discrimination for any reason, and disabled individuals should have access to businesses and other sites that provide public accommodation. I am a former small-business owner, so I speak from experience running businesses.

Even more importantly, however, one of the main reasons I stand before you on this issue and behind this bill is I am the father of a strong, intelligent, capable, and a little sassy daughter named Jordan. Jordan is 26 years old and has spina bifida. Jordan has been in a wheelchair her entire life. Her first walk and first steps came in a little, pink wheelchair.

Jordan makes this issue personal for me. Discrimination is unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable for opportunists to build a cottage industry of serial litigation on the backs of the disabled, especially when these drive-by lawsuits offer little to no discernible benefit to disabled individuals.

Mr. Speaker, my daughter Jordan helps me understand the importance of

access to public space and the danger posed by lawsuits that exploit the disabled community instead of serving its members. I believe that there are good actors genuinely seeking to increase access and call to task those who block access to disabled individuals. Unfortunately, what we are seeing too often is bad actors intentionally exploiting the law for their own financial gain.

When these bad actors, these serial litigants, clog up the courts by drive-by lawsuits geared not at solutions but at profits, they take up time the courts could be using to address issues that truly need remediation. They also undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act. The intent and purpose of the ADA is not to drum up lawsuits; it is to prevent discrimination, increase access, and to protect those with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the disability community, my daughter included, represents some of the strongest people I know. They have a voice, and they are powerful. Today, we are here making sure the law works better for them and that it isn't being exploited by those who seek to undermine that law.

Today, small businesses face legal fees and complex technical jargon when presented with an impediment to access. Most businesses want to fix such issues and would, but instead of being able to make this issue right, they are forced into court before they have the chance to do so. In some examples of these serial lawsuits, the issues have not even been perceptible to the human eye; in others, building codes have changed--and yes, even the ADA--yet business owners have been hauled into court before they have a chance to respond or to fix the problem.

H.R. 620 ensures businesses have the opportunity to fix any access issues once they have been made aware of them. It provides notice and a cure period and clarifies the requirements for demand letters. It also provides training for business owners and State and local governments so that they can better understand proper ADA compliance.

The number of ADA title III lawsuits has skyrocketed in recent years. Since 2013, there has been a 132 percent increase in the number of lawsuits in Federal courts. H.R. 620 addresses this problem in a smart way that maintains the integrity, purpose, and key provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act while ensuring there is a chance to fix access issues.

This bill does not take away an individual's right to sue for access. This bill does not overturn the ADA. It does give business owners a chance to fix ADA problems quickly. Some owners may not even actually realize they are not in compliance. Codes have changed, and there are literally hundreds of pages of compliance.

That, however, is not an excuse for willful noncompliance. Far from it. But it is a reason that good actors who may need to update their accommodations should have a chance to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill has bipartisan support and that the Rules Committee made in order several amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle so that we can consider ideas to even further strengthen this legislation. I would ask that all Members listen to that amendment debate because these amendments do have an impact on this bill, and I would encourage them to be a part of that.

H.R. 620 makes sense and focuses on fixing issues rather than spending money on trials or, better yet, extorting money from businesses with no thought of helping those with disabilities.

We also have a chance to consider some other commonsense measures today with the two important Financial Services bills also provided for by this rule.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, was introduced by Mr. McHenry and Mr. Meeks, and reported by the Financial Services Committee with bipartisan support. Similar language was included in the House-passed CHOICE Act last year.

This legislation codifies the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, a longstanding legal principle that, if a loan is valid when it is made with respect to its interest rate, then it does not become invalid or unenforceable when assigned to another party. This bill is a response to the 2015 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden v. Midland, which appears to have ignored the longstanding legal principle.

The decision in the Madden case created instability and uncertainty in the secondary credit market, and restricts the availability of loans to borrowers, particularly those with less access to traditional lending sources. It has also led to regulatory uncertainty and fallout for fintech lenders. My home State of Georgia has an increasing presence in fintech, and H.R. 3299 provides a legislative fix that increases certainty and supports economic opportunity.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss 3978, the TRID Improvement Act, which incorporates numerous important provisions from several smart Financial Services bills. It was introduced by Congressman Hill from Arkansas, and takes steps to provide important regulatory relief and make capital markets more competitive and efficient.

Dodd-Frank led to an explosion of regulations and requirements that ultimately have squeezed access to capital, created hurdles to smaller market entrants, and imposed burdens on small businesses, startups, and investors.

One especially critical provision is H.R. 3978, the language authored by Mr. Duffy from Wisconsin. This provision prohibits the SEC from compelling the production of source code or similar intellectual property without a subpoena. The SEC has had a data breach, and the GAO has been critical of its cybersecurity.

I think Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hill, along with my colleague David Scott from Georgia, are right to recognize that we shouldn't be forcing SEC registered entities to hand over their highly sensitive source code without due process protections. This legislation ensures normal processes can be followed to access this information is needed, but prevents unnecessary disclosures of this intellectual property.

Mr. Speaker, source code for security and other financial entities is similar to what the Coke recipe is to Coca-Cola, or the doughnut recipe is to Krispy Kreme. It is critical intellectual property that represents the backbone of a company. This bill makes clear that this sensitive and highly valuable information doesn't have to be simply handed over to the SEC with the hope that the information remains secure.

H.R. 3978 includes numerous other key provisions, including recognizing unique needs of emerging growth companies and tailoring regulatory burdens accordingly, and requiring the CFPB--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--to allow for more accurate and clear calculations to be provided to consumers when they purchase lenders and owners title insurance policies.

Mr. Speaker, today, you are seeing a theme. You are seeing a rule that provides for numerous bills that make commonsense changes to the current system to spur growth and simply increases fairness. And you are seeing bipartisan bills, including bipartisan amendments, that will be coming forward on this in support of these bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that we can agree or disagree on here, but one of the things, from my position, especially with a daughter who has a handicap--this is not an insult to disabilities. It is actually keeping them from being abused and used by folks who don't even have a disability suing and asking for money and not really caring if the issue gets fixed or not.

At the end of the day, which would somebody rather have: a person in a wheelchair have something fixed, or have someone pay an attorney off so that they can make some money?

Let's at least put this in context of what it truly is.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the interesting thing is, as has been expressed by a couple of our speakers, especially on the Financial Services bills, these are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have come back. They have been vetted. They came before not only this body, many of them through the CHOICE Act, previously, but also have been coming back. And something that is really interesting is the bicameral, bipartisan process of making sure that capital and these Financial Services bills are actually something that we can move and can improve.

But I do, again, take a little bit of exception. And look, rhetoric is rhetoric, but deceit is also deceit in the sense that we don't talk about, especially in this ADA--I am not sure how opposing a bill that is designed to make improvements for folks and in protecting trial lawyers who can get people who do not even have disabilities to sue or to send a demand letter to get money without ever requiring that the business actually solve the problem. That is what has been missing in this debate today.

They can actually send a letter, say: Here is where our problem is. We are going to sue you, but if you send us X amount of dollars, that will do away with it--never concerned at all if the decision is actually making a difference in the business or the location. They don't care.

And, in fact, if you want to oppose this, then you are just actually, frankly, saying: That is a good idea. I like that. Let's just pick on businesses, and at the end of the day, you know those folks with disabilities, they are just our key to making more money.

That is wrong. My daughter is not a money-making proposition. That has got to cease.

We can disagree on ways about this. My friend from Rhode Island and I have talked about this a great deal. We are of the same mind and same agreement. We may disagree on somehow this is it and how to get there, but at the end of the day, the ADA is still there. The ADA is not going away. The ADA is not being gutted, and nobody is asking folks with disabilities to get law degrees. A lot of them have, and they are making a difference.

But one of the greatest emphases to a business that may have an impediment, they may have put something in the way, is for somebody with a disability to say: By the way, I can't get in here.

And most every business on Earth does not want to stand at the door and say: I don't want disability folks in my business.

No. They want to fix it because they want to do business. To say anything else is simply, unfortunately at times, tending to scare people for the wrong reasons.

If you want to defend trial lawyers and others who are willing to sue with nondisabled people, to sue businesses taking Google photographs of Google Maps and saying, ``This is a business that we are going to extort something from,'' then vote against this bill, but then explain to somebody in a wheelchair why you are using them and allowing these folks to use them for their profit motive. That is wrong.

We can find a lot of ways to find agreement here, but let's at least look at the situation on how it is.

So, with these Financial Services bills, they provide regulatory relief. They reduce unnecessary burdens. They are bipartisan. I am urging my friends and colleagues to take a look at the amendments because there are a lot of amendments that are going to come forward on these, especially the ADA bill and others.

Look at that. Listen to it. Talk about it. But at the end of the day, never forget what is actually happening here, and what we are actually seeing is something that we can make a difference in and we are looking to make a difference in.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 736, I call up the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to modify requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3978, which is a package of five strongly bipartisan bills, yet again, from the Financial Services Committee of the House. As standalone bills, all were favorably reported, again, with strong bipartisan support of at least three-quarters of the committee.

The title provision of this package is the TRID Improvement Act by Congressman French Hill. This bill amends CFPB's complex TILA/RESPA integrated disclosure, known as the TRID rule, in order to simplify the closing documents consumers get when they close a mortgage.

It does this by allowing for the calculation of the discounted rate that title insurance companies provide to consumers when they purchase a lender's and owner's title insurance policy simultaneously. This makes it more accurate, Madam Speaker.

Title II is the Protection of Source Code Act introduced by Representatives Sean Duffy and David Scott, a Republican and a Democrat. This provision ensures that the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot require financial services firms to disclose algorithmic trading source code without first obtaining a subpoena. Source code is among a firm's most sensitive information, and this bipartisan provision balances privacy and due process concerns while preserving the SEC's ability to obtain such information when necessary.

The third title is the Fostering Innovation Act which was introduced by Representatives Sinema and Hollingsworth to provide relief to small and emerging businesses by extending the popular onramp exemption of the JOBS Act for emerging growth companies in a more tailored manner. In short, it provides emerging growth companies more time to reach a size when they reasonably can be expected to financially sustain the legal, accounting, and compliance costs associated with the full Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b) compliance.

Fourth, Madam Speaker, is the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act which was introduced by Mr. Royce and which will ensure further clarity and competition among national security exchanges by modernizing the blue sky exemption in the Securities Act. Modernizing this provision will ensure all national security exchanges operate on a level regulatory playing field and help protect retail investors from arbitrary acts by State regulators that may bar investors in one State from buying stock freely available to investors in every other State.

The final title of this bill is a provision introduced by Congressman Stivers to allow mortgage loan originators who work as loan officers in banks and credit unions to transition to a new job at a nonmortgage company without losing the ability to originate loans. Without this bill, the transition process can take weeks or months depending on the State.

Each of these measures, Madam Speaker, will cut through layers of red tape and help level the playing field making regulations smarter, fairer, clearer, and more efficient, thus ensuring that there are more competitively priced credit opportunities, more credit opportunities for consumers, and that investors have greater investment opportunities in competitive markets. They will provide commonsense regulatory relief. They are practical, they are bipartisan, and they are needed.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the committee and the sponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the sponsor of title 2 of the Protection of Source Code in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say the widespread opposition to the bill alluded to by the ranking member doesn't include roughly half the Democrats on the committee, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who was quoted in our markup as saying: ``As someone who can code in at least seven languages, I understand that source code is qualitatively different from other documents that a firm might have and that our regulators should have legitimate access to. They are truly the crown jewels of an electronic trading firm, and there are obvious dangers that have been exposed in transferring things really not just to the government, to any entity. The first line of defense in cybersecurity is to keep the data as closely held as reasonable and still be able to do your job.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), another member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), another proud member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would tell the ranking member that I have potentially two speakers, if they make it. They are on their way from a hearing, but they are not here now.

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

Madam Speaker, there may be other Members coming, so, at the moment, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, again, all over America today, fortunately, because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, people are waking up to new opportunities. They are finally seeing their wages begin to grow. We have seen the greatest wage growth in almost a decade, Madam Speaker, again, thanks to President Trump and thanks to a Republican Congress, a bill that was opposed by every single Democrat.

But as they wake up to these new opportunities, Madam Speaker, they also need new credit. As their incomes rise--this is good--they still need credit in order to buy a home, in order to purchase that car, and sometimes just to put groceries on the table. Unfortunately, over the last 8 years of the Obama administration where we saw probably one of the greatest increases in the cost, expense, and burden of costly Washington red tape, we have seen fewer credit opportunities.

So now, fortunately, today there are good men and women on both sides of the aisle who are trying to work together to bring some rationale and reason to the regulatory burden. Many Members on the other side of the aisle do realize that Dodd-Frank did not come down as tablets from Mt. Sinai, that it isn't chiseled into stone, and that maybe there are some improvements that could be made.

So today, we are taking a number of very bipartisan bills to the House floor. The Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, which we debated earlier, Madam Speaker, passed by 42-17.

The TRID Improvement Act by Mr. Hill from Arkansas passed through our committee 53-5--90 percent. Almost all of the Democrats but the ranking member supported the bill. The Protection of Source Code Act, 46-14; the Fostering Innovation Act passed by a vote of 48-12, a Democratic bill; the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act, 46-14.

We have a lot of bipartisan bills, but with one exception, title V of the TRID Improvement Act, none of them were supported, unfortunately, by the ranking member.

So there is, again, a lot of bipartisan work we are trying to get done here. Unfortunately, very little of it is supported by the ranking member.

And why is this important? It is important, Madam Speaker, because every day we are still hearing from our constituents who need access to competitive affordable credit. And because of this Washington red tape and regulatory burden, they are not getting it.

It wasn't that long ago we heard from Ann of Wisconsin, who said:

My husband and I had very high credit scores. We have

plenty of equity in our home. But because my husband has a

seasonal job and finds other employment in the winter, many

banks we contacted rejected our loan request. They based our

annual income only on the job he has currently and said that

was part of the new regulations.

Part of the new regulations--there is somebody who won't buy a home; they can't get a home.

I heard from a mortgage banker in North Carolina who said:

Last year, we declined a young man and his family fixed

rate financing to purchase a primary home. The applicant

recently relocated to work for a family business. Prior to

Dodd-Frank, it would have been easy to qualify, but no more.

Another potential American home buyer denied credit because of this regulatory burden. Madam Speaker, that is what many of us, on both sides of the aisle, are trying to remedy today.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), a sponsor of title III of the Fostering Innovation Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to hear the voices of hardworking Americans, not just Washington, D.C., letterhead groups.

We heard from a community banker, who said:

A local union member wanted to refinance his primary

residence. He was currently laid off due to the winter

season. His tax return showed he was generally laid off for

about 6 weeks each year during the extreme cold but was

always called back when weather improved. Since he was laid

off, we could not meet the requirement to validate his

current income that would continue for 3 years. We had to

deny the loan.

Yet again, Mr. Speaker, more Washington red tape taking away home opportunities from hardworking Americans. It is wrong. We must do something about it. It is why, on a bipartisan basis, so many of us have gotten together to pass H.R. 3978.

Yes, we want to make sure that people can buy homes, they can buy cars, they can put groceries on the table, and right now, when the economy is finally starting to improve, thanks to President Trump and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we want them to have opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3978, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague on the Financial Services Committee. I lost track of how many times he mentioned Wells Fargo. That has nothing to do with an early growth company. That has nothing to do with this title of the bill.

So the Fostering Innovation Act by the gentlewoman from Arizona is all about allowing emerging-growth companies the opportunity to actually grow. What a novel concept.

What we know is, Mr. Speaker, in 8 years of Obamanomics, they were only able to produce about 1.8 percent economic growth, for all intents and purposes. Nobody's savings account came back. Wages were stagnant. And now that we have sensible regulation, now that we have passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now we have 3 percent economic growth, which is economic growth for America's working families. Unemployment is at a 17-year low. It remains at a 17-year low.

Again, wages grew at 2.9 percent last year, the fastest in almost a decade. Two million Americans have gone back to work, Mr. Speaker, and this is not by accident.

So what the gentleman is doing with his motion to recommit is sending us back. He is rolling the clock back to an era where working Americans didn't get ahead, where entrepreneurship was at a generational low, where small businesses were finding it hard to access lines of credit. So the bill that he so much maligns from the gentlewoman from Arizona, who happens to reside on his side of the aisle--at markup, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), supported the provision and said: This is a sensible compromise that provides a narrowly targeted relief to only the companies that truly need it.

Researching a new drug and getting FDA approval is a very, very long process, which is exactly what we heard in our committee. For example, we have heard from John Blake, senior vice president of finance at Atyr Pharma, who testified before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments. He said: It remains the case that the biotech development time line is a decades-long affair. It is extremely likely that Atyr will still be in the lab, in the clinic, when our EGC clock expires, our early growth company.

In other words, they may have revenues, but they don't have profits. They don't have profits. This is something that is especially common in the biotech area. They need this capital for innovation.

So once again, we have heard this rhetoric on the other side of the aisle before. This is all about Dodd-Frank revisited. They aim at Wall Street, but they are hitting Main Street, Mr. Speaker. The MTR, the motion to recommit, hits Main Street in the gut. It will mean fewer early growth companies. It will mean fewer jobs. It will mean lower wage growth. And it will mean, again, a decimated and declining American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, we should reject the motion to recommit, and we should support the underlying bill.

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