H.Res. 773

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1116, the so-called Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017, or the TAILOR Act.

This bill would weaken important safeguards established since the financial crisis by requiring agencies on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council--composed of the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--to perform a biased analysis that favors lessening the costs for industry over protecting consumers and the economy.

It was 10 years ago today that Bear Stearns collapsed and the Federal Reserve used taxpayer funding to arrange a shotgun wedding to J.P. Morgan to avoid a catastrophe. We now know that much, much worse was to come, when AIG, Lehman Brothers, the money market fund industry, and hundreds of banks, including all of the largest ones, would need a bailout. And this says nothing of the tremendous damage inflicted on the millions of Americans whose homes were lost to foreclosure, the millions who lost their jobs, and the trillions of dollars of wealth that evaporated.

Congress took decisive action to ensure that we were never caught unaware again when it passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Although some claim that the measure that is now before us is aimed at helping community banks, that is not the case. If enacted, this bill would provide all financial institutions, including the largest banks, with opportunities to challenge any and every regulation in court if they felt it was not, so-called, uniquely tailored to their business needs.

This bill would ignore the mandates and requirements of all other laws passed by Congress and override decades of well-established administrative law requirements by subjecting all new financial rules to a vague, if not impossible, standard to meet. This includes an undefined standard of appropriateness and a vague standard of the ability to serve evolving and diverse customer needs; and, importantly, the legislation includes no similar mandate that regulators consider the benefits of Federal regulations, including the promotion of our Nation's financial stability or the protection of our consumers.

Let us not forget that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the centerpiece of this Dodd-Frank reform. Prior to Dodd-Frank, our consumers had nobody looking out for them. They were left and they were taken advantage of, and so that is why we have Dodd-Frank reform.

But it seems that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have forgotten about all of this. This set of standards that they are promoting not only applies to all future guidance and rulemaking, but retroactively to all of the rulemakings in the past 7 years, which, conveniently for the industry, covers all rules under the Dodd-Frank Act.

But financial regulators already have to go through extensive look- back reviews to refine and improve rules that make sense. In fact, under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were just last week calling the gold standard for how regulators should review regulations, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC are already required to review their rules once every 10 years.

During this review, the regulators must identify whether regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome and consider how to reduce regulatory burdens on insured depository institutions while, at the same time, ensuring safety and soundness.

The Consumer Bureau engages in a similar look-back review 5 years after a significant rule takes effect.

Make no mistake: I support tiered and tailored regulations for community banks and credit unions, but week after week, we have been on this House floor debating deregulatory gifts to Wall Street instead of moving legislation that actually benefits community banks and credit unions.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have differences about Dodd-Frank, but something we worked hard to do in crafting those critical reforms was to make sure that the law did not impose a one-size-fits-all approach on every financial institution. So, as you can see, the toughest rules focus on the largest and most complex financial firms that, as we saw in the crisis, can destabilize the financial system and inflict lasting damage to the economy and constituents we serve.

We have monitored Dodd-Frank's implementation carefully and pushed regulators to tailor rules to reduce unnecessary compliance burdens while maintaining appropriate protections and safeguards for consumers, investors, and taxpayers.

We must continue to take this type of targeted approach instead of advancing measures like H.R. 1116, this bill

that we are talking about right now, which would force the regulators to prioritize costs to Wall Street over benefits to consumers and the economy and expose rulemaking to needless litigation because of the nebulous standards in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the Financial Services Committee, ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and a senior member, of course, of our Committee on Financial Services.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the deregulatory bills that are produced by the opposite side of the aisle, and I keep wondering why there are so many attempts to provide the banks and the financial institutions, the largest banks in this country, opportunities to make even more money.

According to an estimate from Goldman Sachs, the Republicans' tax scam bill represents a giant windfall for Wall Street megabanks. So we are here with another bill to deregulate, basically to talk about tailoring. Let me just redefine this tailoring. It just means changing, modifying, coming up with ways that the banks can basically complain about their costs and their burdens. But my friends continue to basically support them in whatever efforts they want in order to make more money.

This report that I just referred to estimates that all of the largest banks, eight of the largest banks, will receive $15 billion windfalls on their 2018 tax bill. This includes $3.7 billion for Wells Fargo, $3.5 billion for Bank of America, $3.3 billion for JPMorgan, $1.4 billion for Citigroup, and $1 billion for Goldman Sachs.

What more do they want? How much more can you give them? What is the next deregulatory bill that you will come with on this floor?

It is interesting to note that the Financial Services Committee is responsible for over 50 percent, or at least 50 percent, of all of the bills coming through the Rules Committee that come to the floor, which means that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have spent an inordinate amount of time coming up with legislation dealing with deregulation of these big banks.

Now, we have a lot of things that we could be doing to protect consumers, working people, and families in that committee. I wish we would spend a lot more time on HUD. The homeless population in this country is expanding. It is exploding all over the country. In New York and California, in the Midwest--you name it--people are on the streets.

Do you think we have been able to have a hearing on homelessness in this committee? No, because all of this time is spent on supporting the biggest banks in America and deregulating in ways that will cause them to be able to make more and more money.

How much more do they want? How much more do they need? How much time is this Congress going to spend on trying to undo Dodd-Frank and kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

I don't know the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker. And I wish they would answer me, but no, I know they are not going to. They are simply going to come and talk about tailoring. Well, tailoring just means changing, fixing in a way that will benefit the biggest banks.

Mr. Speaker, I will let them continue with their deregulatory efforts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed and somewhat amused by the statement that the community banks are just withering on the vine.

Well, let me just talk about what is happening in the banking community. Dodd-Frank is not hampering the banking sector at all. In 2016, the industry made record profits of $171 billion, and community banks are outperforming their larger peers. At the end of 2016, lending was up 8.3 percent for community banks and 4.8 percent for larger banks. Credit unions are expanding, and they have increased their membership by more than 16 million since 2010, an increase of 18 percent.

We oftentimes talk about what we are doing to the community banks. But we always--you, rather, always have a way of making sure that big banks are attached to this deregulation that you say you want to do for community banks. All you have to do is amend this bill and make it apply only to community banks.

Would the gentleman who is talking about what the ranking member should understand and should be thinking about be willing to amend the bill so that it only applies to community banks?

That is rhetorical, and I won't ask for an answer.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just reviewing this bill somewhat and it has come to my attention that this so-called tailoring, which really means modifying, changing, doing something different, is for each individual bank.

So each individual bank could say: We do things this way, so we want a rule that is tailored especially for us.

Another bank could say: We do things another way, and we want some separate rules just for us.

And on and on for every bank.

Is this what this is all about? Is this what this so-called tailoring is about? This tailoring, which is modifying,

changing, basically deregulating in the interest of the big banks to make sure they can reduce their costs and get rid of what they would call their burdens?

Are you really talking about having our regulators look at each bank and say: You do business a little bit different, so we are going to change the rules just to fit your bank?

Well, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't seem to me as if this is plausible. This does not make good sense. I don't understand why my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in their deregulatory efforts, would even try this one. This one doesn't work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Congressman Lucas, enjoys engaging in these discussions also. I watched very closely his countenance, and I see that he is enjoining it even more than I ever dreamed he would. So let us continue with this very lively debate where we can at least lift the spirits of each other as we go through our daily work.

Having said that, the chairman likes to say that we lose a community bank a day. However, last year, only eight banks failed.

The other 230 banks merged with others, and I would like the chairman to even acknowledge that long before Dodd-Frank, we were losing a bank a day, and that trend had been going on for 30 years. So I do not wish us to think that something new and extraordinary is happening, that somehow we have come to a point in time in the banking world where banks are being lost on a daily basis in a way that they have not been lost before.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about one size does not fit all and they keep trying to make a case for the community banks, but they always tie the community banks to these deregulatory efforts so that the big banks can benefit from it.

When I take a look at the Dodd-Frank requirements and how they target the largest banks, let's take a look at those banks that are less than $10 billion in assets. They don't have to comply with all of these regulations.

If they are a little bit bigger, they are between $10 billion and $50 billion, they have to comply with just a few more, but not as many as the large banks. If they are $50 billion to $250 billion, yes, we have a few more requirements for them. And then the big boys, the big banks, yes, we have more oversight and more requirements.

Do you know why? Because they put this entire economy at risk if they fail.

When we talk about doing all of the stress-testing, we are stress- testing on these banks because we know that, in the event of an economic downfall, if they don't have the capital, if they don't have the kinds of things that would keep them safe, they could trigger another recession.

So stop saying that one size does not fit all and trying to make people believe that somehow we are requiring the same thing of the small community bank as we are requiring of the big bank. It is absolutely not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members, and to my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, I am going to take a couple of minutes to bore you. I am going to bore you with all of the groups who are opposed to your legislation.

I heard one of your Members say that you have tremendous support. I didn't hear where that support is coming from, but I do believe that probably the biggest banks in America are supporting your legislation. So please allow me to share with you who is opposing your legislation.

Allied Progress; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Americans for Financial Reform; the Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending; Center for American Progress; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Justice and Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union; Demos; the Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Indivisible; Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid Incorporated; the Kentucky Equal Justice Center; the NAACP; the National Association of Consumer Advocates; the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; the National Center for Law and Economic Justice; the National Coalition for the Homeless; the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients; the National Consumers League; the National Fair Housing Alliance; the National Urban League; the People's Action Institute; PolicyLink; Progressive Congress Action Fund; Prosperity Now; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; Reinvestment Partners; Statewide Poverty Action Network; Tennessee Citizen Action; U.S. PIRG; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; the Woodstock Institute; and the World Privacy Forum.

If you have time, I would like you to share with me who is supporting your legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority is continuing to move to roll back important financial regulations at a furious pace. Week after week, the majority pushes harmful bills through the House. This bill is just the latest example.

In recent months, this deregulatory frenzy has included House passage of bills that, among other things, allow payday lenders to evade State interest cap rates, decrease operational risk capital requirements and roll back enhanced prudential standards for the Nation's largest banks, weaken consumer protections for mortgages, undermine efforts to combat discriminatory and predatory lending, reduce consumer privacy protections, and threaten the stability of our financial system and economy.

Last week, Republicans pushed through H.R. 4607, another bill that is designed to weaken rules considered inconvenient by the financial services industry, despite the harm that could result for consumers and the economy.

As we have discussed, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 1116, would allow large financial institutions to challenge financial regulations in court if they believe them not to be uniquely tailored to their business needs. It includes a provision that would allow these challenges for all of the financial regulations put in place following the financial crisis, making all of the important Dodd-Frank reforms targets.

Of course, the legislation is totally silent on the need for regulators to consider the interest of consumers and to ensure the stability of our economy as they conduct rulemakings.

Ultimately, this bill would serve to put consumers and the financial system at risk by subjecting important regulations to endless litigation. It is designed to block and bog down important rules that were put in place following the financial crisis to protect consumers, investors, and our economy.

I would simply urge Members to oppose H.R. 1116, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

This is a very important bill that I am asking the Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on because we don't want to empower the megabanks and huge conglomerates to be able to skirt adverse supervisory decisions about regulators.

The bill would give all financial institutions, regardless of their size, an additional method to appeal, thereby significantly delaying adverse determinations by creating a new independent review office to conduct de novo reviews without concern for the institution's safety and soundness or the protection of consumers.

This bill goes far beyond relief for community banks and credit unions by enabling megabanks and nonbanks, like payday lenders and Equifax, to pursue limitless challenges to the agency's actions in court.

If you take a look at the examples that we have prepared for you, take a look at Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has been at the center of attention in this country for the fraudulent accounts that it established using their customers' accounts and information to create more accounts without informing their customers; and then they had the illegal student loan servicing practices that we have all been so concerned about; and even after the fraudulent accounts were exposed and a fine was made because of the harm that they had caused to their customers, we then found that they had inappropriate force-placed insurance, which means that people who were already paying for their insurance were forced to pay again because the bank basically forced them to have additional insurance.

And then there is J.P. Morgan with illegal credit card practices and discriminatory lending, sale of bad credit card debt, and illegal robo- signing.

And Citi with deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices; inappropriate fees, marketing, billing, administration of add-on products; and foreclosure abuses.

Bank of America, also mortgage abuses, deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices, credit monitoring abuses, deceptive marketing for add-on products, violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Now, we find that these banks have determined--they act in ways that we know that fighting is just the cost of doing business. It is a slap on the wrist. And they are going to continue to be able to get away with this. And if they are saying that the bank examiners who come in and find these adverse conditions somehow will be ignored and they can literally get around them, then we are going to add to the problems of our consumers in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly asking for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I always have these lively debates with my chairman, and he never fails to point out that I voted for the bailout. And, of course, oftentimes when he comes with one of these deregulation bills, he talks about bipartisan and how he had Democrats. Well, I want you to know the bailout was a bipartisan thing. It was appointed by both Democrats and Republicans at a time when we were in great difficulty in this country.

It was the Bush bailout, and it was Mr. Paulson, appointed by Mr. Bush, who was the Secretary who led it and gave us the advice and had us participate in saving our economy based on the information that he had uncovered about the risk that was now proposed for our country.

So I am not for bailing out big banks at all. We had an emergency situation in this country where, again, it was the Bush bailout that we had to deal with the fact that we were in great danger. But let me just also say this: we have something now that we put into Dodd-Frank reform called the Orderly Liquidation Authority scenario that we are able to look at banks, and, because of the stress testing that they have gone through, if there is a need for an orderly resolution because there are problems with the bank, we cannot only recommend breaking off parts of the bank, but reordering parts of the bank and doing what is necessary to ensure that the bank does not get into a situation where it fails and triggers the failures of others in our economy.

So it is the Orderly Liquidation Authority that I am referring to, and I do not support bailing out big banks. This is one thing that I join with my chairman on. We both agree that we should not be bailing out these big banks. And, of course, that is what Dodd-Frank is helping us to avoid.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the offer from my good friend to join him, but I don't think I will be doing that today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record organizations that have sent us information in opposition to this bill. It includes the National Consumer Law Center, AFSCME, the Center for American Progress, and Americans for Financial Reform.

National Consumer Law Center,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Re Oppose S. Amdt. 2140 (Moran), HR 4545, The Financial

Institutions Examination Fairness Act; creates roadblocks

to bank supervision for safety and soundness, consumer

protection.

Senator,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

On behalf of our low income clients, I urge you to oppose

Senate Amendment 2140 to S. 2155, which incorporates HR 4545

(Tipton), The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness

Act. The bill would create unprecedented barriers to

effective prudential and consumer protection supervision of

banks, allowing banks to resist corrective actions to address

law violations or safety and soundness risks, bogging down

agencies with frivolous appeals.

HR 4545 would grant regulated banks the right to appeal any

supervisory determination made by any prudential banking

agency or by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

to a new ``Office of Independent Examination Review''

established in the Federal Financial Institutions

Examinations Council (FFIEC). Upon appeal by a supervised

bank, this new office would be required to undertake a

repetitive de novo review of the agency's supervisory

decision. No deference to the initial examination findings or

the agency's judgment would be required in this review.

This new process is duplicative to appeals processes and

ombudsmen already present. The CFPB, FDIC, OCC, Federal

Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration each

already have an agency ombudsman and an intra-agency formal

review and appeals process. In addition, banks may bring a

court challenge to any formal regulatory enforcement action.

HR 4545 would enormously increase the ability of banks to

resist supervisory decisions. This effect would be most

pronounced at the largest banks, who could appeal dozens or

hundreds of material findings from every examination,

creating enormous roadblocks to supervision. The bank

supervision process has been the first line of regulatory

defense against threats to bank safety and soundness for a

century or more. HR 4545 creates unprecedented roadblocks to

the effectiveness of bank supervisory determinations and

could be devastating to effective regulatory oversight in

areas ranging from basic

prudential oversight to key consumer protections that make

our financial markets fairer.

I urge you to oppose HR 4545 and any amendment that

incorporates the bill.

Yours very truly,

Lauren K. Saunders,

Associate Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read one of the paragraphs from the Center for American Progress that I think is so profound.

``The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, would give financial institutions the authority to appeal any material examination decision rendered by the Federal banking regulators or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, to the Office of Independent Examination Review--a new office created by the bill. Financial regulators already have internal appeals processes in place through their respective ombudsman offices and financial institutions can pursue legal remedy for flawed examination decisions through the judicial system.

``This new office and review process is simply an additional hurdle for regulators to contend with when supervising financial institutions and an additional point at which institutions can slow down or avoid punishments. H.R. 4545 would undermine the examinations process at a time when supervisory authority and penalties for financial sector malfeasance should be strengthened.''

In addition to that, there is another paragraph in the letter from Americans for Financial Reform that I think is extremely important in explaining why this bill should be opposed.

It says: ``By layering an entirely new appeals process on top of existing processes, this bill would greatly increase the ability of banks to resist supervisory oversight and ignore or delay changes called for by supervisors. The impact would be most pronounced at the largest banks, which can receive dozens or hundreds of material findings from every examination. The ability to appeal every one of those material supervisory findings, or just to threaten to appeal them, would create an enormous new barrier to effective supervision of big banks.''

In essence, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, we have our bank examiners who are going in and looking for ways to strengthen the banks and hoping that they will not find these adverse conditions, but, if they do, they have a responsibility to the consumers to try and get them corrected or to try and get changes made.

This bill says, despite adverse conditions that are discovered, we don't want to have to comply; we don't want to have to change; we don't want to have to correct. We want to fight you. We want to use our vast resources to say your examiners didn't know what they were doing.

They are not so much concerned about the consumers; rather, they are more concerned about just being a part of the bureaucracy.

It doesn't make good sense what they are saying about the examiners and why they are not important.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4545 is yet another harmful bill that would help out Wall Street and predatory lenders. It has become a theme for the majority to claim that their legislation is meant to provide relief for small community banks, when, in fact, the legislation plainly benefits the Nation's largest banks, including abusive megabanks like Wells Fargo and even payday lenders. This bill is yet another example.

The bill would allow any bank as well as any nonbank supervised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to appeal negative supervisory determinations made by regulators in the examination process.

H.R. 4545 makes it more likely that bad actors, including predatory megabanks like Wells Fargo, would avoid or delay accountability when they break Federal law. It takes our system of financial regulation in exactly the wrong direction.

Megabanks like Wells Fargo already treat the fines they are required to pay for violations of the law as simply the cost of doing business. They don't need more escape routes to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing.

I have made it clear many times that abusive megabanks with egregious patterns of harming consumers should face steep penalties from regulators. Last year I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, which would require the Federal prudential banking regulators to fully utilize existing authorities, such as the ability to shut down a megabank and ban culpable executives and directors from working in the banking industry.

To get tough on megabanks that repeatedly engage in practices that harm consumers, Congress should be focused on measures that strengthen consumer protections, provide tailored, responsible relief for community banks, and ensure that abusive megabanks are held accountable. This bill, which would help megabanks and predatory lenders get off the hook when they break the law, should be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment is fairly straightforward. It would limit the applicability of the exam reforms under H.R. 4545 to only depository institutions with assets less than $10 billion.

I have only heard about community banks and credit unions with respect to concerns regarding their exam process and the ability to enhance the opportunity to appeal exam findings. As Ms. Maloney made clear, when the committee marked up this bill, the sole purpose of the bill was to help community banks and credit unions, so my amendment seeks to narrow the scope of the bill's relief to these small firms.

Congress used a similar $10 billion asset threshold in Dodd-Frank to exempt small banks and credit unions from the Consumer Bureau's supervision, so applying a similar threshold for the purpose of appealing bank supervisory findings makes sense.

Today, 98 percent of all banks and 99.8 percent of all credit unions have less than $10 billion in assets. While I am in favor of sensible relief for smaller financial institutions, I believe that the 2007-2009 financial crisis showed the dangers of weak oversight of these big banks, including a $30 billion bank like IndyMac. The bank's costly failure was the fourth largest in the history of the United States and contributed to the most damaging financial crisis in generations.

As the largest firms pose the greatest risk to the country's economy and the safety and soundness of our financial system, it is only prudent to apply a stringent supervisory approach for the largest institutions. In fact, the GAO issued a report last year criticizing the

Federal Reserve's large bank supervision program, underscoring there is more work that must be done.

I have been pushing bank regulators to deploy the full suite of their enforcement tools against megabanks like Wells Fargo that repeatedly and carelessly break the law and harm millions of consumers. That is why I introduced, again, H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act.

So, no, I do not think it is appropriate to let megabanks like Wells Fargo hijack what should be regulatory relief for community banks so that they can challenge their exams. Nonbanks regulated by the Consumer Bureau, like Equifax or payday lenders, do not need this kind of regulatory relief either.

My amendment narrows the scope of the bill on what should garner broad bipartisan support: sensible relief for the community banks and credit unions that need it.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues who truly want to help community banks and credit unions rather than Wall Street megabanks to support my amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 1116) to require the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and business models of institutions into account when taking regulatory actions, 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 submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were told many, many years ago that Dodd-Frank was passed to deal with the big Wall Street banks, that somehow our community banks and our credit unions would be held harmless because, Mr. Speaker, they didn't cause the crisis.

Now, we can have the discussion of what did--that is a whole different discussion for a different day--but unfortunately, regardless of whatever good intentions there might have been at the time, and I don't offer an opinion as to those intentions, the facts are that, since Dodd-Frank was passed, the big banks are bigger and the small banks and credit unions are fewer. We are losing, on average, a community bank or credit union every other day in America.

And as we lose them, Mr. Speaker, so do we lose the hopes and dreams and desires of our constituents, of so many

hardworking Americans who deserve to buy that car, who deserve to be able to own their own home, who deserve, after working so many years on the assembly line, to finally capitalize their own small business. But none of this is going to happen unless we actually tailor this regulatory burden to the size and complexity of the financial institution, something that, in many respects, was promised by Dodd- Frank but not delivered by Dodd-Frank.

So I am very, very happy that, today, we have yet another bipartisan bill from the Financial Services Committee that is aimed to promote economic growth, to help hardworking Americans, again, achieve their American Dream, because half of this country is living from paycheck to paycheck, and we need to ease that economic anxiety, and so we have got to make sure that the lifeblood of credit, that capital, is flowing through the system.

It is our community banks in particular that fund our small businesses. Unfortunately, up until the advent of the new administration, Mr. Speaker, small business lending by banks was at a 25-year low, entrepreneurship was at a generational low.

Now, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we have turned that corner, but we have so much further to go. So a particularly hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), has come to us today with H.R. 1116, the Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act, yes, Mr. Speaker, the TAILOR Act.

Simply put, what this bill does is simply directs the Federal financial regulators to, again, simply tailor their regulations to entities based upon their size, their risk profile, their complexity. It also demands that they have some transparency in this process by requiring that the regulators report to Congress, report to the representatives of ``we the people'' how they have actually tailored the regulations--again, something that was implied, something that was promised in Dodd-Frank but did not actually occur.

Again, Mr. Speaker, every single day we hear from our community financial institutions. I heard from one in New Mexico that said:

You know, we are a $300 million community bank in an area

with high unemployment. Thirty-seven percent of our employees

are active in community organizations, Little League,

charities, and many serve in leadership positions in these

organizations, and we also make tens of thousands of dollars

in charitable contributions every year; but if our bank can't

survive, you take away the local leadership, you take away

the economic engine of our community.

This banker was clearly talking about the regulatory burden.

I heard from one in Iowa:

I am a mortgage consumer lender and also the compliance

officer of a small community bank in rural Iowa. I have been

in banking for over 30 years and always enjoyed my job until

the last 5 years. The new rules that will be implemented are

ridiculous, and at that time, we may discontinue to offer in-

house mortgage loans.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my mailbox runneth over.

As our small banks and credit unions go, so goes the American Dream.

At a bare minimum, let's tailor the rules and regulations to the size and complexity of the institution so our credit unions, so our banks can thrive and, thus, our constituents can thrive and meet their economic goals and responsibilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of the TAILOR Act, who also serves as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of our Financial Services Committee, a very, very hardworking member of the committee and a real leader to help preserve and maintain our community banks and credit unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who knows how important our community banks are to the world of agriculture.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), someone who knows that one size does not fit all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for his leadership. Again, whether it be through failure, whether it be through merger or acquisition, we still, on average, are losing a community bank or credit union a day in America. And when we listen to them, Mr. Speaker, what we know is it is the regulatory burden.

I know that the ranking member speaks frequently of the Wall Street megabanks. They have done quite fine under Dodd-Frank. The ranking member likes to allude to their profitability. Listen, I hope every business in America can find some way to be profitable, but that is not the question.

The real question is the profitability of our constituents, half of whom are living paycheck to paycheck. And it is those constituents who we care about when we lose an opportunity for them to capitalize their American Dream.

When I hear from Colton in Terrell, Texas, in the Fifth District that I proudly represent, who says:

You know what? Me and my wife have been unable to get a

mortgage due to credit. We are 25 to 30 years old. We have

good credit, but we are getting denied.

That is everything to do with the regulatory burden, Mr. Speaker.

I heard from Sara in Eustace in my district. She writes:

I would like to refinance with a cashout option to fix some

storm damage to my property and home, but I found out that it

is not an option for me because the government doesn't

believe I should be able to do this.

I heard from Alan, in Kaufman, Texas, who said:

However, as a small-business owner, I offer owner financing

for real estate to people with little or no credit, but the

overregulation of Dodd-Frank has caused my cost of business

to rise. I am forced to pass that cost on to the consumer.

Regulations cost the consumer, not the business.

So the ranking member wants to know who is for this bill. Well, I can

tell you what, Colton is for this bill, Sara is for this bill, Al is for this bill, and, oh, by the way, so is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), Democratic member of our committee; so is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), Democratic member of our committee; so is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), Democrat member of our committee; so is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), Democratic member of our committee.

Again, there is lots of great bipartisan work that goes on at the House Financial Services Committee. Regrettably, very little of it takes place with the participation of the ranking member.

Again, this is a very simple bill. It just says tailor the regulation. Tailor the regulation to the size and complexity.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in too-big-to-fail banks. I don't believe any financial institution is too big to fail in America. I am not going to vote to bail them out with taxpayer funds; maybe the ranking member will.

But if I did, if I believed in too-big-to-fail banks, it would be limited to about eight or nine. Using the ranking member's favorite phrase, the Wall Street megabanks. Then, fine. Then why don't we see an amendment from her that limits the entirety of Dodd-Frank to the so- called Wall Street megabanks? I am still waiting for that amendment. I have yet to see it.

Why don't we release the rest of the banking and credit union world to help finance the American Dream, to help finance the cars, to help finance the small businesses, to help finance the homes?

Again, it is a simple amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. And, by the way, it happens to be one of the most important amendments supported by the trade associations for the credit unions and for our community banks. So they believe in it, Mr. Speaker.

So I encourage every Member of this body to vote for the TAILOR Act and save our community banks and credit unions to finance the American Dream.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from Virginia, and he is my friend, but I also must say that rarely in the history of the House have I ever seen a motion to recommit that has less to do with the underlying bill than this one.

I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle, over a year later, still cannot accept the outcome of the election, which, unfortunately, is a complete slap in the face of democracy.

I know there is an element that works full time on the other side of the aisle to impeach the President. This is their full-time avocation. Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we continue to work in order to try to improve the lot in lives of the common working man and woman.

So we were very proud to work with the President on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that has brought us the lowest unemployment rate in America in 17 years.

Under their economic policies, Mr. Speaker, what we saw were high levels of unemployment. What we saw were stagnant wages. What we saw was 1.6 percent GDP growth when in the postwar era we have averaged 3 percent economic growth. What we saw under their economic policies was that people couldn't make ends meet. Too many were still living paycheck to paycheck.

And now I hear from my constituents. I heard from one the other day who said: Guess what? They just announced at my husband's business everybody is getting a 5 percent pay increase.

I just heard from Michael in Terrell, who is a doctor, and he said: Thanks to President Trump--who they are trying to impeach--thanks to President Trump and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now I can afford to buy a new ultrasound machine for my rural practice, and I am going to actually hire an additional ultrasound technician.

All due to the President, again, they are trying to impeach.

I heard from Charles in Winnsboro who said: You know what? The new tax reforms will drop my tax bracket by 17 percent, and this will allow me to rebuild my shop that had been destroyed.

And then I look at the employers in my hometown of Dallas, Texas: American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Comerica. So many of them, Mr. Speaker, are offering $1,000 bonuses. Many are offering increases in minimum wages. Many have increased 401(k) plans. All, again, due to the activities of the Republicans, because not one single Democrat supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

So I understand how my friends on the other side of the aisle wish to attempt to change the subject because they are probably now embarrassed they didn't support it, because they have seen how much good it has done, how much of a difference it makes.

So if they want to waste the House's time by once again trying to find ways to undermine the President, impeach the President, I know it is a full-time job for many, but on this side of the aisle, we are going to continue to make sure that the lot of the common man and woman is improved. We are going to make sure that our community banks and credit unions can lend to them. We are going to ensure that there is great economic growth so that we can continue to fund the American Dream. That is what we are going to do on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and to support the underlying TAILOR Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 4263) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company capital formation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act.

I want to thank the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur). He has been a huge leader on all capital formation issues within our committee and in this Congress. He is a real asset. His business acumen is well positioned to help serve us, and his leadership on this bill should be commended.

Mr. Speaker, although small companies are at the forefront of technological innovation and job creation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining funding in our capital markets. These obstacles generally stem from the disproportionately larger burden that securities regulations, written principally for large public companies, instead place on small companies when they seek to go public.

In 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, known as JOBS Act, sought to modernize and better tailor some of these regulations, including Reg. A, under our securities law. Reg.

A is a longstanding exemption from SEC registration that permits public offerings without formal registration as long as certain conditions are met.

Prior to the JOBS Act, a small company seeking to use Reg. A was limited to raising $5 million of securities in a 12-month period. As you can imagine, over time, Mr. Speaker, Reg. A offerings became increasingly rare due to the relatively small offering size that was available and a requirement that Reg. A securities still comply with 50 different State securities law registration and qualification requirements.

Title IV of the JOBS Act attempted to address the antiquated Regulation A by directing the SEC to update it, which the SEC did in 2015, under the moniker Reg. A+, by creating two tiers of Regulation A offerings and allowing certain securities to qualify for preemption from State securities law.

Under the second tier, the SEC increased the amount companies can offer from $5 million to $50 million. Mr. MacArthur's legislation only pertains to the Tier 2 limit.

Since Reg. A+ was implemented in 2015, small businesses have increasingly been able to use this tool to raise much-needed capital to expand their businesses and create new jobs in our economy. According to the SEC Office of Small Business Policy, as of November 2017, 69 completed Reg. A+ offerings had raised a total of $611 million.

Unfortunately, the $50 million cap leaves significant opportunity on the table for our startups, opportunity that could be better realized if the limit were increased to $75 million, which the Treasury Department has recommended as a potentially less costly alternative for startups to raise capital. Moreover, increasing the Reg. A+ limit will better position companies that want to use the exemption as an on-ramp to list publicly to bear the corresponding compliance burdens and still invest in jobs and growth.

Mr. Speaker, more and more, we have seen IPOs of companies with products that we use every day--Uber, Facebook, Spotify, Snapchat--come after the company is already valued over $1 billion. For everyday investors, this often means missing out on some of the most dynamic growth stages of the company that would provide the highest rate of returns for them and their family, all while the wealthy, accredited investors and venture capital firms can invest early, and they get to rake in the better rates of return.

With regulations disproportionately stacked against them, it isn't surprising that small companies so often are choosing to stay private. Many have no other choice. Again, after all, the SEC has estimated that the costs of going public, on average, are $2.5 million in regulatory costs for undergoing an IPO and annual compliance costs averaging $1.5 million thereafter.

Those costs stand in stark contrast to the $111,000 the SEC says is the average legal and auditing cost for Reg. A+ offerings. In other words, by utilizing Reg. A+, small businesses can raise significant capital while saving more than $2 million--$2 million that can be invested in jobs and research and other growth opportunities. This is why Reg. A+ is so important: it provides a more cost-effective way to raise equity capital early on in the growth stages of these companies.

Additionally, Reg. A offerings enjoy preemption from State securities laws. Mr. Speaker, I hope every Member pays close attention to this. They may not know it.

In 1980, when a startup computer company, by the way, called Apple decided to go public, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided the stock was too risky and barred its sale to individual investors in the State. Today, Apple's market valuation is almost $1 trillion. It is an American iconic brand and one of the largest companies in the world. And it is, again, potentially going to be the first public company with a trillion-dollar market cap. If you had bought 45 shares of Apple when it was offered at its IPO, by the end of last year you would have over $394,000. That is hardly crumbs, Mr. Speaker.

In short, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a very smart but modest improvement in a popular JOBS Act provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the sponsor of this legislation and a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), from the land of moose and maple syrup, a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking 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, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), an entrepreneur, someone who brings years and years of experience in capital formation of building a business to help grow jobs and our economy.

H.R. 4263, again, is, in part, an expansion of the JOBS Act, something that was signed into law by President Barack Obama. I didn't agree with that particular President on many occasions, but he got this right, and this has been something good for the American economy.

But what I fear is that, if we don't go forward, we end up going backwards. And what we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle is: Let's keep the status quo.

But, Mr. Speaker, the status quo is what brought us a 1.6 percent economy. The status quo is what brought paychecks to become stagnant. The status quo ensured that Americans did not recover their savings from the great financial crisis.

Now we have the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and now we have 3 percent economic growth; now we have the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years; now we have seen the greatest growth in paychecks in almost a decade; now we are seeing 90 percent--90 percent--of wage earners seeing a bigger paycheck, better take-home pay, because of the economic policies of this Republican Congress and of the Trump administration.

So the gentleman from New Jersey has brought us, really, in some respects, an important but modest proposition: that we ought to increase the threshold for Reg A+ to $75 million.

Again, we don't know where the next Uber is coming from. We don't know where the next Spotify is coming from. We don't know where the next Apple is coming from. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We all know they need capital. And this is a valuable alley, chain, path in order to bring capital into our startup businesses.

Now, a constant theme we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle is consumer protection. Do you know what? Back in the 1980s, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to protect their people from this fly-by-night company called Apple, which now is looking at an almost $1 trillion market cap valuation, and had you invested at the IPO, you would have a 45,000 percent rate of return. You could buy a home; your children could buy a home; your great-grandchildren could buy a home. You could achieve your American Dream. But a government decided: No, you are too stupid to make this investment decision on your own. We must protect you.

Nothing--nothing--in the bill from the gentleman from New Jersey alters the vast, vast array of consumer protection laws that are already on the books. Nothing in H.R. 4263 prevents the Department of Justice from pursuing criminal prosecutions of fraud. Nothing in the bill impacts the SEC's ability to pursue civil actions for those

who engage in fraud, negligent misrepresentations, negligent transactions.

Nothing in this bill prevents the SEC from entering into cease and desist orders and imposing civil liabilities for those who violate SEC rules. Investors get to pursue Federal civil actions against those who defraud them, those who make untrue statements. So there are plenty of very important laws that are on our books.

What we shouldn't do, though, is protect our hardworking constituents from the ability to make decisions for themselves and participate in these early growth companies that now are only restricted to accredited investors. It is only the wealthiest who get to make these decisions. Well, in the land of the free, maybe a few more should, and maybe we ought to have a few more Apples, a few more Ubers, a few more Spotifys.

I want to thank, again, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), who has been a great leader in capital formation and job creation on our committee and in this Congress, and I want to urge all Members to adopt H.R. 4263.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, when I have said something incorrect, I wish to correct myself in front of my colleagues in the public. I earlier said that my colleagues were trying to give us status quo. I wish to correct myself. This motion to recommit is worse than status quo. It would take us back even further.

The gentlewoman from Ohio should admit when she is wrong. She is wrong when she says this will not kill the bill. This will kill it. It will gut it. It will bury it 6 feet under. I think she knows that. So she is entitled to her opinion about what Reg. A+ should be, but she absolutely eviscerates the bipartisan bill that is before the House.

Because many who are watching this may somehow think, ``Oh, my Lord, there are no consumer protections for Reg. A+ offerings,'' the basic requirements that are applicable to both Tier 1 and tier offerings include company eligibility requirements, bad actor disqualification requirements, issuer disclosure requirements, ongoing reporting requirements.

And then for Tier 2 offerings, additional requirements: providing audited financial statements; requirement to file annual, semiannual, and current event reports; and limitation on the amount of security nonaccredited and accredited investors can purchase.

Then those that are offered on an exchange have to adhere to the exchange's listing standards, including corporate governance requirement, background checks on the management and board, shareholder approval of certain corporate actions, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good case here. Anybody who picked up a newspaper recently would find out that, yesterday, the SEC charged Theranos with raising more than $700 million from investors through exaggerated and false statements about the company's technology.

Guess what. In announcing the enforcement decision, here is what the SEC noted:

The charges make clear that there is no exemption--no

exemption--from the antifraud provisions of the Federal

securities laws simply because a company is nonpublic,

development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media

attention.

In other words, the SEC was thoroughly able to do their job, and they were ready and willing to investigate and bring enforcement actions, as they well should. This is part of their job, investor protection. But guess what. So is capital formation. Capital formation is part of the mission of the SEC. That is why it is so important that we not protect our constituents against great investment opportunities, like Apple, like Uber, and like Spotify.

So when we have so many Americans who are still living paycheck to paycheck, when they finally get a little savings together, shouldn't they be able to invest in great opportunities of early growth companies? Shouldn't these early growth companies have access to capital?

I think so.

You can't have capitalism without capital. Let's get more capital circulating in the system. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has done so much good, but we need so much more. We need capital circulating the system, particularly for our startups and our early growth stage companies.

We need to reject the MTR, and we need to vote in support of H.R. 4263.

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository institutions, 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act.

It is a strongly bipartisan bill, having come out of our committee by a vote of 50-10. It is authored by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who serves as the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and is, indeed, one of the leaders in the House in bringing regulatory relief to our community financial institutions. I want to thank him for his leadership on this very, very important issue.

H.R. 4545 creates transparency and accountability among regulators by improving the timeliness of examinations, while also creating a new more independent examination appeals process.

Madam Speaker, this is about, again, transparency. It is about due process. The Office of Independent Examination Review created under this bill will ensure accountability and fairness for financial institutions during their supervisory examinations. It does so by providing the right for these institutions to obtain an independent review of a material supervisory determination contained in a final examination report.

The creation of this independent review process is particularly important for our Nation's community banks and credit unions that will now be able to appeal their examination decisions without fear of reprisal from their regulator.

By reforming the process for examining financial institutions to ensure it is fair and consistent, Congress will indeed enhance the safety and soundness of the financial system overall while ensuring Main Street businesses can access the liquidity and capital resources they need to grow and create jobs. Again, Madam Speaker, this is why this is so important. Ultimately, this is about ensuring a free flow of credit to Main Street businesses and families.

Many of our community financial institutions have felt a very, very heavy hand of burdensome Federal regulations that were intended--or so we were told--for the largest and most complex institutions; and regulators, unfortunately, seem to ignore congressional directive and apply each one of these standards to our smallest institutions. Thus, yesterday, Madam Speaker, we voted on the TAILOR Act, also authored by the gentleman from Colorado, that would also help ensure these regulations are tailored to the size and complexity of the institution.

Without having due process and fairness in this exam review, the result has been catastrophic. This regulatory burden, of which this is a part, has been resulting in the closing or merger of one community bank or credit union per day, on average. And again, they are not being lost to natural causes.

Our community financial institutions serve as the backbone of our American economy, and we simply cannot afford to lose them. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in my sixth year, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are all too familiar with this problem. I hear from credit unions and community banks every day.

I heard from West Community Credit Union in Missouri, who wrote: ``This one-size-fits-all approach is simpleminded and has real consequences. We are beginning to make changes that will negatively impact our ability to continue to serve members in meeting their home equity lending needs.''

In fact, Madam Speaker, we know that a number of banks and credit unions have had to leave mortgage lending because of the regulatory burden.

Then there is County-City Credit Union in Wisconsin, who said: ``Small credit unions are dropping every day. Unless we get immediate relief, there won't be any left. That would be tragic for our members and the very fabric of our country. Please help us, and help us right now.''

I have good news. Help is on the way if we can get a good, solid vote this afternoon.

The CEO of Commonwealth National Bank in Tennessee wrote: ``The fact remains that there are fewer community banks today than there were several years ago, a trend that will continue until rational changes''--for example, like the ones we are speaking of today, Madam Speaker--``are made that will provide some relief to America's hometown banks.''

Again, we are hearing this plea every single day. So there is good reason why H.R. 4545 was reported by this committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 50-10, including a majority support of the Democrats on the committee.

Again, the bill is strongly bipartisan, it is practical, and it is necessary. H.R. 4545 will allow financial institutions, again, to have supervisory determinations reviewed by a newly established independent examination review board. This will allow for uniformity among regulatory agencies, again, while making the overall exam process more fair and more efficient.

The bill does not prevent a regulatory agency from conducting examinations or imposing restrictions on financial exams, but, again, it will restore fairness, due process, and accountability for the sake of our community banks and credit unions; and, more importantly, for the sake of those who still have the American Dream of either buying their own home, starting their own business, or sending that first kid to college, it is imperative that we enact H.R. 4545.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my friend from Missouri, as he recounts his parade of horribles, that this bill was supported by a majority of Democrats on the committee, including Mr. Crist of Florida, Democrat; Mr. Delaney of Maryland, Democrat; Mr. Foster of Illinois, Democrat; Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Democrat; Mr. Gottheimer of New Jersey, Democrat; Mr. Heck of Washington, Democrat; and Mr. Himes of Connecticut, Democrat.

I think my 30 seconds is winding down, but perhaps I can share the rest of the Democratic Members who supported this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is back with us again today. He is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and is the author of H.R. 4545.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Service Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to say that I just find some of the comments of the ranking member curious.

I know if she continues this attack on the so-called Wall Street megabanks, I just continue to be so curious why she supports bailing them out? She voted against the Financial CHOICE Act that would have ended bailouts to these megabanks. And so she supports a bailout fund in Dodd-Frank to continue to bail out these banks.

Second of all, if she continues to attack them, I guess I am curious also why she supports the Federal Reserve's program to pay interest on excess reserves. She supports taking taxpayer money to pay the so- called Wall Street megabanks not to loan money to Main Street, something that I have opposed as have many other Republicans on this side of the aisle.

And then to make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, on this interest on excess reserves, these banks are getting almost 10 to 15 times what our constituents are getting on their savings accounts.

In many cases, it is the difference between 0.07 percent, versus 1.5 percent. And so I understand, again, she attacks them, but then I am just curious, why does she find so many ways to support them?

So personally, I think in this economy, there is a need for community banks and credit unions. There is a need for regional banks, and there is a need for global banks as well. What we want is accountability. We want less Federal control, and what we want is more private capital. We want to ensure that there are never more taxpayer bailouts.

And again, as I said earlier, as this so-called parade of horribles was brought to the attention of the House, why is it that a majority of Democrats on her committee support this legislation? Sixteen of them support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a very commonsense bill, which is one of the reasons it is strongly bipartisan. I am sorry that the ranking member has not chosen to be part of that bipartisanship, but over half of the committee Democrats on our committee support it. Why? Because they understand that it is part of our American DNA to have due process.

When we continue to lose a credit union or a community bank every day in America, on average, with their loss, we are losing home ownership opportunities, opportunities to grow businesses.

Because of that regulatory burden, these exams can mean the difference between a credit union being open and not being open. They can mean the difference between a community bank being open or not open. Thus, it means the difference in our constituents getting homes and small business loans and auto loans.

This is common sense. It simply says you ought to be able to appeal an exam, have a third party take a look at it.

Everybody deserves due process in America, including our community banks and credit unions, so that is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4545. It came out of our committee with a huge bipartisan vote. Let's make sure credit continues to flow throughout America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4545, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, what we are talking about here is fundamental due process: due process for every American, due process for every institution regardless of its size, regardless of its geography. This is about due process.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: ``Whatever disagreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase `due process of law,' there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial, with opportunity to be heard.'' He is one of the most famous jurists in all of American history.

We are trying to ensure, again, that a bank examiner or a credit union examiner is not tantamount to judge, jury, prosecutor, cop on the beat, and executioner all rolled into one. There is no due process if your only practical appeal is to the person who rendered the judgment in the first place.

So, number one, it is important that all Americans, all institutions receive due process, which is perhaps why even over half of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee chose to support H.R. 4545.

The ranking member's amendment would set a threshold here, but her threshold, as she talks about these so-called megabanks, at $10 billion, that is one-half of 1 percent of the size of J.P. Morgan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in too-big-to-fail banks. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle do. That is why they voted for the bailout fund to support these too-big-to-fail financial institutions with taxpayer funds.

I don't believe in too-big-to-fail institutions, but if I did, Mr. Speaker, if I did, it would be limited to maybe eight or nine banks in America. It certainly wouldn't be applicable to any community bank, credit union, or regional bank.

We have to remember, regardless of the size of the bank, it is their capital that is helping to capitalize our businesses.

I am from Dallas, Texas. One of our major employers is American Airlines. I wish they could do business with First State Bank of Athens, but I suspect they do not. And so sometimes, yes, global banks are necessary to our economy, regional banks are necessary to our economy, community banks and credit unions are necessary to our economy. They are suffering under the sheer weight, load, volume, complexity, and expense of the regulatory burden, which the examination process is part of it.

Let's give them due process. Let's give them fairness and ensure that credit can flow to every small business, every household that is worthy in America. Let's reject the ranking member's amendment, and let's support the underlying bill, H.R. 4545.

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