H.Res. 747

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4296. This bill is simply another rollback of rules put in place after the financial crisis. It would undermine the stability of our country's largest financial banks by restricting the way regulators set capital requirements for these institutions.

Before I get into why this bill is problematic, let me take a moment to clarify what capital is and what it is not.

Some have said that capital is money that is held on the side or in reserve and cannot be used to lend to borrowers. This couldn't be further from the truth. Capital is not a reserve. Capital refers to the terms of the financing a bank receives.

In the most simplistic example, a bank receives funds from customers making deposits, loans it receives from other institutions, and stock it has issued to investors. The bank uses all of these sources of funding to make mortgages and other loans to customers. However, there are important differences.

Bank debt has terms like regular interest payments that, if it stops paying, the bank fails.

However, a bank can stop paying dividends on a stock without it failing. Banks funded with lots of debt are described as being higher leveraged and risky because only a small drop in the value of their mortgages and other assets can cause them to default.

Funding a bank through higher levels of capital makes the bank stronger, because even if the loans it has made lose value, the bank can avoid default by temporarily halting payments to their investors or lowering the value of the stock.

H.R. 4296 would impact something called operational risk capital, which is the capital used to cover the possibility of losses to the largest banks caused from their operational failures, such as rogue traders, fraudulent sales practices, and cyber breaches.

H.R. 4296 would diminish this type of capital, which only about 10 megabanks are required to maintain under an enhanced framework, by restricting the information that regulators can use to determine the appropriate balance of safe funding, like bank stock versus debt, that megabanks should have to address potential operational losses that may occur.

The bill would direct regulators to primarily consider a megabank's current activities and not their past behavior when setting the capital level, thereby enabling the bank to take on more debt.

According to Americans for Financial Reform, a nonpartisan coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, and civic and community groups:

``While current activities are obviously central to operational risk, and are already treated as such, the recent loss experience of banks is the best concrete evidence regulators usually have as to the magnitude of current and future risks. Recent past activities are also vital to understanding the future exposures of the bank, including potential legal exposures.''

Thus, this change to how regulators determine the appropriate amount megabanks should maintain for operational risk is imprudent. A megabank's past actions are often the best indicators of future potential risks that it may experience.

Well, memories seem to quickly fade in Congress about the problems that led to the last financial crisis, so let me list some of the examples of past megabanks' operational failures by J.P. Morgan's ``London Whale'' trades and Wells Fargo's long list of violations that have ripped off millions of consumers, including those harmed by their fraudulent accounts scandal.

Given these examples of past misconduct, the megabanks have collectively paid more than $160 billion in fines since 2010. It is absurd to suggest that their past behavior shouldn't be taken into account when determining how much capital they should hold.

Even the Basel Committee, which several of President Trump's appointees now serve on, agreed in December, when they finalized Basel III reforms from where the operational risk capital originates, writing:

``Banks which have experienced greater operational risk losses historically are assumed to be more likely to experience operational risk losses in the future.''

So it makes no sense to have a forward-looking assessment that deemphasizes a megabank's past failures in setting these capital requirements. It is almost as if this bill is saying: ``Don't pay any attention to that. No matter how bad they have been, don't look at their past performance. We don't want you to look at that, because we know if you do, you will make a different decision about capital requirements.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill's changes would cost the Federal Government $22 million. This calculation was based on the fact that the capital change would not only affect the bank's probability of failure, but also the magnitude of future losses to our entire financial stability, which, in turn, affects the overall U.S. economy.

This is not a bill to help community banks. It has nothing to do with community banks. Let me repeat that. This is not a bill to help community banks, so what we wish we would not hear is someone coming up talking about how it is going to hurt community banks. That is often used as an excuse. When we are trying to rein in these megabanks, they always lop in the community banks with it. This has nothing to do with community banks. This is a bill for the 10 largest banks in this country.

So the megabanks on Wall Street are hoping Congress will let them take on riskier debt by directing the regulators to downplay, if not outright ignore, their recent and extensive operational failures.

Mr. Jamie Dimon, the CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, wrote in his 2016 annual letter to shareholders that:

``Operational risk capital should be significantly modified, if not eliminated.''

Let's think about it like this: most adult consumers in this country have a credit score. Banks use those credit scores to determine whether or not to lend to a consumer and, if so, under what terms.

These credit scores are based on a consumer's what?

A consumer's past payment history, because this information is considered one of the best indicators of a person's likelihood to default on future credit obligations.

Now, we all know that credit scores are problematic, but no one, including me, is proposing to get rid of them, because we can all agree that past payment information is a good indicator of how someone will handle credit in the future, but this bill takes that principle and throws it out the window when it comes to the 10 largest banks in this country.

Keep in mind, these same banks will continue to use a consumer's credit score for underwriting and rating of mortgages and other consumer loans, but the megabanks themselves are asking this Congress not to judge them on their past behavior, as they judge consumers, and to let them have a clean slate moving forward. If that isn't a double standard, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is.

Mr. Speaker, bank profits reached an all-time record high in 2016. Compensation for Wall Street CEOs has shot back up to levels last seen in 2006, and business lending is up 75 percent since 2010. All this happened while U.S. banks added more than $700 billion in capital to absorb potential losses. There is a simple reason for this: healthy banks lend.

U.S. banks also lent significantly more than their European counterparts, because our banks boosted their capital levels, while the European banks did not.

So despite Republicans' ``Chicken Little'' arguments about the dire consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory reforms, the data speaks for itself. Banks are making more money than ever and lending more than ever, but apparently that is not enough.

So I am here again today appealing for Congress to continue to uphold the commonsense safeguards for consumers, the broader economy, and the

megabanks. I reject this Wall Street giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty). She has raised a question about the analogies that the chairman made, and those analogies seem to escape ordinary logic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

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

In addition to the concerns I have raised about this bill, I also want to mention a change to H.R. 4296 made in the Rules Committee just last night.

Because H.R. 4296 makes the 10 largest banks more likely to fail, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that there was a higher likelihood that taxpayer funds would be used to wind down a megabank. To offset these costs, Republicans have taken funds from the Federal Reserve's surplus account.

So what is the Fed's capital surplus account? Effectively, it is a rainy-day fund intended to ensure adequate capital is available to absorb possible losses. Several stakeholders have raised concerns that, by reducing the Fed's surplus account, Congress could negatively affect the Federal Reserve's independence in monetary policy decisionmaking by rendering it dependent on Treasury for recapitalization in the event that total Reserve bank capital is depleted.

Put simply, this bill not only makes the 10 largest banks more likely to fail, but it also makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will be unable to address problems in the financial system going forward.

I would like to also mention that, in a letter opposing this bill, the Center for American Progress highlighted, again, several budgetary considerations we should keep in mind as we debate this bill. And, of course, I have either mentioned or alluded to it, but it is important that we understand that the Center for American Progress is very concerned, and the CBO also projects, that H.R. 4296 will increase the deficit due to an increase in expected losses to the Federal Government stemming from an increase in the likelihood of another financial crisis.

The bill would pay for these costs by lowering the Federal Reserve System's surplus funds, once again treating the Fed like a piggy bank and shifting privately generated losses to the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, early in my statement, I warned that there would be someone who would come on the floor and claim that it was going to hurt community banks, small town banks; and this bill has nothing to do with community banks or small town banks.

This is about megabanks. This is about SIFIs. This is about the banks that can cause harm in the whole system. This is about those banks that we must be concerned about because of the displacement that they can cause, not only in this country, but internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I just remind you again this has nothing to do with community banks. This has nothing to do with small town banks. This is just the big banks that are significantly important banks.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's put aside the complex terminology we often use with Financial Services legislation and call this bill what it really is: a short-sighted giveaway to Wall Street megabanks.

Approximately ten banks we are talking about, the very largest banks in our Nation, have to abide by operational risk standards under an enhanced framework. They are required to maintain this additional capital so when they continue to engage in risky behavior, like opening millions of fake accounts to drive up profits, they will not immediately become insolvent, sparking a financial crisis.

And may I just stop here for a moment and say: it is odd that, given the information that we have discovered about some of our megabanks, particularly Wells Fargo, that was involved not only in creating fake accounts, false accounts in their clients' names, but also selling them basically insurance that they did not need, I am wondering why my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are not more concerned about this operational risk that they take.

For example, when we talk about operational risk, include in that the fines, the fines that we have placed on Wells Fargo and other banks that have been caught committing fraud on its clients. It seems to me that this would be taken into consideration, and I don't think they are going to stop.

We have gone through a crisis. In 2008, we had this meltdown. We had a recession, almost a depression. We had to bail out all of these banks, yet we have Members, particularly on the opposite side of the aisle, who are doing everything that they can to go back to some of the practices that will cause us to be in the same situation we found ourselves in in 2008.

So I would just simply say that this attempt to basically say: don't look at our past, no matter how bad we have been, no matter how many fines have been placed on them, forget about that. We don't like that.

So in saying that, what they are basically saying is they are going to create more risk and they are going to put banks in the position of possibly failing.

So with that, I would just like us not to forget that our current operational risk capital standards didn't come out of nowhere. They are still recovering from the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis, which was largely caused by unsafe practices by large internationally active megabanks and inadequate regulation that ignored past misconduct and risky activities.

The crisis stripped wealth from millions of American families and destroyed the economy. Since we passed the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulators have implemented standards from the international Basel III accord, including our operational risk capital rules, we have made tremendous progress to create a better capitalized and more stable banking system, and this is bearing results.

Megabanks have experienced record-breaking profits for the past several years. Now they expect us to believe that these commonsense rules that take into account their previous behavior was keeping them from providing more affordable credit to hardworking consumers in search of the American Dream?

As I mentioned earlier, a bank can still make loans to credit-worthy consumers while funding those loans with capital instead of debt.

Operational capital is not cash locked away at night, but, rather, it is the value of a bank's assets minus its liabilities or debts. A well- capitalized bank that has adequate sources of funding can accommodate losses without reducing its lending. In fact, it would be able to lend in good times and in bad.

We should direct the regulators overseeing megabanks like Wells Fargo with its years of numerous consumer abuses and JPMorgan Chase with its London Whale trading scandal not to ignore these past failures and put our constituents at risk.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rushing through deregulatory measures to help their friends on Wall Street. But Congress must not forget that it was hardworking consumers across the country who paid dearly for Wall Street's faults in the last financial crisis. So I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I am very pleased that while my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about this being a bipartisan bill and they mention Mr. Meeks'

name from New York, et cetera, we have the support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

We have talked at length today about how H.R. 4296 is a bill for Wall Street megabanks, and I deeply disagree with the bill's approach. So I offer this motion to recommit not in a manner that sends the bill to the committee and kills the bill, but, rather, to attempt to improve the bill before the House votes on final passage of the measure.

Let's discuss the elephant in the room. We all know megabanks have been given a free ride in Washington for far too long. During the savings and loan crisis, the government had no problem throwing bankers in jail for breaking the law. Over 1,000 bank executives were prosecuted. But now megabanks just get a fine, a slap on the wrist, for harming consumers.

Since 2010, megabanks have racked up over $160 billion worth of fines, yet they keep breaking the law. We have talked about Wells Fargo's growing list of illegal actions that have harmed millions of consumers. Sure they have been fined, but these fines are just the cost of doing business. This soft enforcement approach is just increasing their operational risk and losses, which, at the end of the day, will impact not only all of their customers, but the broader economy as well.

I hope Republicans and Democrats can all agree that any megabank that engages in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other egregious violations that has resulted in profound consumer harm in the last 10 years is not entitled to any benefit of regulatory relief provided under this bill.

So my amendment excludes a megabank like Wells Fargo that has fraudulently opened millions of accounts without their customers' consent, enrolled consumers in life insurance policies without their consent, and forced nearly 1 million Americans to purchase automobile insurance that they didn't even need.

Since 2016, I have been calling for Wells Fargo to face real penalties. Last year, I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to compel the Federal bank regulators to fully utilize existing authorities to stop these megabanks from repeatedly flouting the law and harming millions of consumers.

So I was glad to see Janet Yellen on her last day at the Federal Reserve take bold action to cap the bank's size until it cleans up its act. I am talking about Wells Fargo. This is what Janet Yellen did on her last day at the Federal Reserve.

But we must do more to send a strong message to all megabanks that there will be real consequences for their bad actions that mislead, abuse, or deceive its customers.

H.R. 4296, in its current form, would send the opposite message to recidivist megabanks. They should not reap the profit of easier operational capital requirements while their operational breakdowns are only increasing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to recommit so that we do not reward a recidivist megabank like Wells Fargo for repeated operational failures that ripped off millions of consumers.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which provides for the consideration of two bills from the House Financial Services Committee--H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, and H.R. 4296, legislation to undercut operational risk capital requirements-- under a completely closed process.

These are the 66th and 67th closed rules of this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply concerned with the Republican leadership's total lack of consideration for regular order.

For all intents and purposes, regular order is dead in this Congress. We consider one closed rule after another after another after another, and Republicans routinely rush bills to the floor without even holding hearings on the underlying legislation to help Members better understand the impacts of these bills and to benefit from expert witnesses.

What is especially shameful about the process today, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there were amendments submitted, but Republicans decided to self-execute these nongermane amendments with no debate or discussion on the House floor and to shut down the ability of Members to offer additional amendments. This is just bad legislating, plain and simple.

I hope that if November turns out the way I hope it does and we have a change in leadership in Congress, when Democrats are in charge, we run this place like professionals, like adults, where we respect all points of view, where we go back to regular order, when we say we are going to go back to regular order, we mean it.

Why are we doing all of this, Mr. Speaker? What is possibly so urgent that we have to throw regular order out the window?

Today, we are considering another two pieces of deregulatory legislation that will benefit big banks at the expense of financial stability to our economy and consumer protections that help everyday families.

H.R. 4607 would create a lopsided approach to implementing regulations that force agencies to consider the cost of regulations on bankers without considering the benefit to consumers. H.R. 4296 would undermine the ability of regulators to establish operational risk capital requirements to protect our economy from another crisis.

Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Our constituents expect Congress to put them first, not the big banks, especially the big banks that wrecked our economy and endangered the life savings of millions of families. We owe it to them to bring to the floor legislation that will help their lives and make our country better. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has failed to act on meaningful legislation that will do anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, today marks nearly 2 weeks since 17 people, including 14 students, were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. This was one of the worst shootings our country has ever seen. It was the eighth school shooting this year, and it is only February.

Yet Republicans in Congress have not lifted a finger to take up bipartisan gun reform legislation that would help to prevent shootings like these and protect our kids. Instead, we are here considering a bill that will only help the already rich and powerful.

This is shameful. It is absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that monitors gun violence, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America. In 2018 alone, less than 2 months, there have been over 400 teens aged 12 through 17 and 90 children under the age of 11 killed or injured by guns.

Yet the majority in this House even refuses to bring to the floor legislation banning bump stocks, a reform agreed

upon by both sides of the aisle, I thought. The NRA has even said that ``devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.'' I don't know if they meant it, but they said it.

President Trump: ``I will be strongly pushing comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of bump stocks. Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue--I hope.''

Now, it is true that we have a President who is so erratic that he changes his mind from one hour to the next, but so far, I haven't seen a retraction tweet. So I have every reason to believe he is still standing by his commitment to supporting these modest gun safety reforms.

Yet here we are, just days after this horrific mass shooting, and not one single gun reform or gun safety bill is being voted on or even scheduled for a vote. I am furious that, in the face of such tragedy and such senseless violence, this Congress continues to do nothing--not a thing--to protect our kids and our families and our communities.

Students from Amherst Regional Middle School in my district in Massachusetts sent me a letter last week that every Republican in Congress should read.

They write: ``Seventeen innocent people lost their lives. . . . That scares us. It scares us that kids have to go to school wondering if they are next. That we even have to think that the next time we see some of our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to do anything to change this.''

They continue: ``They are gone because our country doesn't care enough to have better gun control, and we will not stop fighting until they get their justice. . . . We're writing this letter because we want to personally ask each and every one of our politicians: How many more killings must we bear before the laws are changed. . . . Our country is no longer safe. Not in school, church, concerts, parties, or even public meeting areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives depend on your actions.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter written by these students.

Dear Congressman McGovern: Seventeen innocent people lost

their lives on February 14th, 2018. That scares us. It scares

us that kids have to go to school wondering if they are next.

That we even have to think that the next time we see some of

our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And

what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to

do anything to change this. Please don't forget. About the

pain and suffering of all the families and the victims. About

the children fearing that their school is next. About all of

the lives that will never be lived. They are gone because our

country doesn't care enough to have better gun control, and

we will not stop fighting until they get their justice. And

that's why we wrote this letter. We're not writing it to get

some extra credit points or fame. We're writing this letter

because we want to personally ask each and every one of our

politicians; how many more killings must we bear before the

laws are changed and regulations are tightened. Before the

government cares for our safety. Before the lives that were

lost are never forgotten or regarded as yesterday's news. The

time to talk about gun-control is now. It is not next decade

or next year or even next week. It is now. Now is the time to

strengthen the process involved in conducting a complete

background check and lengthen the waiting period required in

order to receive a firearm. Please stand with us and all of

the of the students and children in our nation. Stand with

all of the families of the victims. Stand with the

tremendously brave people who lived through these terrifying

events. Stand with the heroes who saved countless lives, and

ended up losing their own. Our country is no longer safe. Not

in school, church, concerts, parties, or even public meeting

areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives depend

on your actions and support.

Sincerely,

Students at Amherst Regional

Middle School.

I cannot say it better than these students, Mr. Speaker. These are young people writing to Congress begging us to do something to end the violence. They are young people who want a better future.

I would just ask my Republican friends: Are you so beholden to the National Rifle Association that you could possibly turn your backs on our country's young people? Can you really ignore these heartbreaking pleas for action?

You know, a recent poll showed that 80 percent of Americans support bans on assault-style weapons like the one used in the Florida school shooting and 90 percent support tougher background checks. These are commonsense reforms that have overwhelming support from the American people. This should be a bipartisan issue that we could come together on.

But I would say, even if you don't want to support what I think is commonsense legislation and commonsense reform, understand that the majority of the people in this country do support this and at least bring these bills to the floor so that we could have a debate, and then people can vote however they want to vote.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and these terrible bills that help big banks, put consumers in our country at risk, and do absolutely nothing to address the real priorities that we should be tackling. It is long past time for Congress to finally do something to stop these horrific mass shootings that are taking the lives of our kids and our families.

Mr. Speaker, we could just have easily spent this afternoon debating and approving one, or more, of any of the gun safety and gun reform measures that have bipartisan support. We could have shown high school and elementary students, our children, Mr. Speaker, that we heard them, that we care about them, and that we are starting to take action.

Instead, we are debating these worthless bills to help big banks and continue to ignore our children's suffering. Shame on this Congress, Mr. Speaker, shame on all of us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues, I mean, let's be honest, the two bills that we are debating today are ``nothing burgers.'' I mean, you know, I just figured this out. In the Rules Committee, we have spent 43--43 percent of the bills that have come before the Rules Committee have been financial service-related bills, mostly to undercut Dodd-Frank and to reward big banks and powerful special interests.

But, you know, we could debate that, but no matter what you think about some of this legislation, most of it, I think, has been either, you know, destructive to our economy or it doesn't add up to very much of anything. But no matter what you think about it--and we could say that banking issues are important--they are not as important as protecting our kids.

I mean, 43 percent of the bills that have come before the Rules Committee have basically been attempts to reward big corporations and big financial institutions in this country. We have spent zero time, zero percent of our time, discussing legislation to ban bump stocks. We have spent zero percent of our time in the Rules Committee considering legislation to strengthen and expand universal background checks. We have spent zero percent of the time debating a bill to ban assault weapons. We have spent zero percent of our time discussing how we can restrict high-capacity magazines.

I can go on and on and on. We spent zero percent of our time on the issue of guns, notwithstanding that we are seeing massacres occur on a regular basis in this country. There is something wrong here, and, I mean, we have the time; and if this were a priority, we would be talking about some of this commonsense gun legislation today rather than, as I said, these ``nothing burgers'' that are now before us.

Mr. Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, a gunman walked into a school in Parkland, Florida, and gunned down 17 students and teachers. Unfortunately, senseless acts of violence like that one are far too common. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, every day, 96 Americans are killed with guns; and every year, there are 13,000 gun homicides in the United States.

With this most recent tragedy in Parkland, Americans have stood up and said: Enough is enough. We have all been inspired by these eloquent and passionate voices of these young students from Florida who have had the guts to stand up and speak truth to power. But you know, Mr. Speaker, according to a Quinnipiac poll from last week, over 90 percent of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for gun purchases; and according to a CNN poll from yesterday, over 70 percent are in favor of stricter gun control laws generally.

The American people are clamoring for action on this issue, and we have yet to do anything about it, not one thing. As I mentioned, all of our time has been spent mostly on legislation to help the well-off and the powerful in this country. We have not spent any time at all talking about this issue of guns, which are killing our kids. But today, my Republican colleagues have an opportunity to put the safety of our children over the power of the gun lobby.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up three commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; and H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act.

These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, and ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from purchasing or possessing a gun.

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. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said at the outset. The rule we are considering would make in order two Financial Services bills that I think amount to ``nothing burgers,'' especially when compared to what we should be doing in terms of protecting our communities and protecting our kids from gun violence. That should take priority over this.

We have young people from Florida here, going door to door, talking to Members of Congress and Members of the Senate, begging us to do something. And what are we going to consider is the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, and then we are going to consider the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations.

I did a couple of townhall meetings over the weekend, and I can tell my colleagues truthfully that nobody in the audience asked a question about the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations. Nor did they bring up the need for us to rush ahead and pass the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, but they did ask what we are doing to protect their kids and to protect our schools.

We are living in a time when parents have to wonder when they send their kids to school in the morning whether they will come back alive. We are living in a time when going to the movie theater is a risk, when going to a concert is a risk, or when going to church is a risk. This is unacceptable, and people have had it.

I would say to my colleagues who are beholden to the National Rifle Association: I get it. If you don't want to stand up to them, that is fine, but don't stand in the way of this House having a debate on these issues and having a vote. Let the American people see where everybody stands, Democrats and Republicans alike.

It is unbelievable to me, in the aftermath of this tragedy, that we are here talking about the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations, when we should be talking about strengthening our background checks and expanding our background checks; when we should be talking about banning bump stocks; when we should be talking about dealing with high-capacity magazines; and when we should be talking about banning assault weapons.

People don't have to vote for those things if they don't want to, but I think that is what the American people want. You see it in the polling data. I am hearing it when I go home and I talk in townhalls.

People are just frustrated that we are doing nothing. We hold moments of silence, and that is about it. I think some in the NRA are hoping that this is kind of business as usual. That we will have this terrible tragedy, then, as time goes on, people will focus less and less on it, the media will focus less and less on it, and then we will just kind of move on.

I remember, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, there was talk about banning bump stocks. The President said he thought that was a good idea. Even the NRA did. Time went on, the focus went off of what happened in

Las Vegas, and we did nothing. Maybe that is what some of my colleagues are hoping for, is that time will pass and we will do nothing. But it is such an abrogation of our duty and our responsibility, and I just don't get it. I don't get it.

This is another closed rule that makes a mockery of regular order. But what is even more disturbing to me is that we are prioritizing banking issues over protecting our kids and our families, and I just find that unconscionable.

I think the anger in this country is just growing more and more and more. I have great hope that these young voices, not just those from Parkland, Florida, but high school students all across this country, who want a future where they don't have to worry about going to school, their voices are getting louder and louder and louder, and they are not going to cave and they are going to demand change. It is their future, and they want us to give them a future where they feel safer and more protected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up some commonsense gun safety legislation. Again, if you don't want to vote for it, you can vote ``no,'' but we have to have the debate.

I think that is what is particularly insulting to so many people across this country who are frustrated with this House when it comes to gun safety legislation, is that we don't even have the guts to have a debate. We don't even bring it up. It is not a priority. I think we have an opportunity now, if we defeat the previous question, to make it a priority.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4607, the so-called Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. So instead of advancing legislation that improves our financial regulatory framework, the Republican majority is pushing yet another bill that is a giveaway to Wall Street and predatory lenders.

Let's be clear. This bill is intended to dismantle rules considered inconvenient by the financial services industry. If this bill were enacted, financial services regulators would be forced to spend more time and resources on backward-looking reviews and deregulating the financial services industry rather than strengthening protections for consumers and the economy.

Allow me to explain. The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, currently requires the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the OCC to conduct a review of the regulations that they have issued in order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.

The banking regulators conduct this review every 10 years, but until now, this review has been a relatively balanced, careful assessment that the banking regulators have done twice in the last two decades, and the regulators have taken this process seriously.

The last review took about 3 years to complete. It involved field hearings and public engagement. The final review included many balanced and thoughtful recommendations to improve rules. Many of these would provide relief for community banks and credit unions but in a way that also maintains safeguards for consumers and protects the interests of the public and the broader economy.

Unfortunately, H.R. 4607, this bill, would make three major mistakes in changing the current review process. First, this bill actually requires regulators to change regulations so that they are less costly and burdensome for ``covered persons.''

Well, who are these covered persons? Are they the millions of consumers who were harmed by Wells Fargo's scheme to open fraudulent accounts without their knowledge? Were they? No.

Are they the many consumers who learned just a few days ago that Citigroup violated the law by charging them too much interest on their credit cards? No, no.

Are these covered persons in this bill the Latino or African-American families who were discriminated against by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and so many other banks steering them into more costly mortgages when they qualified for more affordable loans? No, not at all.

Are they--the ones who are being protected--are they seniors or servicemembers who fall prey to payday lenders that trap them in a cycle of debt? No.

Are they college graduates who are harassed by debt collectors for their student loan debt? No.

Under this bill, Mr. Speaker, covered persons are defined as ``any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service; and any affiliate of''--such--``person . . . if such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.'' You know what that means? You know who these so-called covered persons in this bill are who they are talking about? That means Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, payday lenders, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, and thousands of other financial companies.

All of these companies would get easier rules that limit their costs and burdens without appropriately considering the impact they are going to have on their customers. And this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to strengthen protections for consumers where there might be deficiencies or gaps in our regulatory framework.

Second, unlike the other banking regulators, which are tasked with ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial services sector, the Consumer Bureau's unique mission is the protection of consumers and of ensuring that the consumer marketplace operates in a fair, transparent, and competitive manner.

Although it may make sense for the banking agencies to periodically review their prudential rules, with a focus on their regulated entities, the Consumer Bureau should be making sure that its rules are appropriately protecting consumers and the interests of the public, not the big financial corporations.

In addition, the Consumer Bureau is already subject to unique accountability and oversight measures that the other financial regulators are not. These special checks and balances include the requirement that the Consumer Bureau have small business review panels as a part of its rulemaking process and the ability of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, that is, FSOC, to repeal any of its final rules. And the Consumer Bureau is already required to review all of the significant rules within 5 years of the time they go into effect, but in a balanced--balanced--manner.

The third problem with H.R. 4607 is that it would make it harder for the regulators to do their jobs. The bill would require a comprehensive review of all banking and consumer protection regulations once every 7 years instead of every decade. If regulators take these reviews as seriously as their previous reviews, as I believe they would, then that would mean they would be tied up spending nearly half of each 7-year cycle doing regulatory reviews instead of supervising their regulated entities and enforcing the law.

This bill would impose an unbalanced review process on regulators that favors industries' wishes--favors industries' wishes over consumers and the economy. The methodology in this bill promotes deregulation. That is what this is all about. This is a bill about deregulation instead of creating a robust process to identify gaps or deficiencies in oversight that harm consumers, undermine the safety and soundness of our financial system, or jeopardize the country's financial stability.

So I cannot support a bill that forces the Consumer Bureau to weaken rules for Wall Street and payday lenders. I am talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I urge my colleagues to oppose

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

Mr. Speaker, I knew that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would basically refer to small banks.

This is what is normally done when we see deregulatory efforts being made. They talk about how they are trying to help small and community banks, and they fail to talk about the major financial institutions that I have talked about in my presentation that are the beneficiaries, also, of this deregulatory effort that is being put forth.

When I take a look at the existing law now and the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, I see that their mission is to conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.

This deregulatory bill that we have before us goes a lot further. As I said, it is about deregulation, and it is about reducing cost and liability risk. This does not benefit our consumers at all.

Again, what we would do in the passage of this bill is simply open up opportunities for the big banks and financial institutions to get rid of the kind of oversight, the kind of laws that we have worked so hard for because it is inconvenient for them or it interferes with their bottom line in some way.

So I do not want our Members to be tricked or fooled to think, number one, this is simply about further getting rid of paperwork or that this is about supporting the small banks. This is about new ways by which to deregulate so that the big banks that are now found to be defrauding, found to be discriminating, found to be doing things like Wells Fargo has done, this is about deregulation that will further enhance their ability to do the kinds of things that we claim to be so opposed to and that harm our consumers.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they are now including by way of H.R. 4607 should be looked at very carefully.

First of all, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They want to get rid of it. They have tried, time and time again, to undermine it in so many ways. The President has sent Mr. Mulvaney over there, who is supposed to be over at the Office of Management and Budget, to basically destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the Members of Congress to be tricked or fooled that somehow this is helpful that they are bringing in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What they want to do is tie the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and basically change their mission from protection for consumers to deregulation for the biggest banks in America.

Why do we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? That is the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation that we worked so hard on.

Are we forgetting about what happened in 2008?

Are with forgetting about the recession that was caused by the big banks who had been involved with all of these exotic products and ways by which they were enticing would-be homeowners to try and get mortgages?

We can't forget about all of that. We have to know that not only did we have a recession, we were headed for a depression. Dodd-Frank reform has gone a long way toward eliminating some of the bad practices that were in place that got us into that situation in the first place.

Now, little by little, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep trying to creep in with new ways that they can support these big banks and financial institutions and deregulate and let them get in the position again where they are tricking our consumers, where they are coming up with these exotic products that caused our consumers to eventually get into foreclosure, and that would allow the big banks again, like Wells Fargo, to come up with all of these tricks that they use in order to enhance their bottom line. I think we are smarter than this, and I don't think that we are going to go for this legislation that is just another way to open the doors to deregulate.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my closing, I would just like to make a few comments about some of the information that was shared with us by Members on the opposite side of the aisle. I want to remind them that these poor little banks that you are talking about, which include all of the big banks in America, made record profits in 2016--more than $170 billion--and they are going to make billions more from that tax bill, that tax scam giveaway to Wall Street. Lending is up 75 percent since 2010.

So when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle continue to talk about how the banks are suffering, I don't know who they are talking about. As a matter of fact, the real bipartisanship of this committee is about community banks, and Democrats have led and will continue to lead on every way and everything that we can do for community banks.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle come in with deregulation, they frame it in such a way that you would think that it is all about community banks, when, in fact, they always attach anything they do for community banks to the biggest banks in America.

So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4607 demonstrates just how much my colleagues on the other side of the aisle value the interests of Wall Street over families and consumers on Main Street.

This bill would direct the banking, credit union, and consumer protection regulators to loosen their rules to benefit bad actors on Wall Street. The bill doesn't even allow regulators to consider how to improve safeguards to better protect consumers.

It is absurd that we are here today discussing yet another bill that leads to massive deregulation and seeks to tip the scales in favor of the financial industry. The interests of the public are what we should be focused on.

This bill is yet another piece of the harmful and reckless Republican agenda. Only a few months ago, Republicans jammed their tax scam legislation through this Chamber. They added $1.8 trillion to the Federal debt in order to line the pockets of Wall Street and other megacorporations with billions in tax cuts, leaving families on Main Street and generations of their children just to pick up the tab. Democrats rejected that terrible piece of legislation and should now reject H.R. 4607 as well.

Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 200 consumer civil rights, investor, retiree, community, labor, faith-based, and business groups said that H.R. 4607, ``contains no consideration of the public benefits that are the justification for creating the regulations in the first place, and which regulators should be seeking to preserve. Any mandate to tailor regulations must include consideration of public benefits, rather than being a one-sided directive to reduce business costs.'' I agree.

For Members who are concerned with maintaining strong protections, I would highlight that Trump's OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, has been illegally installed as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is working every day to dial back the important work of the Consumer Bureau from within.

Congress should not be giving Mr. Mulvaney, or anyone the President eventually appoints and is confirmed to serve as the next Director of the Consumer Bureau, a green light to gut consumer protections and reduce the Consumer Bureau's ability to hold bad actors accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4607, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 4296) to place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, in strong support of H.R. 4296, an important bill authored by Mr. Luetkemeyer, who is a real leader on our committee. He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and has led many bills on this floor. This particular one addresses the burden that unnecessary operational capital requirements have imposed on our financial institutions and then, consequently, on our hardworking families and small businesses that are seeking credit.

The Basel Committee requires U.S. financial institutions to hold excessive capital based upon a look-back approach to an organization's risk, previous earnings, and other provisions that provide no indication of future risk.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about holding operational capital for past activities.

This methodology employed by the international standard setters has forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve rather than putting that money to work in the real economy--in loans and investments--for people to buy cars, to launch small-business enterprises, or maybe to make a downpayment on that first home.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say it so that all can hear. Hundreds of billions of dollars is currently sitting in banks across the country not being utilized to fund mortgage loans, car loans, and other day-to- day financing that American families and individuals demand.

On top of this is the increased cost of compliance that banks have had to shoulder under Dodd-Frank's onslaught of regulation. Banks like Coatesville Savings Bank, the only remaining bank in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, has told us that, now, 25 percent of their annual budget is nothing but compliance cost, Mr. Speaker. This is detrimental to the Coatesville, Pennsylvania, community. That is 25 percent. That is a huge figure, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be used to fund the American Dream in Coatesville, Pennsylvania.

So, again, Chairman Luetkemeyer brings us a very commonsense reform and a very necessary reform.

Most agree and recognize the importance of our financial institutions to hold capital in the event of future crisis or distress. Nobody denies that, and this legislation does not remove those requirements. But, Mr. Speaker, requiring banking organizations to look back in the rearview mirror and hold operational capital against discontinued activities or products is just not nonsensical, it is crazy. It makes no sense.

H.R. 4296 simply amends the method of how reserve capital is calculated by establishing standards based on an organization's current business activities, making the requirements more accurate and tailored to a bank's current risk profile. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is just common sense. That means banks would still retain sufficient reserves to weather an economic storm, but they would be able to put the billions of dollars currently sitting on the sidelines to work to help make the economy grow, to make it healthier.

In short, this method-based approach proposed by H.R. 4296 properly calibrates operational capital while also ensuring strong, healthy financial institutions and, thus, a stronger economy for our constituents.

Again, to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4296, does not prevent Federal financial regulators from instituting operational risk capital requirements. It does not eliminate the authority of a regulator to assess operational risk, nor does it prevent regulators from requiring that capital be held against riskier activities or businesses. The bill simply puts forth a thoughtful framework that sets parameters, while allowing regulators the flexibility needed to ensure that capital standards are appropriately tailored.

A healthy financial system, Mr. Speaker, will enhance individuals' financial freedom and will lead to a healthier and better regulatory system.

H.R. 4296 has garnered strong, bipartisan support in our committee, passing by a vote of 43-17, again, because it is practical and common sense.

I again want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who chairs our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, for his leadership on this bill. I urge all of

my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

As I listen to my colleague from Ohio, she uses the complete wrong analogies. What happens is we don't pay our home insurance premiums on the home we sold; we pay it on the home we own.

If you lived in a swamp and then you moved to a mountaintop in Colorado, you pay different insurance premiums; and if you cease to be a skydiver and you become an accountant, maybe you pay different life insurance premiums. This has to do with your risk profile today, not yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are over 20 different capital levels that are already applied to our banking organizations, including the Total Loss-Absorbing Capital, the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a very thoughtful member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the perhaps two dozen people who are watching us on C-SPAN at the moment, I think it is important to add a little bit of clarity to what we are debating here.

What we are debating is: What is the proper capital level for a federally insured financial institution?

We know that if that capital level is set too low, then perhaps the financial institution could fail. If it is set too high, then they will not have the capital to help fund the American Dream--car loans, home loans, and small business loans.

So we have heard a lot about a very simple bill that helps clarify one of perhaps two dozen different capital levels that are already applicable to our banking institutions, the total loss-absorbing capacity, the supplementary leverage ratio, the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio, the liquidity coverage ratio, the G-SIB surcharge, and the list goes on and on and on.

We are talking, about, Mr. Speaker, one capital level, the operational capital--operational risk capital. So, number one, there are a multitude of different capital levels and liquidity levels that are already applied to our financial institutions.

What we are saying is, if we are measuring operational risk, we should focus on current risks. Then, if in doubt, Mr. Speaker, I always recommend that Members actually read the bills that are being debated. It is an always helpful exercise. If you would actually read the bill, you would discover in section 1 of the bill, Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill says that operational risk capital is based primarily on the risks posed by a banking organizations' current activities and business.

If you look at subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a), it says: `` . . . which is not solely based on a banking organization's historic losses.''

So it is not prohibited to look at historic facts, but, primarily, we must be focused on the current operational risk.

As I used earlier in the debate the analogy of who would want their life insurance premiums based on the fact that in an earlier point in their life they were a skydiver or a scuba diver and now today they are facing life as an accountant? Those are different risk profiles.

If you build a home 4 feet below sea level, yet you sell that home, I doubt you want your flood insurance premiums based on the home that you already sold. It makes no sense.

As I also said earlier in this debate, when it comes to proper levels of capital, as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell stated earlier today before our committee, safety and soundness considerations trump all. The regulators have the power to adjust the capital levels.

Now, this friend on the other side of the aisle talks about, oh, my God, this is a huge risk to the economy. It is $22 million. Now, that is real money. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that is not even a rounding error here; $22 million over the 10-year budget window is approximately a $2 million risk. And from the Congressional Budget Office report, they say that it is a small, small chance that the FDIC would incur additional costs. So this is not creating more risk to the system.

What we are trying to do is calibrate the appropriate risk. If we are going to measure operational risk as opposed to the other 20-some odd capital levels, then we ought to be focused on current risk, because if we are not, Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans are losing current credit opportunities in order to pay for past operational risk. That is not right, that is not fair, and that is not smart.

We ought to ensure that we have the proper capital level not only to make sure that we have a safe and sound financial system but to make sure that we are capitalizing the American Dream for our constituents.

My constituents in the Fifth District of Texas, who live in places like Mineola and Forney, who are desperately trying to fund their American Dream and put that down payment on a first house, we have got to make sure that they are able to.

So many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. They need these credit opportunities, Mr. Speaker. Let's calibrate one capital ratio properly. Let's add a little common sense, and let's not allow the good people in Basel, Switzerland--as good as they may be--de facto impose what is an irrational capital system on our banking system as we are trying to help our small businesses and our families.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 4296, a strong bipartisan bill to help credit opportunities for all families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, again, there are roughly two dozen different capital and liquidity levels that are applied to our banks. We are talking about, one, operational capital, and whether or not operational risk capital ought to be based on current risk.

Now, I know my friend on the other side of the aisle always likes to wave the Wells Fargo flag. Wells Fargo needs to be held accountable. There needs to be justice for all who have been wronged. There have been roughly $142 million now paid in restitution. There have been over $200 million in fines paid.

The board of Wells Fargo has been replaced. The CEO was fired, and the Federal Reserve capped their growth, all under existing authorities.

But under this motion to recommit, potentially, other financial institutions could be included. It is not the financial institution that counts, at the end of the day. It is capital that could be used to fund car loans. It is capital that could be used to fund homes. It is capital that could be used to fund the next Apple or the next Amazon. Instead, that capital would be put onto the sidelines.

Again, we are talking about operational risk capital only and should it be calibrated for current risk or past risk. That is a completely different

issue from ensuring that customers of Wells Fargo, who clearly have been wronged, receive justice and that Wells Fargo has been held accountable.

Again, I would point out this might not have happened if the CFPB under the previous administration had been doing their business. They should have caught this. But they didn't. Instead, it was the LA Times and the Los Angeles city attorney. The CFPB was asleep at the wheel under the previous administration.

So, again, there is existing authority. But if the regulators and then-Director Cordray had been doing their job, this wouldn't have happened. The evidence was there and it was simply overlooked. We see way too many instances of that, Mr. Chair.

Again, we want to properly calibrate one capital level, operational risk capital. That is what the bill of the gentleman from Missouri does. We should not be confused about the jihad against banks, because banks, ultimately, are still funding the American Dream. You punish our constituents, you punish small businesses every time you needlessly take away capital that can fund their American dreams.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. I urge an ``aye'' vote on Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 4607) to amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to ensure that Federal financial regulators perform a comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on covered persons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the bill before us in the House, not unlike yourself, I am a proud Texan--in my case, a fifth-generation Texan.

In listening very carefully to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, I do wish to remind all my colleagues that it was this day in 1836 that brave men in Texas took on the minions of tyranny at the Alamo. And although they lost that battle, they inspired their nation at the time, Texas, that would later become part of our Nation. So, on this day that is special to all Texans, it should be special to all Americans.

We remember the cradle of liberty. Remember the Alamo. God bless Texas.

Mr. Speaker, otherwise, I rise also, today, in support of H.R. 4607, which is a very important piece of legislation brought to us by a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

It is a bill that helps address the burden of unnecessary, duplicative, and outdated regulations that too often have imposed cost on our community financial institutions that ultimately make credit more expensive and less available to our constituents. It passed out of our committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 38-17, and I congratulate him for his bill.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that all of the prudential financial regulators that now include the CFPB and the NCUA, the National Credit Union Administration--it ensures that all of our financial regulators, not just some, but all, will participate in the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, known as EGRPRA, a law that dates back to the Clinton era, and this ensures that our agencies review all rules that are prescribed by themselves that impact our insured financial institutions.

The purpose of this review, again, is to reduce regulation that is proven overly burdensome, duplicative, or outdated, while maintaining our safety and soundness standards. And, again, Mr. Speaker, all this is is a review. It ensures a review.

Additionally, H.R. 4607 will require that these agencies meet every 7 years for a comprehensive regulatory evaluation, as opposed to the current 10-year standard. This is especially important. I salute the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership, because we have seen our financial sector of the economy suffer under the weight, the load, the burden of regulation, particularly because six of the seven heaviest regulatory years occurred under the last administration; so we need a more thorough review of these regulations. And requiring our Federal agencies to simply review their actions in a transparent manner on a more frequent basis, it is simple; it is fair; it is straightforward; it is wise.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy financial system that provides equal opportunity to all Americans to achieve financial independence can only exist if we have smart regulation. And the explosive growth of regulation, following the enactment of Dodd-Frank, has made it significantly harder for our community banks and credit unions to serve their customers and members.

And, in fact, the complexity and cost of this regulatory burden has forced many of them out of business or has forced them to cut back services to their customers and members, and it is one of the reasons why, on average, we continue to lose one community bank or credit union a day, or every other day, in America. This should not be happening.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it is not the banks and credit unions we are so concerned about. It is their customers. It is customers like Missouri mom, Michele, who explained to us how frustrating it has been for her 20-year-old daughter, with a full-time job, to get a loan to buy her first car. And, again, her daughter has a first-time job. And as Michele explained to us: ``It's a catch-22. You need credit to get credit, but no one will give you the credit to begin with. I would like to see our young adults be able to build the credit they need so they can have a decent future.''

Mr. Speaker, it is for people like Michele and her daughter that we need this regulatory review. It is why we need the bill from the gentleman from Georgia. These are the people we are trying to help.

Like Anne in Wisconsin, who was trying to get a loan to remodel her attached garage when her son was born, and she said: ``My husband and I have very high credit scores, and we have equity in our home, but because my husband has a seasonal job and finds other employment in the winter, the many banks we contacted rejected our loan request. They base that on our annual income only on the job he was currently in and said it was part of the new regulation.''

Well, of course it is, Mr. Speaker. That is why they need to be reviewed. It is people like Anne in Wisconsin we need to help.

Or Dan, a Navy veteran from Illinois, who actually had to close down--close down the small auto finance company he started with his wife 25 years ago, and he had to close it down because of new Federal regulation. He explains: ``Large companies can afford a separate legal department to deal with these issues and the myriad of new regulations. A small business like ours cannot. We had to make a decision. It was just not worth the risk to continue operations in this antibusiness environment.''

So, Mr. Speaker, it is people like Michele, it is people like Anne, it is people like Dan who deserve the opportunity to have credit for their homes, their autos, their small businesses, and so we must ensure that all of our Federal regulators--all of our Federal financial regulators take a thorough comprehensive review of their regulatory burden so that we can continue to support the people who need credit.

H.R. 4607, again, has garnered strong bipartisan support. It is practical; it is common sense; and I urge all of my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee and the author of H.R. 4607.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is yet another hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is a Democratic member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. GOTTHEIMER: It requires regulators to consider tailoring regulations when appropriate. In short, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act will cut bureaucratic red tape and help our economy thrive without putting consumers at risk.

There should be nothing partisan about helping entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes grow, create jobs, and expand the economy. With this measure, Democrats and Republicans join together to ensure outdated, unnecessary, and burdensome regulations are eliminated or reformed to better fit the needs of individual financial institutions, which ultimately saves Americans money, helps consumers and families grow--and businesses, too--and it protects, always, American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is a real leader on our committee for commonsense regulation and the chairman of our Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend on the other side of the aisle. Again, her comments were very heavy on thematics, very heavy on extraneous material. Unfortunately, it was a little light on the facts of H.R. 4607.

The text of the bill is 3\1/2\ pages long; so it doesn't take very long to read. But I remind all of my colleagues that this is common sense. In and of itself, this bill changes no rules. All it does is tell our regulators that every 7 years, why don't you look at what you have done and publish a report.

If you want to change any rule, you have to go through the formal rulemaking process to repropose a rule, to get public comment. So, again, in and of itself, it changes no rules. I almost want to ask my friend on the other side of the aisle: What is she scared of? What is so wrong with simply looking at the rules that have been promulgated to see if they are actually working? Are they helping our constituents? Are they making economic opportunity more available for all?

What is so odd is, the original EGRPRA legislation that dates back to the Clinton era was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle.

So what the gentleman from Georgia is doing in H.R. 4607 is simply saying all financial regulators, including the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which really didn't even exist in the Clinton era, ought to do the same thing. They are saying, instead of doing it every 10 years, let's do it every 7 years. Just take a look and report. That is all it is.

It is a self-reporting requirement, which I think, Mr. Speaker, is why this has already been supported overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the House Financial Services Committee.

So with all of the various scare tactics and horror stories that we have heard from the other side of the aisle on a mere reporting requirement, again, I ask, Mr. Speaker: What are they scared of?

What we are ultimately trying to do here is make sure that the regulatory burden is not such that it harms the very people I spoke about earlier in my opening comments: that it doesn't hurt Dan, a Navy veteran from Illinois who, because of the regulatory burden, was forced to shut down his small business; that it doesn't hurt Anne in Wisconsin, who is just trying to get a loan to remodel her garage; that it doesn't hurt Michele and her daughter in Missouri. Her daughter was just simply seeking a car loan to buy her first car.

These are the people whom we are trying to help.

And by the way, all banks--small, medium, and large--are lending to businesses and to consumers, and we want them to do that in a robust but responsible way.

So, from time to time, let's look at the regulations and ensure that they are still helping us achieve equal financial opportunity for all so that our constituents can achieve their share of the American Dream, that they can achieve financial independence.

This received strong, bipartisan support, Madam Speaker, in the House Financial Services Committee. It ought to receive strong, bipartisan support on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for and adopt H.R. 4607, and I yield back the balance of my time