Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to honor former First Lady Barbara Bush--Barbara Bush had unparalleled style and grace. Not only was she our First Lady, but a fiercely loyal wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother.

As a fellow Texan, I am proud of her leadership for our country and her unparalleled commitment to childhood literacy. Her leadership while in the White House was impactful and her work for her foundation has helped countless children. I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Bush on a few occasions and am saddened to hear of her passing.

While she may no longer be here with us on earth, we can be certain she is with our Heavenly Father--her memory will continue to live in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 811, I call up the bill (H.R. 4790) to amend the Volcker rule to give the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System sole rulemaking authority, to exclude community banks from the requirements of the Volcker rule, 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, another day, another strong bipartisan bill presented to the House by the House Financial Services Committee.

I take great pride in that fact.

Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4790, the Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act.

I want to thank, first, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for his leadership on the issue and so many other issues in front of our committee.

And I want to thank his bipartisan partner, the Democrat gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his leadership on his side of the aisle on this very important piece of legislation.

As a result of their hard work, this bill was reported out of our committee, Mr. Speaker, 50-10, which means 80 percent--80 percent--of our colleagues on the committee supported the legislation, including a majority of the Democrats.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we enjoy, in America, the deepest, strongest, and most liquid capital markets, frankly, the world has ever known, and that helps us have a very strong, strong progrowth economy.

Our capital markets are vital; vital to the job growth and job- creating machine in America. Our capital markets provide very important funding to Main Street businesses and to entrepreneurs for short-term operations and long-term growth.

Main Street businesses, for example, like an equipment and party rental store in my district, whose owner is named Arlis, who told me, ``The number one issue for me to keep the doors open is access to capital.''

That is why it is so critical that we ensure that he has access to capital.

I also heard from Jeff from Henderson County in the Fifth District of Texas that I have the privilege of representing. He owns a farm and ranch store, and he explained, ``During the past year, I have been able to expand my business location and double my inventory. I have been able to hire additional employees as I grow. Without access to credit, things like this would not be possible.''

Just two quick little vignettes about how in our economy capital formation, access to credit, how important that is for the job engine of America.

So again, Mr. Speaker, members of the House Financial Services Committee on both sides of the aisle have been working very hard on bipartisan pieces of legislation that can result in smarter, more efficient, more effective regulation that our hardworking taxpayers expect so that we can have robust capital formation and our job creators, our small business people like Jeff and Arlis, can continue to grow and prosper.

H.R. 4790 is just one example of this type of legislation. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4790 will streamline the regulatory authority set forth in section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, a section more commonly known as the Volcker rule. It provides a framework that will provide increased regulatory clarity for entities that must comply with the Volcker rule. It does this by consolidating--consolidating-- rulemaking authority and interpretation with the Federal Reserve Board, and for purposes of examination and enforcement, designating the primary Federal regulator for a covered entity as the sole regulator in those capacities.

The challenge here, Mr. Speaker, is that some entities can have as many as five different regulators interpreting the Volcker rule and five different regulators enforcing the Volcker rule. Sometimes they conflict with each other, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly, the entity doesn't know what to do. You cannot have an economy based on the rule of law when, frankly, you don't know what the law says.

So the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) brings a very simple bill to the House floor that says we are going to have one--one--regulator in charge of interpreting the rules, and the primary regulator is going to be in charge of enforcing the rule. It is common sense. It creates efficiency.

Now, I want to be clear about one thing: H.R. 4790 does not repeal the Volcker rule. I wish it did, but it doesn't. That is not what we are debating here today.

Outside of providing important relief to community banks--bipartisan regulatory relief that, by the way, has already been approved by a strong two-

thirds of our Senate colleagues--this bill doesn't require any changes to the Volcker rule itself.

I highlight this because this legislation, again, represents something that Members of Congress should agree on, that regardless of how you stand on a particular rule or regulation, it at least ought to be clear, and there ought to be one interpretation and one enforcer of the rule so that you know what the rule is. You can't abide by the rule if you don't know what the rule is. This is only common sense, and it can only lead to, again, stronger, deeper, more liquid capital markets to help our job creators.

So regardless of whether we support the Volcker rule or we wish to repeal it, hopefully, we can at least agree that it shouldn't be unnecessarily complex and burdensome and virtually impossible to abide by. And so that, again, is what H.R. 4790 is simply trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this piece of legislation to all of my colleagues. It is a very important piece of legislation, again, strongly bipartisan. Eighty percent of the Members of the House Financial Services Committee support it.

Again, I want to commend the leadership of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say I am not sure what bill the ranking member is debating. It does not appear to be H.R. 4790, and I have my own quotes.

Paul Volcker, himself, said the Volcker rule is ``much more complicated than I would like to see.''

President Obama's Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, said: ``Implementation of the Volcker rule is, frankly, complex. . . .''

President Obama's Federal Reserve Governor Tarullo said: ``Several years of experience have convinced me that . . . the Volcker rule is too complicated.''

President Obama's former Comptroller of the Currency said the Volcker rule ``has been one of the most complex rulemakings I can remember being involved in.''

That is why we need to simplify it.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the bill's sponsor, one of the hardest working and most knowledgeable members on our committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who has come to actually speak on H.R. 4790 as opposed to H.R. red herring, the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is familiar with the eight-page bill and knows that H.R. 4790 does not repeal the Volcker rule. He happens to be the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has three more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a great member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a good member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listened very carefully to my friend and ranking member describe this parade of horribles that is going to befall our economy if H.R. 4790 is enacted, I would gently remind her that a majority of her own Members supported it. So all of these accusations that she has made against the majority party, I hope, and believe, she has, obviously, foisted upon the majority of her own Members who clearly do not support her in what she is attempting to do.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would remind all Members, contrary to the Volcker rule, that weighs in at almost 1,000 pages, H.R. 4790 weighs in at 8 pages. If you read the bill, you will discover that it does not repeal the Volcker rule. Again, I don't know what bill the ranking member was debating, but it is not H.R. 4790.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just think about it for a second. Paying your taxes--tax day is coming up--is not a pleasant time of year. And as unpleasant as that time is, think if you had to file your taxes with five different Federal agencies. Think about the fact that if you had a question about your taxes, that you had to call the Internal Revenue Service, you had to call the Department of Labor, you had to call the EPA, and you had to call the CFPB. What if you had five different agencies interpreting the Internal Revenue Code, all enforcing it in different ways? That would take one of the worst days of the year and compound it mightily.

What the gentleman from Arkansas is trying to do on the majority side, and what the gentleman from Illinois is trying to do on minority side, is say: If we are going to have a Volcker rule--one of the most complicated, complex rules ever devised by the mind of man--maybe we ought to have one agency interpret it and one agency enforce it.

Why do we do that, Mr. Speaker?

We do that so that capital can be available to the people I spoke about in my opening statement. So that Jeff and Arlis can have capital to expand their small businesses on Main Street. That is what this is all about--so that our small businesses can thrive, so that the people who want to own a home can thrive, and so that this economy can grow. This is commonsense. It is why it is a strong, bipartisan measure-- another strong, bipartisan measure that, unfortunately, our ranking member chooses not to partake in. And it is one of the reasons why, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we listen to that side of the aisle--or at least a particular voice--we will continue to have bad economic growth. We need good economic growth for all of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4790, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his friendship, and I thank him for his leadership in fiscal sanity.

Along with Chairman Goodlatte, I will be leaving Congress at the end of this year. Serving in Congress has been the greatest privilege of my life, but I leave with one great regret, and that regret is my inability to convince my colleagues of the peril of ignoring the debt trajectory this Nation is on. We cannot continue to spend money we do not have.

Mr. Speaker, my iPad is awash--awash--of reports about how our spending trajectory is unsustainable. CBO, OMB, private foundations, they all conclude the same thing: the picture of national bankruptcy is ugly.

It wasn't that many years ago that we saw it in Greece. We saw soup kitchens, padlocked factories, hospitals that could no longer turn on the lights, college-educated people forced into subsistence agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think America is going to be Greece. I wish I knew it for a fact. But here is what I do know: if we don't quit spending money we don't have, we will become a second-rate economic power, a second-rate military power, and, frankly, a second-rate authority, moral authority, as we become the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. That simply is not unintelligent; that is immoral.

Can we have that stain on our record for generations to come?

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I wish we were debating a spending limit amendment today, which is my preference; but at least the balanced budget amendment is a fair fight so that we at least do not mortgage our children's future, our grandchildren's future.

Again, there is a moral imperative. We know what Churchill once said about us, and that is:

Americans can usually be counted on to do the right thing

once they have exhausted every other possibility.

It is a humorous comment for a situation that is not humorous. We cannot wait. This is the most foreseeable crisis in America's future.

Today we can make history. Today we can ensure that we show fidelity to our Founding Fathers and to future generations and, for once, going forward, ensure that it is enshrined in our most sacred document that we balance the budget and do not mortgage our children's future.

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 780, I call up 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 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 support of H.R. 4061, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017.

I want to commend two friends, Mr. Ross from Florida on the Republican side of the aisle and Mr. Delaney on the Democrat side of the aisle, for their collective leadership on bringing forth this truly bipartisan bill, a strong, bipartisan bill, which has 58 different cosponsors, half from each side of the aisle.

Before talking a bit about the bill, there has been a lot of news today, Mr. Speaker. Part of the news, that I just could not overlook, is the fact that my dear friend and colleague from Florida announced that he would be retiring at the end of this Congress. I do want to say what a pleasure and honor it has been to work with the gentleman from Florida. I have appreciated his leadership, I have appreciated his knowledge, and I have appreciated his calm demeanor and his ability to further strong, bipartisan measures that will help create greater credit opportunities for hardworking Americans. I would say I will miss him, but I will be gone as well. Maybe he will invite me down to the Florida coast for some deep sea fishing. I look forward to receiving that invitation at the appropriate time.

Now back to business, Mr. Speaker.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council is charged with identifying emerging threats to our financial stability. However, during the previous administration, the FSOC, as it is called, went far beyond identifying this risk and, instead, just concocted incredibly irrational speculative scenarios about sectors of the financial markets that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. In turn, they have caused more harm to the financial system than added stability.

It bears highlighting at the outset that this bill does not strip the FSOC of its ability to designate a nonbank financial company as a SIFI, or systematically important financial institution. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it would be a better bill if it did. It also wouldn't be a bipartisan bill. That is not what this bill is trying to do. Rather, this bill simply brings needed transparency and accountability to the designation process.

Mr. Ross and Mr. Delaney, in H.R. 4061, do this by reversing the presumption that government bureaucrats should dictate the business models and operational objectives of private businesses in requiring the FSOC to approach the potential designation of a nonbank by encouraging companies to address the risk prior to designating them as SIFIs in order to actually reduce systemic risk.

Let me sum it up, Mr. Speaker. All this is saying is that a nonbank financial institution that the Financial Stability Oversight Council feels may be creating undue risk in the system, give them an opportunity to remedy that before you designate them as a too-big-to- fail institution backed up with a taxpayer bailout fund. At least give them an opportunity to remedy the risk that you are concerned about.

What could be more common sense? What could be more reasonable? That is why it is such a strong, bipartisan bill coming out of the House Financial Services Committee.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, applying bank-like regulation to nonbanks, such as asset managers, broker-dealers, insurance companies, and private investment funds just doesn't make sense. Nonbanks do not have access to the deposit insurance fund, they don't have access to the Federal Reserve's discount window or lending facilities. Nonbanks take far larger capital haircuts on the assets they hold. Nonbanks, when they fail, fail very differently from banks.

If an individual mutual fund were to fail, the shareholders of that fund would bear the losses, not the taxpayer. There is no reason to apply the same system to them.

So the bill would bring, again, clarity and accountability to the FSOC designation process. That should be self-evident.

To date, the FSOC has designated four nonbank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions. Today, only one remains designated and it is unclear for exactly how long.

The de-designation of these companies seems to point to a recognition that these companies do not present a potential risk that FSOC first claimed that they did. MetLife, one of them, actually challenged FSOC's SIFI determination in court, and FSOC's designation was found by an Article III judge to be fatally flawed, arbitrary and capricious, and a critical departure from FSOC's own standards.

Based on that case alone, it certainly seems appropriate for Congress to ensure there are proper guardrails put in place in this designation, because at

the end of the day, the designation doesn't just affect, again, Wall Street, it is felt directly by Main Street households who are trying to save for college, save for retirement. They would see their costs rise and their investment returns fall on a mutual fund if it was designated, simply because investors would be required to bail out other too-big-to-fail firms.

So this is a common sense piece of legislation, it is strongly bipartisan, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say as the jihad against banks continues, if you read the bill, it doesn't have to do with banks, it has to do with nonbanks. And the apocalyptic vision that is described by the ranking member is supported by a majority of Democrats on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross),

who serves as the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and is the Republican sponsor of this piece of legislation.

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

I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2-1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), the lead Democratic cosponsor of the legislation and a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who serves as the vice chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), one of the Democrat cosponsors of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds just to say I take note that the ranking member respects her Democrat Members who disagree with her, but, apparently, not enough to yield them any of her time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), yet another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close. I have no further speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, why is this important, and what does this bill do? Let me try to make it very succinct. Dodd-Frank gave the Federal Government the power to designate firms to be too big to fail and backed them up with a taxpayer fund, a bailout fund. We think that is wrong.

But that is not what this bill does. The bill doesn't repeal the bailout fund. It simply says to nonbanks--not banks, nonbanks--mutual funds, insurance companies: You know what? Before we knock you upside the head with a sledgehammer, we are going to give you a chance to get your act together.

That is essentially what this bill does. And why is that important? It is important because we have people who are trying to capitalize small businesses. It is important because we have people who are trying to save for their retirement. Enhanced prudential standards, which is the legal term of art for coming down with a ton of bricks onto a company, that can cost people.

In fact, it has been estimated that these enhanced prudential capital requirements imposed with a SIFI designation, a too-big-to-fail designation on a mutual fund, could trim as much as 25 percent or $108,000 for a mutual fund investor's returns over a lifetime of investing. That comes out of the pockets of our seniors. That is why this is so important.

Contrary to what you hear on the other side of the aisle, the FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, will still have full ability to designate an institution as too big to fail. But it says: You know what? Before you do that, consider some other methods: consider seniors, consider small businesses, and consider the impact of what you are going to do.

Look at what happened to GE Capital. This was one of the great financing companies in America, and they were basically a coyote in a trap that had to chew its leg off. There is hardly anything left of them. They used to fund furniture retailers, bread bakeries, Jack in the Box franchises. They provided credit to startups all over America, $31 billion in 2010 to 1.2 million small and midsized businesses, and now, next to nothing. Next to nothing, because they were designated as a nonbank SIFI.

The ranking member brings up AIG, but guess what? AIG was regulated by a Federal regulator who had full ability to stop anything they were doing for safety and soundness. And guess what? The regulator, in which many on the other side of the aisle put total faith into, they missed it. They screwed up. They said under oath in our committee: Yeah, we had full authority to stop it, and we just missed it. We just missed it.

So it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we improve this Financial Stability Oversight Council. I urge all Members to support H.R. 4061.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 787, I call up the bill (H.R. 4566) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements under such Act, 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 to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act.

Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), one of the most hardworking, enthusiastic, cheerful members of the House Financial Services Committee for all the work that he has done to advance this very strong piece of bipartisan legislation, which, incidentally, passed the Financial Services Committee again with another strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.

Now, the financial crisis led to questions, both domestically and internationally, about how to address financial stability and create a regulatory framework to mitigate systemic risk, all the while ensuring robust economic growth.

At the heart of this bill of the gentleman from Maine is a recognition that our economy can suffer when we get it wrong, when government attempts to dictate the business models and operational objectives of so many of our businesses. It is also a recognition that one-size-fits-all regulations can stifle economic growth and ultimately harm consumers and harm our constituents.

Current bank-centric standards and assessments to nonbank industries, such as the asset management industry, have needlessly saddled Main Street investors with increased costs while they are trying to save for college or retirement or some other important need, and this is perhaps no clearer than in this stress testing regime.

As a former SEC chief economist observed in 2016, who said that, in the current law, ``stress test the big banks; and, oh, you might as well go ahead and do the asset management companies.'' That is his take of what the law says.

In other words, asset management firms that, again, our constituents depend upon for their retirement security or for their financial planning are now subject to bank regulations simply because they operate under the financial services umbrella, even though such firms plainly have legal, structural, and operational characteristics that make them very, very different from banks.

By the way, none of the asset managers had anything to do with the financial crisis that brought about the legislation that we are debating in the first place. For example, unlike banks, asset managers do not have access to the deposit insurance fund or the Fed's discount window.

If that is not enough for you, Mr. Speaker, here is more. Asset managers are legally separated--legally separated from the funds they manage, meaning that the asset and liabilities of the manager are distinct from the assets and liabilities of the funds.

On the other hand, the bank business model directly subjects the bank to the risks and obligations of its assets and liabilities. Again, applying a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure--in this case, a bank-centric model--is not only bad for the asset management industry, but, far more importantly, for our constituents that they serve, who choose to save and invest.

Registered funds are the investment vehicle choices for millions of Americans seeking to buy a home, pay for college, plan for financial security and retirement. Application of unnecessary, ill-suited, bank- centric stress testing requirements to register funds

and advisers will undoubtedly increase cost for these funds and advisers, and, ultimately, this gets passed on to investors without any corresponding benefits that we can discern.

The recent asset management and insurance report issued by the Department of Treasury confirms these concerns. The bill of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) would fix this unequal regulatory structure by exempting certain nonbank financial institutions that have not been designated for supervision by the Federal Reserve Board from the act's stress testing requirement.

Further, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for recognizing the underlying need for this relief and for working with Mr. Poliquin to offer an amendment during markup that allows the SEC and the CFTC to issue regulations to require certain financial companies they supervise to conduct periodic analysis of the financial condition of such companies under adverse economic conditions.

The approach is common sense. It is not one size fits all. It recognizes that the primary regulator of nonbank financial companies is better suited than a bank regulator to determine whether these stress tests might be useful to address risk. And it recognizes that, as a general matter, stress testing asset managers is difficult and often needless.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this great bipartisan legislation. I believe we have an amendment forthcoming from the ranking member, which I expect our side of the aisle to support. I am led to believe that, with the adoption of her amendment, she would support the underlying bill. I hope that proves to come to fruition, in which case we can have a very strong bipartisan vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), who is the vice chairman of our Financial Services Committee and the chief deputy majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that anybody from North Carolina, after being beaten by Texas A&M by 21 points, would make any allusion to basketball whatsoever. I trust our next speaker will not make that mistake.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who is the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who is a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4566, the legislation from the gentleman from Maine. I want to commend him once again. He is one of our most hardworking members on the committee, and he cares passionately about his constituents in Maine.

I also want to commend him for once again working on a very bipartisan basis. He has managed to change his bill from its original concept many times to try to garner more support from the other side of the aisle.

With the acceptance of the ranking member's amendment, again, I am hopeful that we will have a very, very strong vote in the House. Again, this came out of committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-8.

Mr. Speaker, very often we debate regulation. I think that now, fortunately, we have a 3 percent growth Tax Code which has been passed by Congress, but, unfortunately, I do not believe we have a 3 percent growth of finance in the banking system.

That is important. It is important to our constituents who still need credit to buy that first home, a factory worker who needs to get their transmission repaired so that they can go to work, some parent trying to send a kid to college, or people trying to plan for their retirement.

Too often, I think we have a dichotomy between regulation and deregulation, when the real dichotomy is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. It is always incumbent upon us in Congress to look very carefully at these regulations. Sometimes they look very good on the chalkboard, but in reality, they don't quite render the results or benefits that we had hoped for. So we always have to take a look at what this is doing not just to consumer and investor protection, but what it is doing to economic growth as well.

I agree with the ranking member. Stress testing is a good concept. It is one of the reasons why banks and other financial firms typically stress-test themselves daily, weekly, monthly, annually.

What doesn't make sense, though, is that there be no recognition to the cost that it imposes, as the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, was very articulate in reminding us that these submissions can cost us millions and millions of dollars. The reports are not measured in pages; they are measured by the pound. There can be 10- and 20-pound submissions of paper that we wonder if anybody ever reads.

But what especially doesn't make sense is trying to apply a bank stress test to a nonbank financial institution, particularly an asset manager. I know the ranking member was talking a little bit earlier about using an analogy to auto inspections: It makes no sense to have the home inspectors inspect your auto; it makes no sense to have the auto inspectors inspect your home.

The gentleman from Maine is ensuring that whatever stress test is applied, it is applied properly to the business model that needs to be tested for its potential stress of our financial system.

So, again, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maine for his hard work, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of H.R. 4566 because, indeed,

maybe it is not a catchy title, but it is an accurate title. As we alleviate stress test burdens, we do help investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I am not thrilled with the amendment, but in the spirit of compromise and the spirit of bipartisanship, we have worked with the ranking member and the sponsor of the legislation. It wouldn't be my preferred approach, but that is often what we do around here.

I want to thank the ranking member for working with the majority side in order to advance this, again, as a very strong bipartisan vote in the House, which I hope and anticipate with the inclusion of this amendment.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, again, I am very happy. On the other side of the Capitol, they have recently advanced a number of kind of smart regulatory measures and capital formation measures. We look forward to negotiating with our friends in the Senate. I am hoping that an overwhelming vote on a bill like H.R. 4566 is one that could be in a final package before it goes to the President's desk.

Again, I still think that, although we have all compromised a little something here, I think we all advance our principles. I think it is something that will help, actually, both financial stability and investor protection, including protecting their opportunities to have a better future.

So again, I want to thank the ranking member for working with us, and I would urge the House to adopt her amendment and adopt H.R. 4566 by Mr. Poliquin of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 115-595 to H.R. 4545 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository institutions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call up the bill (H.R. 1116) to require the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and business models of institutions into account when taking regulatory actions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with high unemployment. Thirty-seven percent of our employees

are active in community organizations, Little League,

charities, and many serve in leadership positions in these

organizations, and we also make tens of thousands of dollars

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

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

the economic engine of our community.

This banker was clearly talking about the regulatory burden.

I heard from one in Iowa:

I am a mortgage consumer lender and also the compliance

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

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

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

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

house mortgage loans.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my mailbox runneth over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good credit, but we are getting denied.

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

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

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

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

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

believe I should be able to do this.

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

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

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

overregulation of Dodd-Frank has caused my cost of business

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

Regulations cost the consumer, not the business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the people whom we are trying to help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 736, I call up the bill (H.R. 3299) to amend the Revised Statutes, the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Federal Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require the rate of interest on certain loans remain unchanged after transfer of the loan, 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 to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017, a most important goal of this Chamber. H.R. 3299 is an important bill that is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and was approved by the House Financial Services Committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 42- 17.

I would like to start out by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the vice chairman of the committee, for introducing this legislation and leading our congressional efforts to help create a regulatory framework which will encourage the growth of financial technology and expand much-needed access to credit for American small businesses and consumers.

H.R. 3299 is a legislative response to the 2015 Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, which clearly appears to have not not considered the valid-when-made legal doctrine, which is a nearly 200-year-old principle of usury law in our Republic. Again, Mr. Speaker, 200 years of settled common law upended in one court case.

In the decision, the court held that, while the National Bank Act allowed a federally chartered bank to charge interest under the laws of its home State on loans it makes nationwide, nonbanks that bought those loans could not continue to collect that interest because nonbanks are generally subject to the limits of the borrower's State.

The Second Circuit decision has caused considerable uncertainty and risk for many types of bank lending programs, including bank model marketplace lending where national banks originate loans and then transfer them to nonbank third parties.

Being able to offer consistent terms nationwide is vital to scaling the marketplace lending business, which, in turn, allows lenders to access cheaper investment capital and then pass the savings on to the borrowers who may be looking to buy their first home, start a business, send a kid to college.

H.R. 3299, again, is a commonsense bill that simply codifies the 200- year-old valid-when-made legal doctrine, which would preserve the lawful interest rate on a loan originated by a bank even if the loan is sold, assigned, or transferred to a nonbank third party.

This fundamental concept is the backbone of how fintech companies partner with banks. Without it, consumers are faced with higher costs and less availability of credit, particularly those consumers with less access to traditional lending sources.

Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. According to a recent Columbia/Stanford University study, borrowers with credit scores under 625 have seen their credit cut in half, cut in half thanks to this decision. Again, Mr. Speaker, borrowers with less than stellar credit scores have seen their credit cut in half in the territory comprising the Second Circuit. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, thanks to President Trump and Congress passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we are beginning to see this economy start to take off. We are finally seeing wages begin to grow after 8 years of failed economic policy, but so much work remains to be done for working American families.

We have heard, on our Financial Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, from so many of these families who are trying to make ends meet, and it is just vital that they be able to access credit.

Americans like Alan from New Hampshire, who recently had trouble finding credit through traditional

banks and credit unions due to the regulatory load. As he explained: ``But for my local dealer's efforts on my behalf, there is no doubt I would not be driving my current car. And this was a desperate situation, as I am the sole income earner for my family. My wife is ill, and we have two young children in school. After my old vehicle broke down, I needed to find reliable replacement transportation so I could get to work and continue to provide for my family.''

Mr. Speaker, we should not let the Second Circuit prevent Alan from getting that car loan he desperately needs in order to get to work as the sole provider for his family.

A small-business owner from Utah named Maxine applied for a loan for her 37-year-old established business so she could update and purchase equipment to support a contract that would have led to the creation of 50 additional jobs. She explained: ``Three banks informed us that our rating, according to new bank regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank, disqualified us from loan consideration.''

Fifty jobs, poof, gone, Mr. Speaker.

So is not Dodd-Frank bad enough? Now we are going to add this Second Circuit opinion to deny credit, which, for lower credit score individuals, has cut credit opportunity in half?

I don't think so. I don't think so. It is not up for the unelected to make such decisions.

We cannot continue to allow, Mr. Speaker, Washington red tape and the Second Circuit to cut off credit opportunities for hardworking Americans. As the bill says: ``We must preserve and protect consumers' access to credit.''

I urge every Member to support this very important bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), vice chairman of the committee and sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say to the gentleman who says this is a majority bill, I would also point out it is supported by Congressman Meeks, Democrat from New York; Congressman Clay, Democrat from Missouri; Congressman Scott, Democrat from Georgia; Congressman Cleaver, Democrat from Missouri; Congresswoman Moore, Democrat from Wisconsin; Congressman Perlmutter, Democrat from Colorado; Congresswoman Sinema, Democrat from Arizona, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), the vice chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, number one, just for the Record, it is Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania and Mr. Pittenger from North Carolina. Since we serve with these colleagues, it would be nice to learn their names.

Mr. Speaker, what the ranking member is proposing is to take away credit opportunities for those who need it the most.

The greatest credit program is a competitive marketplace. And, unfortunately, the policy that she is advocating, this Second Circuit court case, has cut credit opportunities in half. That means people are paying more. In many respects, this is a more usurious result than what the ranking member is otherwise claiming will happen without the Second Circuit decision.

Again, I alluded to it in my opening statement, but we have the definitive academic study. We don't have to guess at this, Mr. Speaker. They studied those with lower credit scores in the Second Circuit.

And what did they find out?

I will quote from the study. The results presented in figure 3 indicate that the FICO increase was caused by a decline--a decline--in lending to lower quality borrowers.

Thank you, Second Circuit.

The pattern is most obvious for the lowest quality borrowers, those with FICO scores below 625. The growth rate for these borrowers in Connecticut and New York was a negative 52 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that means they had their credit opportunities cut in half. So exactly what the ranking member says that she wants to do to help these people, she is hurting these people; taking away their opportunities to buy a home or taking away their opportunities to buy a car when they may be the sole breadwinner for their family; taking away opportunities, perhaps, to send somebody to college.

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

And then this so-called radical bill of the gentleman from North Carolina, I would note it is a Democrat bill in the Senate. The exact companion bill is carried by a Democrat Senator, Senator Warner from Virginia. It is a Democrat bill. It is bipartisan. It is supported by at least nine Members of the ranking member's party that sit

with her in our hearings. Clearly, they heard something she didn't hear.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that what the Second Circuit has done is change settled law that has been settled law for over 200 years; that will completely not only cut credit opportunities in the Second Circuit, but cut credit opportunities all over America.

We cannot allow that to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say: Apparently, Mr. Meeks is abusing these consumers, as is Mr. Clay, as is Mr. Scott, as is Mr. Cleaver, as is Ms. Moore, as is Mr. Perlmutter, as is Ms. Sinema, as is Mr. Heck, and as is Mr. Gottheimer, all Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee that actually support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say-- with the exception of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney)--I don't see any of the committee Democrats on the floor, even those who are supporting the ranking member's position.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member has lamented that she has heard from few Democrats on this matter, so let me take the liberty of quoting from Congressman Greg Meeks, a Democrat from New York, the lead Democratic cosponsor of the bill, who said, during markup:

This bill would facilitate such affordable lending to those

who need it the most.

He goes on to say:

H.R. 3299 is a community bank bill. Fintech firms have

partnered with small community banks and provided these

institutions with technological expertise needed to contend

with larger competitors. In fact, I'm aware that there are

fintech firms engaging with Black-owned banks who have

benefited tremendously from new technologies.

Congressman Meeks goes on to say:

H.R. 3299 is also a small-business bill. According to the

Urban Institute, 34 percent of my constituents in Jamaica,

Queens, who have bank accounts rely on alternative financial

service providers, including rent-to-own agreements and

refund anticipation loans because they have unmet lending

needs. Madden does little to help these underbanked

individuals. Instead, it shuts the door to more affordable

bank loans facilitated through partnership models.

Madam Speaker, I could go on, but what we are trying to do here is assure that what just happened in the Second Circuit, where credit opportunities are cut in half, doesn't happen nationwide. The hardworking men and women of America deserve better, and so we must support H.R. 3299.

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

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