H.Res. 905

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 204, the Federal Right to Try Act. This is dangerous legislation that threatens FDA's authority over ensuring that medical treatments are safe and effective. This bill needlessly exposes vulnerable patients to the risks of unproven medications.

We heard last night in the Rules Committee from my Republican colleagues that we must accept and pass this legislation because the Senate is unable to pass a bill that passed the House earlier this year. That House bill was bad enough, but this Senate bill is much worse. I cannot fathom why my Republican colleagues are surrendering to the Senate and agreeing to pass a more dangerous version of the right- to-try legislation.

The Senate bill, like the House bill, establishes an alternative pathway for experimental treatments that eliminates any review from the Food and Drug Administration and scientific and medical experts of an independent review board. This will provide fly-by-night physicians and clinics the opportunity to peddle false hope and ineffective drugs to desperate patients.

At a hearing before our committee, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb cautioned that S. 204 risked ``exposing people to unwanted side effects from experimental therapies.''

Now, supporters of this bill would have you believe that this legislation is targeted at those with terminal illnesses, but this is simply not the case. S. 204 would, in fact, apply to a much broader range of patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions. And the term ``life-threatening disease or condition'' could include chronic and often manageable diseases, such as diabetes or chronic heart failure.

If all patients with diabetes and other chronic but manageable illnesses were eligible, it would greatly expand the scope of the legislation well beyond the scope of most State laws and FDA's expanded access program. This exposes an even greater number of patients to risk and undermines our clinical trial program by diverting patients from trials that could support full approval to the alternate pathway.

Commissioner Gottlieb also cautioned Congress that this legislation risked ``undermining a regulatory process that has been carefully crafted over many years to strike a very careful balance.'' The Commissioner noted that S. 204 would not subject all participants to the alternate pathway to critical regulatory requirements, such as labeling products as investigational, charging limitations, and restrictions on promotion and commercialization of such treatments.

S. 204 could also impede the FDA from taking action against manufacturers and others that violate other provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under this bill, if a bad actor is not in compliance with good manufacturing practices or does not protect against intentional alteration--adulteration, I should say--or allows dishonest or misleading labeling, the FDA will not be able to take any enforcement action.

But, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, this Federal right-to-try bill simply is not necessary, in my opinion. FDA has an expanded access program and has an approval rate of nearly 100 percent.

To be clear, FDA's high approval rate is not just a rubberstamp for these applications. Of the applications FDA receives and approves, it also adjusts applications for 11 percent of patients to improve patient safety protections. This could include modifying the dosing, strengthening informed consent, or improving safety monitoring.

We must protect patients from bad actors or from dangerous treatments that might make their lives worse. Without this critical review, there will not be any oversight to ensure that patients are not being taken advantage of or put in harm's way.

The main reason this bill is being pushed is to chip away at FDA's authority to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our drugs.

FDA oversight of access to experimental treatment exists for a reason: it protects patients from potentially snake oil salesmen or from experimental treatments that might do more harm than good.

By removing the FDA oversight, you are counting on physicians and manufacturers to serve as the gatekeeper and protector of our patients. I simply don't buy that that is going to work.

Supporters of this bill want to blindly believe that there are no bad actors out there, but imagine someone like Martin Shkreli promising a dying patient a cure that could save their life. Under this bill, FDA would play no role in determining whether or not Martin Shkreli could provide that drug to that dying patient.

If S. 204 is signed into law, patients will be taken advantage of and will be harmed. Bad actors exist, and this Republican bill gives them the opportunity to prey on desperate people who are, understandably, looking for any treatment that may help save their lives.

Now, let me also point out that the supporters of this bill claim to be helping desperate patients who are looking for hope. If this is such a patient-centered bill, why does every major patient organization overwhelmingly oppose it? Where is the call from patients for this legislation?

More than 100 patient organizations, including the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Friends of Cancer Research, and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, sent a letter to Congress just yesterday opposing this legislation. In the letter, they stated: ``The Senate version of the legislation is less safe than the pathway proposed in the House version and is dangerous compared to the current expanded FDA access process.''

Four former FDA Commissioners from both parties also oppose this Republican legislation, noting: ``There is no evidence that either bill''--that is the House or the Senate--``would meaningfully improve access for patients, but both would remove the FDA from the process and create a dangerous precedent that would erode protections for vulnerable patients.''

Mr. Speaker, S. 204, I know, is a key agenda item for the President and the Vice President; but I think it is dangerous for our patients, and it is an unprecedented attempt to roll back FDA's oversight of investigational treatments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with more than 100 organizations that have come forward to oppose this misguided and, I believe, harmful legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the vice ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to the previous speaker on the Republican side.

I don't understand how the gentleman can say that the expanded access program will continue even under right to try.

The problem is, sure, on paper it will continue, but there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to go to the FDA. If the FDA is now out of the picture and all you have to do is find somebody who manufactures a drug or treatment and get the doctor to say, ``Okay, I will administer it,'' then you don't need to go to the expanded access program.

You see, the problem is that the gentleman assumes that people will go to the FDA and they will know that the expanded access program exists. I think the very nature of this legislation, which basically says that you don't have to go to the FDA, is going to mean that people won't even know that that is an option. And if they can get somebody to give them the drug without going to the FDA, they will just do it.

Let me just say this. I know the gentleman referred to the FDA's bureaucrats. I guess you could say that the people at the FDA are bureaucrats, but the FDA existed because, for many years before then, in the 19th century and early 20th century, all kinds of snake oil and things were advertised and promoted in the papers and in magazines, saying that this is going to cure that, this is going to cure that, and people demanded that there be some kind of Federal oversight as to whether drugs or treatments actually are effective, whether they have harm, whether they are toxic. That is why the FDA was started.

So I guess I just don't understand, because the bottom line is there is very little evidence that there is any significant number of people who are denied treatment or drugs because of the expanded access program. At least then they know that some agency has looked at this to see whether it is harmful, whether it has some negative impact.

The great concern that those of us on the other side of this issue have is that without the FDA, there is no guarantee that what somebody gets as a form of treatment is actually going to be meaningful, not be harmful.

So I don't want to prolong my response to the gentleman, but I do think that you have to understand that those of us on this side of the aisle actually think that the FDA has a purpose and actually performs an important function, and I don't think we should deny that. I think it is unfortunate that there are those who think that somehow the FDA is not doing its job.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to respond to the previous Republican speaker. He made three comments that disturb me.

One, he said that people should be able to try things, try the drugs or the treatment, when the benefits outweigh the risks. But how are they going to know that when the FDA isn't involved?

When the FDA goes through various phases of clinical trial, not only phase

one, which determines whether something is toxic, but beyond, to determine whether it is effective or whether it has harmful effects, then you do know. The FDA basically will tell you: Yes, the benefits outweigh the risk, and that is why we have an approval process in general for drugs, and that is why we have the expanded access, so that the FDA can look at it and say: Okay. Maybe you are going to risk this, but we want to make sure that you have some protection.

The gentleman said that the FDA process is complicated or time consuming. First of all, there is an emergency process where you can simply get on the phone or the doctor gets on the phone, and within 24 hours you can be approved.

But on the other hand, if it is not an emergency, the average approval time is 4 days. So I don't know how he can say that this is time consuming.

And then the last thing he said is that there is consent, that the doctors and the manufacturers have to agree. But who is going to enforce this?

Right now, because the FDA has to go through the expanded access process, the FDA has the enforcement. They can say: We are going to grant this; we are not; we are going to provide some safety or other protections.

But if the doctor and some fly-by-night manufacturer decide that they want to give you this drug or treatment, who is going to enforce that? How do we know that the doctor is legitimate? How do we know that the manufacturer is not selling snake oil?

Once the FDA is out of the picture, there is no way for the patient to know whether the doctor is unscrupulous, whether the manufacturer is unscrupulous. There is no review. There is no enforcement whatsoever.

So, again, this is the problem once you take the FDA out. I understand there are some that don't like the FDA, don't think maybe they should be involved. But in the absence of the FDA, I don't know how you possibly could know whether this thing is going to help you, whether the benefits outweigh the risk, whether there is a bad actor involved, either with the doctor or the manufacturer.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues on the other side to understand why so many of us over here have been so upset by this proposal today.

As I think I said before, the House bill was bad enough. The Senate bill is worse for at least two reasons.

One is our concern, on the one hand, that rather than these drugs or treatments without FDA approval would be handed to just terminally ill patients, that the Senate bill says that it would apply to people who have life-threatening situations.

And the FDA and the commissioner of the FDA have stated quite clearly that they are concerned about the expansion from terminal to life- threatening, because it could be that people who have diseases like diabetes, severe diabetes, or chronic heart disease, for example, could make the argument that their situation is life-threatening, and, therefore, they can go and get these experimental drugs without FDA approval.

So that is a huge loophole that is very disconcerting.

The second thing is that the prohibition, if you will, on promotional activity with these investigational drugs is taken out by the Senate bill.

So the worst thing of all, we talk about snake oil and advertising, is now is some unscrupulous doctor or manufacturer now going to promote this and say: Well, if you take this, this may save your life?

So that is why the Senate bill is worse.

But I want to go back to the whole idea. The problem that I have with all this is that once you take out the FDA, and the FDA is not involved anymore, the way this bill is set up, how do I know, if I am the patient and I hear from some doctor or through some promotion or whatever, that there is something that might help me, and I am desperate, how do I know that the doctor that I go to or the manufacturer who is promoting this drug, that this is actually not a bad actor, not somebody who is taking advantage of the situation because there is no FDA approval?

In other words, who is going to determine whether this person's life is threatened or whether they are terminally ill? There is no FDA. Who determines that?

Who is going to determine whether this drug has any effectiveness at all?

Well, some of my Republican colleagues say: Well, it has to go through phase one, but phase one clinical trials could have 20 or 30 people. They are sometimes very small.

The FDA doesn't really have any ability to control those clinical trials. Sure, they have some oversight over clinical trials, but there are clinical trials that take place all over the country with very few people, and sometimes the drug manufacturers who are experimenting with these trials, with these small groups, are not necessarily known manufacturers or large ones that we know will be safeguarding these drugs or treatments.

So I just think the problem is, when we talk about snake oil and bad actors, it is almost as if the Republicans assume there are no bad actors.

Because if you assume that there are, which I do, and there are bad actors who are going to promote something that is not going to be effective or is going to harm somebody, and that there is a manufacturer who is not someone we know, who is going to determine whether or not they are a bad actor or what they are doing?

You need to have some kind of enforcement. You need to have somebody who is supervising this. Otherwise, it is any man for himself decides: I will try this drug. It went through phase one. Maybe it is not toxic.

So I really worry that this debate on the other side of the aisle is not taking into consideration that there always are going to be people who want to take advantage of the situation and sell something that they are going to make a buck on that is not necessarily going to have any real oversight in this situation.

So that is my fear. That is my fundamental fear about this bill, that these situations are going to arise, nobody is going to be in charge, nobody is going to know what is going on, and then the person is going to either die earlier or have some awful impact, and then they are going to say: Oh, how come the FDA didn't approve it? Or maybe they are going to assume the FDA approved it, and there is no FDA. They are gone.

Mr. Speaker, in any case, I would urge my colleagues to oppose what I consider very harmful legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 905 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 905 provides for the consideration of three important bills aimed at protecting our country, reducing regulatory burdens in the financial sector, and allowing patients who have nowhere else to turn with another option to potentially save their lives.

These three bills, taken together, show House Republicans' commitment to putting Americans' interests first.

Today's rule provides for a structured rule to begin consideration of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. The resolution grants 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

In addition, as the first of two likely rules on the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, the rule provides for the consideration of 103 amendments to the defense bill.

Along with the Defense Authorization Act, the resolution today provides for a rule for House consideration of S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the Senate- passed bipartisan bill to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on community and local banks by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation.

The legislation went through rigorous debate in the House and the Senate, and it mirrors in many ways the House-passed CHOICE Act, passed by the House in the summer of 2017 under the stewardship of Financial Services Chair Jeb Hensarling.

Moreover, the resolution before us provides for a rule to allow the House to consider the unanimously passed Senate bill, S. 204, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017.

This legislation, highlighted by the President during his last State of the Union address, has been a top priority of the President for the Congress, allowing terminally ill patients a last chance at survival using a carefully crafted FDA process.

H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, would authorize appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, as well as prescribe military personnel strengths for the next fiscal year.

This critical piece of legislation, one of the most important bills that any Congress will consider in any year, provides the resources and the direction necessary for our men and women in uniform to do what they do best: protect and serve our country throughout the world.

As will be discussed by many Members of this body over this week, this bill touches on all aspects of military policy, from the Middle East to the Korean Peninsula to the Arctic waters.

Among the hundreds of amendments the Rules Committee is likely to make in order on this legislation, I am pleased that, once again, my amendment, offered with Ms. Lee, Mr. Lance, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Jones, Mr. Welch, Mr. Lewis, and Ms. Schakowsky, will again be made in order. This continues to push the Department of Defense to finally complete a full audit of its finances, as required by law.

S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, corrects some of the more egregious provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation.

The bill focuses on regulatory relief on smaller financial institutions--namely, community banks and credit unions--so they can more readily meet the needs of their local communities without burdensome Federal regulations stifling their economic growth. This places the focus of the financial institutions back on their customers instead of completing paperwork and answering to agencies in Washington, D.C.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our final bill in today's rule, S. 204, will look familiar to many people here today, as we are again considering legislation that would bring hope to terminally ill patients across our country.

A similar bill, H.R. 5247, passed this House in March. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats have refused to act on H.R. 5247, the revised version of the Right to Try legislation, which passed the House 2 months ago on a strong bipartisan vote.

As this body had heard earlier this year, Right to Try was the one piece of legislation that President Trump came and stood in the well of this House and specifically promised to the American people in his State of the Union address.

Today, I will say again what I said in March when we first took up Right to Try: I stand with the President and I stand with the thousands of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their friends in getting this important policy to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, when we pass this bill today, it doesn't go back to the Senate. It has already been passed by the Senate. It goes immediately down to the White House for a signature and becomes law.

Here is an interesting fact. In the last couple of months since the House passed its Right to Try bill, even more States have joined this strong grassroots movement. Now, 40 States, including my home State of Texas, have passed and signed a version of Right to Try into law.

In nine other States, a version of Right to Try has already been introduced, including the State of New York, which is the home State of the minority leader of the United States Senate.

Last year, the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing on access to investigational drugs where S. 204 was discussed. At that time, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and other advocacy groups expressed concerns on the various Right to Try bills introduced in the Senate and the House.

So, when the President asked the Congress to act, the House responded by holding multistakeholder discussions with patient groups, medical research advocates, and the administration in order to improve the original Right to Try bill. I want to commend Chairman Walden for leading these negotiations.

I am also proud of the revised Right to Try legislation that the Energy and Commerce Committee produced because the policies were sound, and I believe it was a positive step forward in granting access to new treatments while allowing additional input from the Food and Drug Administration.

Unfortunately, the minority party on the other side of the Capitol, Senate Democrats, said ``no, thank you'' to the revised House bill. While I am not surprised by their decision, I think the American people, particularly patients

with terminal diseases and their loved ones, would not be satisfied with a ``no, thank you'' nonaction by Congress on such an important issue.

Today, the House is ready to act for the American people and will be considering S. 204, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017.

This passed the Senate unanimously last August. This bill will offer terminally ill patients a chance at life. After it passes this House, it will be signed into law.

Our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific breakthroughs recently and over the course of the last decade. American patients have widespread access to innovative treatments, thanks to researchers and our academic institutions and those working in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Despite these achievements, we continue to hear from patients with serious, life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from north Texas, who remain frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers from trying new therapies when everything else has failed them.

As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for loved ones diagnosed with very difficult diseases.

This crossroads where our Nation seems to be--when a potentially lifesaving treatment, while not approved, both exists but remains unavailable--is an important debate that we are having for these Americans. To them, it is not only a matter of life or death but another chance to spend more time with their children, grandchildren, parents, and other family members.

Some of the opponents of Right to Try point to the Food and Drug Administration's current expanded access program, which is aimed at helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials gain access to therapies that the agency has yet to approve.

While this program makes a good faith effort to help patients, we can do more by passing Right to Try and creating an alternative pathway for these patients to access eligible investigational drugs.

Additionally, we know that many individuals may not qualify for a clinical trial if they do not meet strict patient inclusion criteria, which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of their disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions.

There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far from the clinical trial sites.

Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition fall into one of these categories. This legislation that we are doing today allows these patients to participate in an alternative pathway, opening another door to investigational drugs that does not exist today.

While there are a few differences between S. 204 and the House-passed Right to Try legislation, the underlying policies between the two bills are very similar.

For example, only certain investigational drugs are considered eligible under both bills. In order to qualify, the drug must have completed a phase one clinical trial; have an active application at the Food and Drug Administration; be under active development or production by a manufacturer; and not have been approved, licensed, or cleared for sale under current law.

Also, both bills require reporting of serious adverse events, having written informed consent to the treating physician, and notifying the agency when a sponsor provides an investigational drug.

Lastly, Commissioner Gottlieb at the Food and Drug Administration recently expressed support for the Senate-passed Right to Try bill being considered today and said that his agency could ensure an appropriate level of patient safety through guidance and rulemaking.

In other words, while the Food and Drug Administration may have some additional work, the key point is the agency can achieve the proper balance of ensuring patient safety and granting access to new investigational drugs.

I think the Commissioner would agree that we would have preferred the revised House Right to Try legislation, but doing nothing is currently not an option. Hundreds of thousands of Americans with terminal illnesses and their families are looking for us to act. I support restoring hope for these patients and giving them a fighting chance at life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this esteemed body to support today's rule and all three underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for purposes of rebuttal before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

As a point of situational awareness, as of last week, in this Congress, over 1,000 amendments have been heard on the House floor: 47 percent Democratic, 41 percent Republican, 15 percent bipartisan.

For a point of reference, the last term that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, the 111th Congress, less than 1,000 amendments for the entire Congress. We passed that milestone prior to last week. We will continue to hear amendments on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes for the purposes of a response.

I would, of course, lead with the observation that those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it. I don't remember precisely who said it, but I think it bears repeating today.

In the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats allowed less than a thousand amendments to be considered on the floor.

Of the bills that were considered at that time, the Dodd-Frank bill was one of those bills. The amendments that were blocked by the Democrats in the 111th Congress were precisely the type of amendments that we are now considering today in the bill to alleviate some of the obstructions, some of the gridlock that has occurred with our credit unions and smaller banks--things that people have been asking us for repeatedly for the last 5 to 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, the number of amendments that were blocked in the 111th Congress was significant. We have a chance today to undo some of that process, and I believe we ought to take that opportunity. As of 1\1/2\ weeks ago, over a thousand amendments had been made in order in this Congress.

The Committee on Rules is run differently today than it was in the 111th Congress. It used to be that you had to submit 45 copies of an amendment and you had a time limit by which you had to submit those amendments. You can submit amendments late now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to myself.

Chairman Sessions has been very accommodating in allowing us to bring amendments to the Committee on Rules late.

There is no clock in the Committee on Rules, as the gentleman well knows. You can talk as long as you want in the Committee on Rules about your amendments, and you can offer whatever amendments you prefer.

The process is not ideal, but it is important that we move forward with these important reforms that people have been asking us for years. And, today, that day is at hand, and those reforms will be delivered.

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

Mr. Speaker, seeing no more speakers on my side, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again want to reiterate, the Rules Committee has spent hours listening and considering Member testimony. We have welcomed over 225 Members to testify during this Congress, and roughly 493 times have made over 1,000 amendments in order, including 474 from Democrats, 383 from Republicans, and over 150 which were bipartisan amendments.

The rule today is important, three important pieces of legislation.

The National Defense Authorization Act. Our number one priority when we are elected to this body is the defense

of our Nation, and we are authorizing that expenditure today.

The bill to reform the financial services institutions is one that has been requested by small banks and credit unions for years, and this body is today prepared to deliver.

Then finally, the Right to Try Act. The President stood in the State of the Union message and said that it was not correct that people had to go to other countries in order to get the medicines that they needed to prolong their lives. He wanted that to end, and today we are taking the step to end that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the three underlying pieces of legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 210.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures that are in this combined rule are matters of substance that do need to be addressed, and I will get back to it in a moment.

Several of my colleagues will join me today in recognizing a historic moment in this particular body in this great country of ours.

Madam Speaker, let me recognize that tucked inside this rule is the majority's 83rd and 84th closed rules of this Congress--and we are just in May--with more to go.

That is a historic number because it makes the 115th Congress the most closed Congress ever. My Republican friends have made history for all the wrong reasons.

But we should not let this milestone go unrecognized right from the very beginning, because it is a sad point in this Chamber's history. It is why we have ignored virtually every major issue the public cares about. It is why this Congress can't get anything done. It is why we are so dysfunctional.

It is clear to me that the majority has turned a deaf ear, which is absolutely shameful. Please know this: 1,793 amendments offered by Members of this body have been denied.

When I came to Congress in 1992, there was an echo chamber from the right talking about the Democrats' closed rules. Quite frankly, at that time, I did not understand that dynamic. I arrived here, and during that particular session of Congress, we did have open rules, but there were closed rules as well.

When Nancy Pelosi was last Speaker, we had 12 open rules. This Speaker, our now lame-duck Speaker, up to this point, has been and is the only Speaker of the House of Representatives never to have an open rule. What that means is not just Democrats have been shut out but Republicans have been shut out.

Day in and day out, night in and night out, in the Rules Committee, Members offer up meaningful suggestions to this Congress, and they are denied. That is not denying the Member of Congress; it is denying the people those persons are here to represent and who expect them to advance measures that are pertinent to their respective communities.

There will be Members who will talk about the shamefulness of the kinds of amendments that have been denied.

This particular measure authorizes $647 billion in base budget authority for defense programs in the coming fiscal year, as well as an additional $69 billion in overseas contingency operations.

The legislation comes on the heels of the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law in February, which increased the budget caps for defense and nondefense spending for 2 years.

The legislation provides, rightly, a 2.6 percent pay raise for Active-Duty troops, the highest such raise in 9 years. It strengthens the Military Health System, provides assistance to local educational agencies servicing military dependent students, and improves the Transition Assistance Program to provide servicemembers better tailored resources and information as they prepare to enter civilian life.

I was glad to see that this NDAA establishes a prescription drug monitoring program in order to prevent opioid abuse within the military, a proactive step that will help our country combat drug addiction.

What is important about this particular measure is the chairman, Chairman Thornberry, and the ranking member, Adam Smith, have worked together, along with the members of the Committee on Armed Services, to

produce a bipartisan product. It proves it can be done.

This is a bipartisan measure, and most Members in this body will have amendments that will be made in order and will have an opportunity to present their ideas how to better sustain military readiness. That is as it should be.

But there are members of the Committee on Armed Services who belong to other committees of jurisdiction. In those committees of jurisdiction where few hearings are held, no bipartisan effort is undertaken, they are shut out just as well as the rest of the members of the other jurisdictions.

Every jurisdiction in this Congress should be bipartisan and should have input from both parties.

And I find it passing strange that I hear voices saying that Democrats are obstructionists. Obstructionists of what? We can't even get amendments made in order.

The only thing we have left that we can do is voice our objection to the kind of closed process that we have witnessed during this particular session of Congress. I hope the American public understands how much their Members are being denied an opportunity to represent them.

In terms of military readiness, the fiscal year 2019 NDAA dedicates substantial funding toward cutting-edge military capabilities and countering emerging threats through investments in cyber and space. The bill includes funding for thousands of additional Active-Duty troops and authorizes important funding for military construction and infrastructure.

You know what it doesn't include and what it won't? There will be Members who will offer that we have an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Seventeen years have passed since we have had a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress should be declaring war, not Presidents.

And it doesn't mean this President. The three or four before him operating in this Congress were allowed to go forward under the aegis of a 17-years-ago Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I was also pleased to see an improved commitment to Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this year's package--schools that are critical to ensuring a pipeline of highly skilled, diverse college graduates into the United States Armed Forces.

This bill also takes significant steps to support our allies. It provides $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative and declares that it is the policy of the United States to counter Russian influence campaigns.

The bill also imposes additional sanctions on Russia for violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it renews authority in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and fully funds Israeli missile defense partnerships.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we can be proud of in this NDAA. Unfortunately, despite all of these important investments, there are a few provisions in this bill that raise serious concerns.

I have already spoken to the failure to pass a new military-use-of- force measure. The one that we have is overly broad, and Members have never had an opportunity to vote on a new one, even as we commit to military engagements overseas.

Members on both sides of the aisle agree that an up-or-down vote on a new AUMF is long overdue. So this is the time and the place to do it. My colleague Barbara Lee, I am sure, and my colleague on the Rules Committee Jim McGovern, I am sure, are going to offer measures that will accomplish that.

I am also particularly alarmed that this legislation repeals the Federal ban on military production of low-yield nuclear weapons. Repealing this 15-year ban and pursuing low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles will have significant ramifications for global security.

Additionally, the NDAA includes a number of provisions targeting DOD's fourth estate, which refers to nonmilitary portions of the Department of Defense. These provisions affect human resources, information systems, and other important services that affect the day- to-day lives of our servicemen and -women as well as national readiness.

Under this bill, these offices are targeted with an unrealistic and unnecessary spending cut, setting up a sequester-like automatic 25 percent reduction to critical support functions.

Madam Speaker, this brings me to the second measure, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Under the pretext of providing relief to community banks, this bill rolls back important financial and consumer protections and provides a giveaway to large Wall Street banks, allowing them to skirt enhanced regulations aimed at protecting our economy from another financial crisis.

The third measure, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, exposes more patients to harm and further sidelines the Federal Drug Administration's ability to oversee investigational treatments than the bill passed by the House in March.

In fact, during the Rules Committee hearing in March, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Walden and Health Subcommittee Chair and fellow Rules Committee member Burgess had reservations about this measure, which is why the House took up the more narrowly focused bill in the first place.

Madam Speaker, last Friday, there was another school shooting. Again, America watched in horror as students and teachers fled their classrooms from a murderous gun rampage. Again, community leaders and government officials offered thoughts and prayers. Yesterday, we offered a moment of silence. Again, calls for stricter gun control laws and heightened school security returned.

We all know that this will happen again to our young people. And for that reason, I can state emphatically and without fear of having to correct the Record that the Republican leadership of this House has not only abdicated their responsibility to the American people and our children but their common sense as well.

No other country in the world has as many guns, as many homicides, or as many mass shootings as we do. There is simply no more time to waste. We need to be considering a ban on bump stocks. We need to be considering a ban on assault weapons.

And don't anybody tell me we can't ban assault weapons. We did that when I first came to Congress. We banned assault weapons, and the kind of mass killings we have seen went down after we did that.

We need to be considering protective orders allowing people to petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis. We have seen evidence of that working when Florida passed its law. One week after that law went into effect, a person had his guns removed who would have been a harm to himself and to others.

We need to be considering comprehensive background checks, and we can't stop there. We need to increase access to mental health services. We need to eliminate the feeling in this country that seeking help carries with it some sort of stigma.

We need to learn to recognize the danger signs and offer a clear course of action. We need to teach students about conflict resolution.

And we need to do more about civility in this Nation, in this House. And we should be its leaders, not standing and offering a moment of silence and returning to do nothing, as we have done, shooting after shooting, mass shooting after mass shooting, in this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about but that have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Madam Speaker, just to respond briefly to Mr. Burgess, it is a good thing that they made a handful of amendments in order that added up to 1,000. If we went through it, they would look like studies and things that were not significant; but when it came to the healthcare measures or when it came to tax reform, not one amendment by a Democrat was made in order.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut

(Ms. DeLauro), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time both parties have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial Services Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed rule and the real people affected by the GOP shutting down our democratic process.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act.

This legislation would overhaul our broken campaign finance system and return to a government of, by, and for the American people.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the Financial Services Committee, to continue the discussion of commonsense issues that we all care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend, a former member of the Committee on Rules who is now a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about that have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend, who also serves on the Committee on Agriculture, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Texas that I am prepared to close if he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to look at this chart. Rules under Speaker Ryan: structured rules, 44 percent; closed rules, 56 percent; open rules, zero. That is what we are talking about.

As with all bipartisan measures, this NDAA has many things to like and some provisions that are causes for concern, but it did demonstrate that there can be bipartisan cooperation in order to safeguard our national security, and that should be the case in every one of the jurisdictional undertakings here in Congress.

I commend the committee for once again tackling such a major legislative package, but sadly, this approach is far and away the exception to the rule around here.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to address gun violence in this country. Gun violence has overtaken our country. We have a moral responsibility to every child who now attends school thinking about, not if a school shooting will happen, but when it will happen to them. This responsibility is not owed to them at our leisure, it is not owed to them next month or next week or tomorrow, but today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the remarks that I prepared, I think I had better share this information with my colleagues. The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from that so-called tax bill that we passed, which we know was the Republican tax scam law.

Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers, investors, and our economy. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in 9 million people losing their jobs, 11 million people losing their homes to foreclosure, and the loss of $13 trillion in wealth. It was an economic catastrophe that must never be repeated. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to help this President dismantle reforms that are designed to protect us from that kind of devastation to communities.

Republicans are trying to pass this bill off as an effort solely designed to benefit small community banks. But the truth is, the bill is packed with poisonous provisions that benefit the megabanks like Wells Fargo and companies like Equifax. It also weakens critical mortgage protections to ensure borrowers can afford their loans, and prevent discrimination and fraud.

One of the most harmful elements of this bill is its weakening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, referred to as HMDA, which is a key tool to detect and prevent discriminatory practices in the mortgage market. S. 2155 would allow 85 percent of depository institutions to avoid ever having to report new HMDA data required by Dodd-Frank, even though they are already collecting the data, badly undermining efforts to ensure fair lending.

But that is not all. This bill guts many of the protections Democrats put in place to reduce the risk of bank failures and bailouts and ensure that bank failures don't bring down the economy. It weakens stress tests and capital requirements for big banks, and undermines supervision of large foreign banks like Deutsche Bank.

There is more. Despite Equifax's carelessness in exposing the personal data of 148 million Americans, S. 2155 rewards Equifax and the other two national credit bureaus by funneling more business their way. It also takes away Active Duty servicemembers' rights to sue the credit bureaus, even if the bureaus fail to provide required free credit monitoring, or notify them of scams involving their personal information.

Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the many ways the bill would be harmful. Republicans have stacked the bill with provisions that have nothing to do with benefiting hardworking Americans and everything to do with helping out Wall Street.

Donald Trump and the Republicans already gave a huge gift to big corporations with the tax scam, which came at the expense of hardworking Americans. Now they are pushing this rotten giveaway to Wall Street and big banks that harms consumers and increases the risk of another financial crisis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. I have to say this over and over again: $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the tax scam bill that was passed.

These banks are just greedy. They will never get enough. They want to do away with Dodd-Frank because Dodd-Frank is protecting consumers from their fraud. Look how much money they are making. All they will tell you is this is all about community banks.

But let me just tell you that community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits, an average of $167 billion in annual profits in the last 3 years. Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending. Credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Mr. Speaker, what more do they want? How much more money do they want from consumers? What is it they would have us do? What is it they would have us get rid of in Dodd-Frank that is protecting the average consumer, everyday working people? What would they have us do so that they can make more money?

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the Senators are saying they wish that they had never voted for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the senior member of the 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 gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a very hardworking progressive leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many speakers he has remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again share with you what should be breaking news tonight: the FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018 and reported that banks made more money than they ever have.

Mr. Speaker, $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the Republican tax reform bill that we have called a tax scam law.

The community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits--an average of $167 billion in annual profits the last 3 years.

Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending, and the credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Despite all of that, we have this pay of CEOs of banks that represents so many times more than the median salary in their banks. Specifically, Wells Fargo's CEO made $17.4 million in 2017, 291 times the company's median salary. This is in spite of the fact that Wells Fargo has a track record of consumer abuses while demonstrating that the numerous fines imposed upon the bank have not been a sufficient deterrent to stop its pattern of appalling practices.

Let me just identify some of those practices: opening 3.5 million fraudulent credit card and deposit accounts, for which they were fined $185 million. It was so bad that former Chair Yellen capped the bank's size until it cleans up its act.

In addition to that, they were found to have illegal student loan servicing practices; inappropriate checking account overdraft fees; unlawful mortgage lending practices, such as overcharging veterans for refinance loans; and charging customers for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in some customers losing their vehicles.

They were fined $1 billion, but it really doesn't make them any different. It is just a cost of doing business.

Yet we have my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who come and ask us to be lenient on the banks, to do away with the Dodd-Frank reforms, and to forget about what happened in 2008. Somehow it is all right for these greedy banks to continue the practices that they have. Despite the fact that Dodd-Frank reined them in, they are doing very well.

S. 2155, again, is not a community bank bill, and it certainly does not help consumers, so we should not pretend that that is the case. Instead of considering improvements to this Senate bill or advancing narrowly tailored relief, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rubberstamping S. 2155 and advancing a Wall Street wish list that could jeopardize the stability of our country's financial system.

So, instead of considering a bill to address concerns raised by community banks, one that I am sure could easily pass both bodies with overwhelming bipartisan support, House Republicans have instead decided to take up a bill that is largely designed to fulfill the agenda of Wall Street's megabanks. Passing this bill with broad support would send the wrong message to regulators to accelerate their deregulatory efforts for Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that megabanks have once again piggybacked onto the substantial goodwill and support that exists to help ease the regulatory burden for community banks.

S. 2155 is a dangerous measure that weakens key consumer protections and will make it harder, not easier, to combat unfair mortgage lending practices. The bill takes advantage of people just trying to make ends meet for the benefit of the largest banks that are making record profits.

Make no mistake: I support our Nation's community banks and credit unions, and I support tailored regulatory relief for those institutions. That is a fact that I have made clear through my support of numerous individual measures which have advanced through this Congress, as well as through my community bank regulatory relief bill from last Congress.

I will continue to oppose any efforts to use regulatory relief for community banks as a vehicle to ram through deregulation for bad actors and megabanks.

If my words and the words of my colleagues here today are not enough of a warning, then I would urge Members to listen to the pleas of hundreds of consumer, civil rights, veteran, religious, and labor groups that strongly oppose S. 2155.

Though some of my colleagues in Congress may have short memories, the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their wealth during the 2008 financial crisis did not.

So I oppose this bill. I want the Members of Congress to stand up on this very important legislation and say to the greedy banks and the megabanks: No, you are not going to get away with these kinds of actions anymore.

Everything that you have done to try to undermine the Dodd-Frank reforms have resulted in more groups coming out to say: Congress, when are you going to stop these banks? They are making plenty of money. They are increasing their profits. Their CEOs are making high salaries. What more do you want from them?

I think that our consumers deserve better than any attempt to try and relieve them of those regulatory actions that would support our consumers. I would ask for a resounding ``no'' vote on this bill that would only feed into the greediness of the major banks of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I call up the bill (S. 2155) to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, 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 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, far too many people in our country have struggled to make ends meet. They have struggled to buy a car. They have struggled to buy a home. They have struggled--they have struggled for their version of the American Dream.

I hear from these people frequently, Mr. Speaker. I hear from Colton in Terrell, Texas, who said that he and his wife have been unable to get a mortgage due to credit and that they were 25, 30 years old and they had good credit but they were getting denied. They needed a home to provide a sense of stability, but they couldn't get it due to Washington's bureaucratic regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from Dirk in Dallas. He said he used to have a $100,000 line of credit from his bank. He had an unsecured signature line of credit that he used for working capital for his small business. He often paid it down to zero, and cash flow was ample, but then the bank canceled it because of the bureaucratic government burden on the banking system.

I heard from Sherry in Eustace, who said:

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

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

name at my credit union, but they didn't loan me money for

the car.

Mr. Speaker, we hear these stories far too often. The Main Street banks and credit unions that these people depend on have been suffering for years under the weight, the load, the volume, the complexity, and the cost of heavy Washington bureaucratic red tape. They haven't been able to serve these people to help get them into homes and to help get them into cars.

As one west Texas banker told me, Mr. Speaker: ``My major risks are not credit risks, risk of theft, or risk of some robber coming in with a gun in my office, my number one risk is regulatory risk.''

We have been losing a community bank or credit union every other day in America and, with it, the hopes and dreams of millions. But today, that changes. Help is on the way with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most pro-growth banking bill in a generation. You would have to go back to 1999 to Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Although we didn't have a formal conference with the Senate, I am proud that over half of the bills in this package, including three-quarters of the regulatory relief provisions, came from the House. These are the provisions to help hardworking, struggling taxpayers get into home mortgages, get into car loans, and get into their small businesses. This is what will help drive 3 percent economic growth, which is the birthright of all Americans.

Today is an important day in the history of economic opportunity in America, and I encourage all of us to support the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the leading voice in Congress on trying to bring rationality to the SIFI designation and accountability to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the lead voice in the House for capital formation for our start-ups and small businesses, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the author of the Family Self-Sufficiency provision in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the vice chairman of the committee and the Chief Deputy Whip of the majority and author of two provisions of S. 2155 to promote capital formation and hold credit bureaus fully accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade and the author of two provisions on access to manufactured housing and portfolio lending in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the committee's majority whip and the author of the amendment dealing with the Volcker rule.

Mr. Speaker, I now am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to give more flexibility to private companies and small banks with respect to their call reports.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to bring clarity to the complex capital rules and flexibility to our savings associations.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the author of the MOBILE Act, Making Online Banking Initiation Legal and Easy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the author of the key regulatory relief provision for small banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the author of two provisions in S. 2155, the Senior Safe Act and supporting capital formation for small companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a fellow Texan who is an incredibly strong advocate on our committee for small business to obtain credit for their customers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), who is the author of a key regulatory relief provision to provide small banks the opportunity to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is the author of two key regulatory relief provisions for our community banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on this side.

I believe I have the right to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since Dodd-Frank was passed, the big banks have become bigger and the small banks have become fewer. Free checking at banks has been cut in half. Credit cards: 200 basis points more, 15 percent fewer. Many creditworthy borrowers are having to pay almost $600 more for their auto loans.

Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is shrinking. We have 1.6 percent economic growth, stagnant paychecks, decimated savings, and a diminished American Dream. That is the legacy of Dodd-Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe 10 percent of what I heard from the other side of the aisle. I wish it did gut Dodd-Frank. It didn't. You can't find something in here. It is hard, challenging, to find anything in this bill that helps what the ranking member calls the so- called Wall Street megabanks.

Mr. Speaker, listening very carefully to this debate, it is clear that there are some voices that appear to be driven by their loathing of banks and credit unions, and there are other voices that are driven for our love and respect of our fellow citizens, hardworking taxpayers like Dirk in Colton and Sherry, who I mentioned in my opening statement, who are trying to capitalize a small business, who are trying to buy a car that is 10 years old, who are trying to buy that home. It is their American Dream, and they are being challenged due to this law.

I have heard so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, I believe in taking away bureaucracy and red tape from community financial institutions, and I believe in bipartisanship.

Well, they may believe in it, but they are not voting for it. The opportunity is right here in front of us with S. 2155, a strong, bipartisan bill that has come over from the United States Senate. So, again, they claim they believe it in theory; they just don't believe it in practice.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, 3 percent economic growth counts. If you look at the history of our Republic, 3 percent growth is where all the job creation takes place. It is where the paycheck increases take place. It is where the poverty reductions take place. It is the birthright of the American people.

Thankfully, due to the leadership of our President and this Congress, we now have a 3 percent tax policy. We need a 3 percent regulatory policy, especially for our community banks and our credit unions, who help finance the American Dream for all of our citizens.

We should join in unison on this historic day to pass S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, for the help of all our citizens.

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

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