Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4061) to amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to improve the transparency of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to improve the SIFI designation process, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4293) to reform the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review process, the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test process, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4061, the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act.

The bill would recklessly complicate the process used by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, also referred to as FSOC, to designate nonbank firms for heightened oversight and protect the economy.

The bill would also give companies more avenues to delay by at least 4 years or block these designations even when the designations are warranted.

According to former Treasury Secretary Lew, who previously chaired FSOC and strongly opposed this bill last Congress: ``An extensively long 4-year process to designate large, complex firms that pose significant risk to the financial system is not an improvement; instead, it would effectively render meaningless one of the most important tools we in future councils should have to address threats to financial stability.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed this view, finding that H.R. 4061 would increase the risk that undesignated systemic nonbank firms will fail.

Let me be very clear: This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to hinder and needlessly delay FSOC's existing ability to designate firms for heightened oversight.

Americans for Financial Reform has also underscored that this bill would: ``Provide giant, global financial firms numerous opportunities to use insider lobbying and the courts to delay or prevent actions that banking regulators are attempting to take to safeguard economic stability.''

One of the reasons Congress created FSOC was to make sure that large, interconnected firms like Bear Stearns, AIG, or Lehman Brothers would never again devastate the stability of our financial system and jeopardize our country's strong economy with their risky practices and relentless demand for profits over safe and sound operations.

So I simply cannot support this bill, which would add hurdles to prevent FSOC from fulfilling its vital role of identifying interconnected, huge companies that warrant enhanced safeguards.

I also reject the myths Republicans continue to spread about the Dodd-Frank Act in their effort to roll back so many of its critical reforms. The majority has claimed that Dodd-Frank has caused tremendous burden on the financial industry and resulted in lenders denying affordable access to credit to consumers and families, but the numbers tell the real story of the success of Dodd-Frank and the need to maintain its regulatory regime, including the FSOC. Why? Because bank profits and share prices have skyrocketed and are now far above pre- recession heights.

In addition, business lending has increased 80 percent and community banks are doing well.

What is more, pay for bank executives is through the roof. CEO pay on Wall Street is back up to levels we last saw in 2006. Even Wells Fargo's CEO, yes, the recidivist megabank that has violated numerous laws and harmed millions of consumers, was paid $17.5 million last year. In fact, the CEO was paid 291 times the median salary for Wells Fargo employees.

While Wall Street has fully recovered, Main Street has not. As Neel Kashkari, a Republican former Treasury official who now serves as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis argued in a Washington Post op-ed on March 8, 2018: ``The Great Recession pushed millions of Americans out of the labor force, some of whom still haven't returned. Although the headline unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10 percent during the recession to 4.1 percent this past January, that statistic ignores people who have given up looking for work. A different measure of people in their prime working years suggests that more than 1 million Americans are still on the sidelines.''

Keep in mind, these are warnings from a Republican official. In fact, he goes on to say: ``Big banks still threaten our economy.''

So I will continue to oppose measures like H.R. 4061 that would return our regulatory regime back to a system that encouraged interconnected, huge firms to grow at all costs and that cheered as these firms devised new and so-called innovative products, many of which are only innovative in terms of how risky and unsound they were.

As so many have noted, if we undermine the ability of FSOC to stand guard, as this bill would do, then we risk opening the door once again to the wolves of Wall Street to wreak havoc with our economy again.

This bill, in effect, recreates the moral hazard in Wall Street's corporate culture that promotes profits before consumers. This bill would put the interests of corporate America before protections of consumers, the interests of the public, and the stability of the U.S. economy.

So, we must all remain vigilant against bills like this or we risk another financial crisis. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to learn from the mistakes of the past and oppose H.R. 4061.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely weary of coming to this floor with bills that deregulate megabanks. I am absolutely tired of coming to this floor having to remind my colleagues over and over again about the crisis that we had to be presented with and had to work through in 2008.

I don't know why it is our Members find so much time to protect the biggest banks in America, the richest banks in America, the CEOs who are making millions of dollars, while, in fact, the consumers come second or third in the work that they are doing.

This is simply about deregulation. This is about giving the banks more power. This is about disregarding the fact that we have had to fine them over and over again and they still find ways to defraud and to cheat the consumers of America.

As the chairman just mentioned about the fines of Wells Fargo, well, they are up for another fine of about a billion dollars because they cheated their clients, they cheated their customers, they created accounts in their names that they didn't know anything about, they forced insurance on them that they didn't need, many of them already had insurance, and it goes on and on and on.

I hope that we could convince our Members that we need to spend more time on some of the issues that are really confronting America.

I am on this committee as the ranking member. We don't have any bills or any sessions about homelessness. We are not talking about the people who are on the street all over America. We are not talking about the housing crisis where the average family even that is employed working every day can't afford to buy a home, now can't even afford to lease a place to live. It is off the scale.

I could go on and recount all of the things we should be addressing just in our committee, not to talk about the other things and issues in this Congress of the United States that we should be looking at, we should be paying attention to.

We have had all of the gun issues, we have all the issues that are going on now about Syria, and on and on and on, and yet we find the time to come to this floor day in and day out, time and time again, to talk about how we can make the biggest banks in America richer and more profitable.

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

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

I would like to just walk through some of what happens with FSOC with these nonbank designations and the process, because I have always wanted to be sure that the process would give these nonbanks an opportunity to basically convince FSOC that they were safe and they were sound and they didn't present any risk, and all of that.

Of course, a lot of this was triggered by AIG. If you remember AIG and what happened with this nonbank who was involved in credit default swaps without the collateral to back them up, this certainly was informative, and it helped to develop this process.

Stage 1, the metrics: minimum quantitative metrics for a nonbank financial company to be eligible for designation.

Stage 2, preliminary review, 6 months: staff analyzes preliminary data and meets with the company, consults with existing regulators.

Stage 3, in-depth review, 14 months: staff analyzes extensive data, meets with company, consults with existing regulators, FSOC deputies meet with company.

Proposed designation and hearing on the final designation, 4 months. FSOC provides written basis of proposed designation, oral hearings, provides lengthy written basis of final designation.

Total time from outset of analysis to final designation, 2 years.

Judicial and annual reviews: any designated company may challenge FSOC's determination in court; every designated company is re-reviewed by FSOC every year to consider de-designation.

I want you to know what is being proposed in this bill is quite different and, instead of the 2 years that I have just walked through, it would take approximately 4.3 years. At such time, you could have one of these nonbanks in trouble, presenting great risk, and you would not be able to do very much about it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Members a statement from the former Secretary of the Treasury who had the responsibility to head FSOC, and that is Jacob J. Lew. He said, and I will read from his communication to us:

Unfortunately, none of the legislation the committee plans

to consider this week--referring to this bill--would

strengthen the Council's ability to address the very real

risk the largest and most complex financial firms could pose.

Instead, these proposals would be a big step backwards for

regulatory tools to prevent the same kinds of threats. These

bills would severely undermine and impair the Council. One of

the proposals would require the Council to spend 4 years

analyzing a firm before taking action to address any risk the

firms may propose, doubling the time period for designation

review.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think that it is important that we share as much information as we can about FSOC because not a lot is known by the average person about FSOC, and when we talk about it, we oftentimes fail to talk about who makes up FSOC.

We are talking about 10 voting members, headed by Treasury, the Treasury Secretary. You have on FSOC all of the experts. You have the Federal Reserve. You have the FDIC. You have the OCC. You have the NCUA. You have the CFPB, the FHFA, the SEC, the CFTC, and an independent insurance expert. So here you have convened on the FSOC all of these experts, and they are looking at nonbanks that could present great risk to our economy, like AIG.

I have to keep reminding people about AIG because AIG was this nonbank that we bailed out to the tune of about $182 billion, $183 billion.

Don't forget, they were involved with credit default swaps that were not

collateralized. They were basically putting insurance out there that, when the time came due for them to have to pay off, they couldn't because they didn't have the collateral to do that.

So with these experts, with the experiences that we have gone through, FSOC makes a lot of sense. And when it is said that all they can do is designate, that is extremely important because that gives the companies an opportunity to go back and take a look at themselves and see what they can do to reduce this risk to become more stable, and this has happened already.

As a matter of fact, I think to designate a nonbank, FSOC must have a vote of two-thirds of its members, including the Treasury Secretary. So this is not easily done.

Again, designation gives the companies an opportunity to go back and take a look. At least one of them has decided to downsize.

Let me just share this with you. First, FSOC is certainly not running a Hotel California. A designated firm like GE Capital was able to make the kind of risk-reducing structural reforms that led to their de- designation under the annual review process required by Dodd-Frank. So, no, designated firms are not stuck with their designation forever.

Don't forget, they get reviewed every year. Don't forget, they can make changes. Don't forget, they can take the advice. They can come in and they can continue to work on putting themselves in order so that they can get de-designated. And I think that is extremely important and that should not get lost.

Mr. Speaker, 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, a moment ago, I identified the 10 voting members that serve on FSOC. I did not add to that the nonvoting members. To show you the expertise that is involved with FSOC, they also have these nonvoting members: Estate Insurance Regulator, Estate Bank Regulator, State Securities Regulator, and the Federal Insurance Office.

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

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

One of the wonderful things about working and living in a democracy is that people have an opportunity to have opinions and to voice them and to act out on them. And certainly we don't always agree on everything. The Republicans don't always agree in their caucuses. Sometimes they walk lockstep for all kinds of reasons, but they do disagree sometimes when they feel it is safe to do so.

But Democrats do not always agree, and we disagree perhaps more in our caucus than Republicans do, and we feel free to do that because we understand the importance of the democracy and what it permits and allows you to do.

So in saying that, we take every effort in my committee to make sure that all of our members have the information that they need. My staff is available to provide any assistance that we can provide. So we are very pleased and proud that I, as the ranking member, operate the committee in a way that respects all of its members.

And even those members who come to the floor who are opposed, perhaps, to a bill or are supporting a bill that I and others may oppose, I respect that. That is how democracy works.

So today, we do have Democratic members who are supporting this bill. For whatever reasons, they believe that FSOC perhaps is too tough on some of the companies, that somehow they really don't achieve their mission of reducing risk. Whatever it is they believe, they certainly have a right to do that. And I respect that.

Having said that, I believe that the lesson that we learn, as a result of 2008 and the recession that we went through, and AIG, the nonbank, in particular, that we bailed out when we saw the weakness of AIG, and the fact that they had basically dealt with these credit default swaps, and that it had created such a problem in our economy, I am so pleased that we had the foresight and the wisdom to come up with a way by which to identify this risk of the nonbanks so that they do not create the kind of turbulence and problems that we had in 2008.

Having said that, I am very pleased about the wide breadth of expertise that is on the FSOC. And I certainly believe that having gone through the steps that they take, that those steps will allow everyone to understand and see how fair they are, what kind of time it takes; and it gives every opportunity to be de-designated from being identified as a SIFI.

So I am very pleased and proud that I am able to say to my colleagues--no matter how they vote--that I believe that the FSOC is an important reform in the Dodd-Frank reforms. I would ask them to oppose this bill, but if they do not support it, I respect that. I think we should all remember that each and every one of us--elected by the people who send us here--have a voice and we have a right to represent our constituents in the best way that we see possible.

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

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

In these debates, oftentimes we find ourselves explaining to people how our committees work, and that is very good that we take the opportunity to do that because I think that, in this complicated system that we work in, people need to understand what we do and how we do it.

I am very appreciative to the chairman for recognizing and giving time to some of our Members today, and I think he will remember that I have done that for him also. I can recall on flood insurance, the National Flood Insurance bill, I was very gracious and I gave Members on the Republican side of the aisle an opportunity to have a say. And not only that, Ex-Im Bank was another instance where I gave time to the Members from the opposite side of the aisle, so I would not like people who are listening to think that somehow this is unusual.

We do use the influence and power of our positions to determine when that makes good sense for us, and I would like to say to the chairman of our committee: There will be other times when I will afford Republicans an opportunity to speak and have their say when you don't feel that that is the proper thing for you to do at that time. So let us all remember how this system works.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, week after week, the majority is continuing to push through bills to roll back critical reforms that Democrats put in place to protect consumers, investors, and our economy. Let's recount some of the bills that the majority has recently pushed through the House:

In recent months, they have passed legislation to allow payday lenders to evade State interest rate caps, decrease operational risk capital requirements, and roll back enhanced prudential standards for the Nation's largest banks; weaken customer protections for mortgages; undermine efforts to combat discriminatory and predatory lending; reduce consumer privacy protections; weaken rules that the financial services industry finds inconvenient; undermine protections for mom- and-pop investors; and allow financial institutions to challenge rules, financial regulations, in court, if they believe them not to be uniquely tailored to their business needs.

Every week, the list of harmful legislation put forth by the majority for House passage grows. H.R. 4061, the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act is the latest example of the majority's misguided and reckless agenda.

H.R. 4061 helps financial institutions to delay or block heightened oversight and weakens FSOC's ability to protect our economy. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores th lessons of the past and invites the return to the risky financial system that led to the financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act, which is designed to line Wall Street's pockets by weakening a critical tool to prevent a future financial crisis.

Bank stress tests are a forward-looking tool where a hypothetical scenario or two are tested, such as, how would a megabank fare if a major recession occurred next year with unemployment and foreclosures going way up? These tests, incredibly, are very helpful to see if banks might need to maintain more capital to help buffer against such a scenario.

These are similar to crash tests for cars where a manufacturer runs their cars through crash test simulations to see if passengers will remain safe in various kinds of crashes. Such testing provides valuable insights regarding what design adjustments might be needed to ensure the car is as safe as possible.

So let us take a look at how this safeguard developed. When President Obama took office, his administration inherited an economy in free fall with about 800,000 jobs lost that very month. Many wondered how many more financial firms might fail. So Treasury Secretary Geithner worked with the Federal Reserve, and together they designed the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program.

These stress tests checked how resilient the largest banks were if, in fact, the economy continued to deteriorate. Results were published, and we learned that 10 of the 19 participating firms were collectively about $75 billion short of the required capital ratios. These tests provided criminal transparency to the market, thereby enabling the banks to begin recapitalizing themselves with new funds from investors who themselves had renewed confidence in the banking industry.

Following this success, Congress decided to mandate these stress tests to be regularly required of the Nation's largest banks in Dodd- Frank. This would ensure banks and their regulators remained vigilant, especially when times were good, so that they could spot problems much earlier and take corrective action.

The Federal Reserve implemented these Dodd-Frank stress tests alongside their Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, known as CCAR, which added a capital planning component to the tests.

According to credit rating agencies and financial analysts, these stress tests, along with Dodd-Frank's other enhanced prudential requirements of the largest banks, have made our financial system much safer.

Now, let me give you some numbers. Since 2009, the 34 largest banks have increased their capital by $750 billion, bringing the industry's total capital buffer to nearly $2 trillion today. That is $750 billion in more high-quality funding that banks can safely lend and invest, which helps explain why business lending has also increased almost 80 percent the last 8 years.

But H.R. 4293, this bill, would undermine all of that and proposes three changes that megabanks like Wells Fargo would love to see. First, the bill would eliminate the adverse scenario from Fed-run stress tests. But like in car crash tests today, multiple scenarios can help ensure an institution can survive a wider range of unforeseen events.

Second, the bill would bar the Fed from making qualitative objections to a bank's capital plan. Even the Federal Reserve led by President Trump's appointees issued a lengthy proposal yesterday altering some of the stress testing rules, and their proposal maintains their ability to make qualitative objections. So there is no basis for Congress to unilaterally make it harder for regulators to ensure megabanks are well run and capitalized.

Third, the bill would allow Wall Street megabanks to conduct fewer company-run stress tests--annually instead of semiannually. But given how quickly tides can shift, routine, semiannual testing can better identify problems before they grow into larger problems.

As a former Federal Reserve official wrote last year: ``Had stress tests as conducted now been in place before the crisis, they could have made firms more resilient to unexpected losses, and at a minimum could have given supervisors the ability to question banks' continued dividend and share buybacks in the quarters leading to the height of the crisis.''

Accordingly, I strongly urge Members to reject this rollback for Wall Street megabanks.

Let me just add by saying: Why would we do this?

Why would we, knowing what we went through in 2008 where we had this subprime meltdown, we went into a recession--almost a depression--and we discovered that the banks were undercapitalized and they could not deal with this kind of change in the economy, they could not deal with the fact that something had gone wrong and be prepared to deal with it rather than us having to bail them out in the way that we did?

I don't know why we would do this now. So I would simply ask Members to ask the question: Why is it we would take away something that would make the banks safer, that would make them more stable, and that would make them able to be able to sustain despite the fact there was a crisis developing in the economy?

Why would we want to take away this safety that we have built with stress testing?

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members to reject this rollback for Wall Street megabanks, and 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, again, I raise the question of why are we considering a bill that would reduce the amount of scrutiny that we have with this stress testing from the biggest banks in America, when, in fact, we know that this stress testing was created because of the problems that we were faced with in 2008?

We learned an awful lot about what we should not do and what we should change in order never to be in the position again where we have to bail out all of these big banks.

We are simply saying: Banks, you have to be tested. You have to have a stress test to see if you can withstand the difficulty that will be presented if, in fact, the economy gets in trouble. It is as simple as that.

Do you have enough capital? Are you organized in such a way that you won't go under, that you won't create a problem in our economy because of the size of your bank if you get in trouble?

So I would simply ask our Members to reject this bill because this bill is not needed. It is simply a way by which to comply with the megabanks' request to not have to do the work that is necessary to prove that they are safe. And I don't know why we would do that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Members a Communications Workers of America letter to us on H.R. 4293.

And they state: H.R. 4293 would undermine the effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review--that is, CCAR--stress test. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the Federal Reserve from objecting to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative reasons; such as, the reasonableness of the assumptions and analysis underlying the plan. The bill would also cut the frequency of CCAR tests in half, taking away tools and reducing the amount of information available to the Federal Reserve about bank health and is a fundamentally bad idea.

Really, it is basically what we have been saying. We have been saying that this would reduce the stress tests from semiannually to an annual test.

Why would you want to have less scrutiny of these banks? Why would you want to reduce the amount of time that they would have relative to being able to prove that they are safe?

Also, I think it is very important what is being said here about the Fed and the Fed's ability to basically review, on the basis of qualitative reasons, such as reasonableness and of assumptions and analyses underlying the plan.

So they are looking to see if these banks are well capitalized, if these banks can withstand, again, problems in our economy that would arise that could create unemployment and all kinds of other adverse conditions.

So I would ask the Members to oppose this bill. This is just another deregulation bill for the biggest banks in America. We should not be doing that because these are the banks that, if they are undercapitalized, if they don't have what is needed to withstand problems in our society that could arise in the economy, it could cause us to go into another recession, even a depression perhaps.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what this overkill argument is all about. This is about deregulation. The banks, these megabanks, don't need any more deregulation or help from Congress. In 2016, the industry made record-breaking profits, more than $170 billion in profits. The Republicans gave the eight largest Wall Street banks a $15 billion windfall from their tax scam bill. And CEOs are making more money on Wall

Street, as much as they made in 2006, before they drove our economy into a massive ditch.

Megabanks need reasonable but strong stress tests to keep our economy safe. And I want to tell you, after Dodd-Frank reforms were put in place--and the stress test was one of the things that had to be done-- the banks resisted it, but finally they came into compliance. And it took them several years, and then they did it the way that Dodd-Frank would have them do it. So there are no problems.

These stress tests now are stress tests that reveal exactly what is going on in the bank. And so why are we trying to undo this? Why do you want to see them once a year instead of twice a year? Twice a year has proven that we can keep them straight, that we can make sure that they are well capitalized, that we can make sure they have a good financial plan.

So I would simply say, let's not get involved in more deregulation and take us back to where we were when we got in trouble in 2008. I would ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Members the opinions of former Chair Janet Yellen, who has stated that stress testing improves public understanding of risk at large banking firms, provides a forward-looking examination of firms' potential losses, and has contributed to significant improvement in risk management.

Former Chair Ben Bernanke has praised stress testing for playing a crucial role in the recovery of the economy and creating a more resilient postcrisis U.S. banking system.

The deceptively named Stress Test Improvement Act--that is, this bill--severely weakens this key element of bank oversight and must be rejected. We cannot ignore the analyses that are being given by these former Fed Chairs. I mean, they are saying do not be tricked, do not be fooled, that this is a deceptive bill, and that stress testing must continue in order to ensure the stability of our banks in the event the economy goes awry.

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 the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to focus on pushing through giveaways to Wall Street and megabanks like Wells Fargo that could be harmful to consumers, investors, and our Nation's economy. Week after week, Republicans advance legislation that is basically reckless and misguided. H.R. 4293 is yet another bad bill from the Republicans that weakens critical protections put in place by Democrats to prevent another financial crisis.

As we have discussed, the bill undermines the stress test framework for our Nation's largest banks. Stress tests are an important regulatory tool that have much improved the safety of our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, when we crafted Dodd-Frank, we mandated these stress tests and put in place other enhanced prudential guardrails for large banks to not only prevent damage to our economy, but also help grow our economy, and they are working. H.R. 4293 weakens the rigor and frequency of these stress tests, a move that simply makes no sense.

Rather than harmful measures such as this one, Congress should be working to strengthen consumer protections, reform our broken system of credit reporting, provide tailored, responsible relief for community banks, and ensure that recidivist megabanks are held accountable for breaking the law.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I urge Members again to simply ask the question: Why, at this point in time, would we want to basically reduce the ability for us to know exactly what is going on in those banks, whether or not they are fully capitalized, whether or not they could withstand a serious problem in our economy?

I don't think that the opposite side of the aisle, my friends, could really answer that question because this is simply a deregulatory bill for the biggest banks in America, for the megabanks, not needed, and certainly we need the information. We never want to go through a period of time like we did in 2008 where we discovered that our banks were not well capitalized and could not withstand the problems that we encountered.

I simply ask all Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

In its current form, I am.

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.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked at length about how H.R. 4293 is a bill for Wall Street megabanks to line their pockets while reducing safeguards that better protect the Main Street economy from another financial crisis. While I deeply disagree with the bill's approach, 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.

We all know megabanks have been given a free ride in Washington for far too long when it comes to repeated, egregious offenses. They just get a fine--the equivalent of 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, even $1 billion in fines, are just the cost of doing business for a company that made over $22 billion in profit in 2017. 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 consumers, 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, especially regulatory relief that would eliminate the type of oversight that makes sure our economy stays safe. So my amendment would exclude 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 auto insurance they didn't need.

Since 2016, I have been calling for Wells Fargo to face real penalties. I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to compel the Federal bank regulators to fully utilize existing authorities to stop 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 Fed, take bold action to cap the bank's size until it cleans up its act.

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. 4293, in its current form, would send the opposite message to recidivist megabanks and undermine the hard work we have done since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

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, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 780, I call up the bill (H.R. 4293) to reform the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review process, the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test process, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act of 2017. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who is a real workhorse on the Financial Services Committee and a real leader in trying to ensure that we have affordable credit for our constituents so that they can achieve the American Dream. In his legislation, he will bring clarity and reasonableness to the stress test regime.

Currently, as we know, banks face two separate, legally mandated stress tests: the CCAR and the DFAST. Together, these two programs constitute one of the greatest expansions of the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers in recent history. But what is important to note, Mr. Speaker, is that, in addition to these mandated stress tests, banks conduct stress tests every single week on one asset class or another.

It is important to know how banks can withstand tough, stormy financial weather, but this was taking place even prior to either DFAST or CCAR. What has happened now, Mr. Speaker, is these particular tests are incredibly onerous to the point where the reports are not just measured in pages, they are measured in pounds, and it is doubtful that anyone actually reads them.

Then, to compound the challenge, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve's stress tests have become kind of a cat-and-mouse exercise in which the Fed staff and compliance officers attempt to outwit each other in a game that has no rules and no transparency. In other words, it is a secret test. Nobody really knows what is on it. It is difficult for Congress, it is difficult for our markets, and it is difficult for the public to even assess whether or not these tests are effective.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note, if you don't know what is on the test, how can you adhere to the rule of law if you don't know what the law is? And so something really needs to change here.

Now, it is fortunate that yesterday the Federal Reserve finally took action to begin to simplify and refine the CCAR stress testing regime. Recognizing the opacity of the stress test regime, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman for Supervision Randy Quarles said in a statement: ``Our regulatory measures are most effective when they are as simple and transparent as possible.'' I couldn't agree more, as does the gentleman from New York as well.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this particular proposal is somewhat modest in its attempt to simplify the process. It does follow the results of a review undertaken by former Fed Chair Yellen, which found a need to reduce the burden resulting from stress testing requirements. Almost everybody agrees with that, especially on our smaller financial institutions. So that is one more reason why this is needed.

I am glad the Federal Reserve recognizes the need to reform the stress test regime because, again, it contributes to a climate of legal and regulatory uncertainty when the rule of law is so critical to the foundation of our society and it is so critical to economic growth.

But in light of the Fed's announcement yesterday, it is also important to point out what the Fed did can easily be undone next week, next month, or next year. That is why it is critical that Congress has to make improvements in the stress testing regime permanent, especially for the CCAR process, which is not--I repeat, not--a creation of statute.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) has come up again with just the right bill, H.R. 4293, and it will help provide a commonsense, and, oh, by the way, bipartisan reform that will inject badly needed accountability, transparency, and targeted relief to reduce legal and regulatory uncertainty for financial institutions.

Why is this important, Mr. Speaker? At the end of the day, it is not really the banks that are the subject of these regulations. At the end of the day, it is their customers. And what this committee and what this House has to do is ensure that there is affordable and available credit to help fund people's American Dreams.

I heard from a gentleman by the name of John in my district from Mesquite, Texas. He said:

Credit helped me obtain my first home, and 13 years later,

I am still in it. It has helped us grow from one child, when

we moved in, to four. We ran into some bad times, but I was

able to withstand it all with the help of the available

credit lines that I had at the time. Without the credit, it

would have been nearly impossible to still be where me and my

family are today.

That is why it is so important, Mr. Speaker. People need credit to pay their bills, to buy their homes, to pay for their car repairs; and all of these regulations, the regulatory onslaught that has been taking place for almost a decade, makes that credit less available and more expensive. It shrinks the American Dream, and we can't allow that to happen on our watch, Mr. Speaker.

That is why it is so important that we bring some rationality to the stress test so that, hopefully, people like John in Mesquite can continue to get that line of credit. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important that we all vote for H.R. 4293 today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who is a hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee and the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), another hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the distinguished ranking member, who observed that our banks have more capital today. And this is a good thing. To the extent that Dodd-Frank had anything to do with it, I would say congratulations to the Dodd-Frank Act. But I also noticed that, for many of us, many of our banks are still undercapitalized.

And the ranking member had every opportunity to vote for the Financial CHOICE Act that would require 10 percent, far more capital than these banks that she is concerned about failing have today, but she rejected that.

She often uses the phrase ``Wall Street megabanks,'' but it is her side of the aisle that supports a taxpayer bailout fund for what she calls the Wall Street megabanks. That comes from our friends on that side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker; not on this side. She says we have to bail out these banks.

No, we don't have to. We don't have to. We should support bankruptcy over bailout. And we should support high levels of capital over incredibly intrusive Federal control, Federal control that ultimately gets resolved into less credit and more expensive credit for many of our constituents.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would add, banks have stress-tested themselves long before the appearance of Dodd-Frank. Long before the appearance of Dodd-Frank. In fact, stress tests are taking place on some group of assets at every bank in America every day. Many, many banks, particularly the larger banks, may do up to 200 stress tests a week.

What the gentleman from New York is trying to do is add some level of clarity, sanity, and reasonableness to the federally instituted CCAR process, something that can take literally 40,000 pages--40,000 pages-- can take tens of millions, if not over $100 million, to produce that could have been used to loan to our constituents to buy their home, to repair their car, to put groceries on the table, to pay for their healthcare premiums.

And some say, well, these tests have to be conducted semiannually. Why semiannually? What is wrong with annually? What is sacrosanct about semiannually? And, oh, by the way, why are we testing for both worst- case scenario and some mid- scenario?

Okay. Either you are going to survive the 100-year flood or you are not. If you can survive the 100-year flood, surely you can survive the 50-year flood. So why do we need that other test?

I mean, what we hear from our friends on the other side of aisle: Oh, my God, we can't question the Federal regulators. I mean, they come from Mount Olympus. They have this great wisdom that we can never challenge them.

Well, the truth is we are Article I of the Constitution, and we are the ones who make the law, and that is why we have hearings, and we listen very closely. We listen closely to our regulators; we listen closely to our constituents; we listen closely to market participants; and then we make judgments. We make judgments.

So, yes, there is a balance. There is a balance between economic opportunity and financial stability. We want there to be strong financial stability, but we also want there to be strong, strong economic opportunity for all of our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the Democratic cosponsor of this legislation and a proud member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes t the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who served as our vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

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

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

Well, the ranking member poses the question, ``Why?'' I can tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because Therese from Waco has written:

I would like to express my disappointment at being rejected

for a home loan, which would cost less than the house I

presently have been renting for 5 years. As a small-business

owner, I run my design studio out of my home office and take

every tax break that is legal to offset the taxes payable if

I didn't.

We do it for Sherry from Eustace, who writes:

After a divorce 4 years ago, I needed to buy a car because

my car was over 10 years old. I have a checking account in my

name, I have a savings account, but they did not loan me

money.

There is an onslaught of financial regulations that is costly, intrusive, burdensome, and is causing credit to be less available--less available--to the people who need it. That is why we do this, Mr. Speaker, week after week after week. We do it to make sure that our constituents can buy homes, that they can have cars. If they have tough times, if they lose a job, if they go through a painful divorce, that is why we do it, Mr. Speaker.

Again, stress-tests are important. That is why banks do it themselves every single week.

But the question is: How do we calibrate this?

We have used the ranking member's prescription, and that of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and it brought us 1.6 percent economic growth. Thankfully, today, with a new Congress and with a new President, we have 3 percent economic growth, and all types of opportunities are coming.

We should not listen and go back to those days. It is time to go forward to a better America with greater opportunity for all Americans. That means we have to reform the stress test to ensure that not only do we have financial stability, but we have financial opportunity as well. That is the work of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support H.R. 4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act of 2017, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member talks about the hundreds of millions of dollars of fines that these banks have paid, who have violated provisions of civil law, maybe that means the system is working. That is what ought to happen to wrongdoers. There ought to be fines.

No one can defend what happened at Wells Fargo. I hope that the current management team is cleaning up what has been a mess and what has harmed consumers for many, many years under the previous team.

But I do know this: that Wells Fargo has been fined almost a half a billion dollars already. Their former CEO had $75 million clawed back in compensation. They lost $29 billion of market value--their investors--and investigations are ongoing, as it well should be.

But I would point out that our prudential regulators continue to have full authority to enforce all of our consumer protection laws: the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, the Consumer Leasing Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Credit Billing Act. When they find violations, people are fined, as they well should be.

But what we are talking about, once again, is trying to create economic opportunity for all those who need it, to make credit more available and less expensive for people who are trying to buy a home, repair a car, and put groceries on the table.

What the gentleman from New York is saying, again, when it comes to a federally imposed stress test, after hours and hours of testimony, we believe that maybe that test ought to be administered annually, instead of semiannually. That would be a better balance. That is what is happening from the gentleman from New York.

What the ranking member's motion to recommit would do is simply water that down when all of our consumer protection laws remain fully in effect. They are working.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, I urge adoption of H.R. 4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act, from Mr. Zeldin from New York.

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

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Madam Speaker, today's bills would roll back important consumer and financial protections by undermining the effectiveness of financial regulators' ability to conduct important stress tests, create unnecessary hurdles for regulators to contend with in the future, and limit the Federal Reserve Board's flexibility in determining the health and stability of our financial institutions.

Madam Speaker, including these two measures, the Rules Committee will have considered 30 Financial Services bills this Congress, 15 of which were considered under closed rules. Those 15 are part of a much larger closed process that Republican leadership has wielded with brute force to push through the legislative priorities of powerful special interests. Indeed, this week, we witnessed the 73rd closed rule for this Congress, a style of legislating that is as brazen as it is broken.

This critique of the majority's reliance on a closed process is not just some technical point, but, rather, an important one; because when you close out those on your side of the aisle who are not in leadership and those on our side of the aisle from offering amendments, you do not simply silence us, you silence the American people.

And what has this process wrought for the American people?

Well, let's take a look. Bear with me because it is a doozy

First, we witnessed the majority--in what I believe was the most chaotic and convoluted process during my 25 years in the House of Representatives--try to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans.

When they couldn't get that done, the majority then honed in on a tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy not only at the expense of the middle class, but also to the detriment of future generations, as that bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Just last week, we watched as our Republican friends attacked Clean Air Act protections to give a handout to specified industries to emit more pollution into the air.

Is this what my Republican friends were sent here to do: To take away healthcare from millions of people? To remove important environmental protections that keep America's air and water safe? To limit the amount of stress tests the Federal Reserve Board should run on our biggest financial institutions so that we can avoid another financial meltdown?

Footnote right there. If these stress tests are so bothersome to these big old banks, how is it that they are making all of this big old money?

They don't seem to have any hindrance when it comes to sopping up the resources of this country.

Madam Speaker, my constituents haven't been calling me or writing or emailing my office asking that we consider or pass any of the measures the House will consider this week. On the other hand, they have written to my office asking what Republican leadership is going to do about addressing the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country. I was meeting in my office just an hour ago with officials from Tamarac, Florida, and we received an alert that two schools near the Parkland school were on lockdown.

My constituents have asked about what Republican leadership will do to ensure that the DACA recipients have a pathway to citizenship. They have asked what Republican leadership will do to address our Nation's needs for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure. Unfortunately, the answer is little to nothing.

Footnote right there. When I came to this Congress 25 years ago, there were 14,000 bridges in the United States of America in need of a repair. Today, there are 56,000 bridges in this country in need of repair.

Madam Speaker, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America. Let me let that soak in. Since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America.

In 2018 alone, nearly 500 teens and over 100 children have been killed or injured by guns. Last month, 14 students and 3 teachers were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by a former student using an AR-15 that he bought legally.

And just 2 days ago, American citizens took to the grounds of this Capitol and placed 7,000 pairs of shoes on the front lawn here at the Capitol. Citizens placed a pair of shoes for every child killed by gun violence since the Sandy Hook massacre. Regardless of your views on this subject, please let that number sink in: 7,000 pairs of shoes.

Madam Speaker, we should not be considering a bill to reform the Financial Stability Oversight Council. We should not be considering a measure that limits the frequency of stress tests on our financial institutions.

What we should be doing is considering a ban on bump stocks. We should be considering a ban on weapons of war. We should be considering protective orders allowing people to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis.

We should be considering a measure to provide for comprehensive background checks, and maybe this time try not to sabotage it by attaching a controversial concealed carry provision to the measure.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority is also ignoring the plight of 22,000 Dreamers who have lost their protected status since President Trump ended DACA, and the other hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who remain in legal limbo. Every day, 120 of them lose their status.

Madam Speaker, 25 times--25 times--House Republicans blocked a vote on the bipartisan Dream Act, which protects innocent Dreamers from this cruel Republican inaction. Every day of inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly made to live under the threat of being torn apart.

Madam Speaker, all across America, our infrastructure is in need of repair and greater investment. Every Member in the House of Representatives likely received a visit from members of the National League of Cities around the United States of America, and every one of them is talking about infrastructure needs. Every one of them. Yet the Republican majority has stalled on presenting a single infrastructure bill.

Even President Donald John Trump's infrastructure plan faces an obstacle: his own budget cuts.

President Trump claimed the Federal Government was investing $1.5 trillion to our infrastructure, but, in reality, the White House's plan actually only proposed $200 billion in Federal funding. At the same time, he proposed slashing critical infrastructure funding to the Department of Transportation by nearly 20 percent, and the Army Corps of Engineers' budget by 22 percent.

How does that work, Madam Speaker?

The truth is, it doesn't.

Madam Speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long and an ocean wide. I suggest the following: that we stop being forced to spend our time checking off items on the wish lists of powerful corporate special interests, and we turn to the business of the American people--Republican and Democrat, independent, conservative, and liberal American people.

For starters, we could work together to end our country's gun violence epidemic, bring relief to DACA recipients, and bring thought- out and serious legislation to the floor that will invest in our infrastructure.

Now, I am sure that my friend is either thinking or likely to say that we are here about financial services measures, and he is correct. That is what these rules call for. But what these rules are about, in the final analysis, is a diversion from things that we know are more critical.

Why, then, are we not dealing with prioritized matters that we know that the American people want, rather than those that the corporate greedy, needy, big old businesses want?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been one month since the tragic events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The district that I am privileged to serve is adjacent to that school, and I have two of my remaining cousins in life that live in Parkland, and I live within 30 minutes of where that school is situated.

A gunman killed 17 innocent students and teachers. Since that heartbreaking day, Americans from coast to coast have raised their voices and said: Enough is enough.

Yesterday, thousands of students from across our country walked out of their classrooms to protest this body's inaction. Two days ago, as I said earlier, 7,000 empty pairs of children's shoes were laid on the Capitol lawn to commemorate all the children who have been tragically killed by gun violence since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I might add, not only at schools, but in Nevada, in California, in Texas, in South Carolina, in churches, in Orlando bars, these mass shootings are occurring. People don't think it is an epidemic.

My friends on the other side of the aisle did bring a bill to the floor yesterday that I voted for that was also cojoined by my friend, Ted Deutch, whose district is where the Parkland school is. He, too, was involved with that legislation, but it was done to improve school security. Much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.

So, today, I offer my colleagues yet another opportunity to show the American people that they value their safety and the safety of their children over the lobbying of the National Rifle Association and the gun manufacturers.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research 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, ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or to others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on causes of gun violence.

Let me send a message to gun owners in this country. I own a gun. I believe in the Second Amendment. I don't want anybody to take anybody's gun; but nobody can persuade me that anybody, other than military and police officers, are deserving of having in their possession automatic weapons. I believe every American feels the same way.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my very good friend that I knew before we came to Congress together, and the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a member of the Armed Services and Budget Committees of this House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my colleague who represents my home area that I was born in, a member of the Armed Services and Small Business Committees.

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

Madam Speaker, I would advise the previous speaker that I knew Jay Dickey, I served with him here, as did many other Members; and my understanding is that, before his death, he indicated that he thought that his measure that has carried forth was a mistake.

Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle have clearly demonstrated where their priorities lie. And for the benefit of the American public, if it looks like we are ships passing in the night, then doubtless we are when it comes to priorities.

I would ask anyone in this country and anyone in this House: Which do you think should be a priority? Addressing the gun epidemic in this country or bailing out big old banks with more opportunities to potentially carry us to yet another financial disaster by simply disallowing them having to undergo the stress test that they need?

I listened to my friend when he talked about stress tests, that they don't know how they are going to be tested or what part they are going to--well, my goodness gracious. Kids in school don't know what is going to be on the test; so why should the bank know what is going to be on the test?

But in the deal, when it goes down, whether they know or not, they still are making a ton of money; and, therefore, the regulations aren't affecting them in the way that we make it sound here. And there again, I ask the question: Which is your priority, America? Whether we address gun violence in this country and the epidemic that it is or whether we address these financial services regulatory measures that are more for corporate America than they are for you?

Americans working hard to make ends meet need answers--working hard to get their kids off to school, working hard to make sure they can put food on the table at the end of the day, working hard to ensure that they can put a little money aside for their child's education, working hard to ensure that they can put some retirement money aside.

Footnote there. What are we doing to protect the pensions of people in this country? We are not addressing that. We are addressing big banks.

That they don't have to keep working two or three jobs for the rest of their lives, that is what Americans are looking for.

Well, if they are working hard, then we need to be working hard, and we need to be working hard for them. It is with their interests in mind that we are sent here, and we do a disservice to them and to our country when we abandon that responsibility and consider bills like those put before us today rather than addressing the many, many needs that this country has.

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

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