structure could occur in a country like the united states which prizes the rule of law and adherence to due process. former senator phil graham testified before a senate panel and said the following, i quote, what does the stress test test? know, but s no one the know, but the regulators see that as a virtue. the feds' vice chairman has stated giving banks a clear road map for compliance might make it easier to game the test. but isn't the fact that compliance is easier when you know what the law says the whole point of the rule of law? the stress test improvement act inserts much needed transparency into the testing process. it alters current regulations to make sure the -- the internal company-run test an annual exercise. it streamlines the number of scenarios which aback may be tested while ensuring banks are still tested on whether they are able to withstand a seriously adverse scenario. ed to-frank was born out of an

effort to prevent another collapse of our financing institutions like we experienced in 2008. unfortunately, the broad president bush stroke regulatory regime it produced had many unintended consequences. hardest hit were our small community banks and credit unions. there were also unforeseen negative impacts on larger financial institutions as well. the bills made in order by this rule restructure portions of dodd-frank that have resulted in unreasonable regulation of our financial institutions. they preserve consumer protections while providing the certainty needed to reduce compliance costs and expand the ability of these organizations to provide the best and safest financial services to americans. i urge my colleagues to fast this rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. good morning. i thank the gentleman from colorado, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

and i yield myself such time as i may consume. today's bills would roll back important consumer and financial protections by undermining the the the effectiveness of financial regulatory -- regulators ability to conduct important stress tests, create unnecessary hurdles for regulators, to contend with in the future, and limit the board's flexibility in determining the health and stability of our financial institutions. madam speaker, including these two measures the rules committee will have considered 30 financial services bills this congress. 15 of which were considered under closed rules. those 15 are part of a much larger closed process that republican leadership has wielded with brute force to

push through the legislative priorities of powerful special interest. this week we have witnessed the 73rd closed rule for this ongress. afoul of legislating that is as brazen as it is broken. this critique of the majority's reliance on a closed process is not just some technical point, but rather an important one because when you close out those on your side of the aisle who are not in leadership, and those on our side of the aisle from offering amendments, you do not simply silence us, you silence the american people. and what has this process wrought for the american people? let's take a look. introduced because

first we witnessed the majority in what i believe was the most chaotic and convoluted process during my 25 years in the house of representatives. we witnessed them try to take away health care from 23 million americans. when they couldn't get that done, the majority then honed in on a tax giveaway to corporate america and the ultrawealthy. not only at the expense of the middle class, but also to the detriment of future generations. as that bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. and just last week we watched as our republican friends attacked clean air act protections to give a handout to specified industries to emit more pollution into the air. is this what my republican friends were sent here to do? toe take away health care from

millions of people? to remove important environmental protections that keep america's air and water safe? to limit the amount of stress test the federal reserve boards should run on our biggest financial institutions so that we can avoid another financial meltdown? footnote right there, how is it if these stress tests are so bothersome to these big old banks, how is it that they are making all of this big old money? they don't seem to have any indrans when it comes to -- indrens when it comes to sucking up the resources of this country. madam speaker, my constituents haven't been calling me or writing or emailing my office asking that we consider to pass any of the measures the house will consider this week. on the other hand, they have written to my office asking

what republican leadership is going to do about addressing the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country. i was meeting with officials in my office just an hour ago and we received an alert that two schools are near the parkland school were on lockdown. my constituents have asked about what republican leadership will do to ensure that the daca recipients have a pathway to citizenship? and they have asked what republican leadership will do to address our nation's needs for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure. unfortunately, the answer is little to nothing. footnote right there, when i came to this congress 25 years ago, there were 14,000 bridges n the united states of america

in need of a repair. today there are 56,000 bridges in this country in need of repair. in need of a repair. today there are madam speaker, since 2014 there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in america. let me let that soak in. since 2014 there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in america. n 2018 alone, nearly 500 teams over 100 and three teachers were gunned down at marjory stoneman douglas high school by over 100 childre have been killed or injured by guns. last month 14 students a former using an ar-15 that he bought legally. just two days ago, american citizens took to the grounds of this capitol and placed 7,000 mares of -- pairs of shoes on

the front lawn here at the capitol. citizens placed a pair of shoes for every child killed by gun violence since the sandy hook massacre. regardless of your views on this subject, please let that number sink in. 7,000 pairs of shoes. madam speaker, we should not be considering a bill to reform the financial stability oversight council. we should not be considering a measure that limits the frequency of stress tests on our financial institutions. what we should be doing is considering a ban on bump stocks. we should be considering a ban on weapons of war. should be considering protective orders allowing people to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis. we should be considering a measure to provide for comprehensive background checks. and maybe this time try not to

sabotage it but attaching a controversial conceal carry provision to the measure. madam speaker, the republican majority is also ignoring the right -- plight of 22,000 dreamers who have lost their protected status since president trump ended daca. and the other hundreds of thousands of dreamers who remain in legal limbo. every day 120 of them lose their status. 25 times, madam speaker, 25 times house republicans blocked the vote on the bipartisan dream act which protects innocent dreamers from this cruel republican inaction. every day of inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly made to live under the threat of being torn apart.

madam speaker, all across america our infrastructure is in need of repair and greater investment. every member in the house of representatives likely received a visit from members of the league of city around the united states of america. and every one of them is talking about infrastructure needs. every one of them. yet the republican majority has stalled on presenting a single infrastructure bill. even president donald john trump's infrastructure plan faces an obstacle. his own budget cuts, president trump claimed the federal government was investing $1.5 trillion to our infrastructure. but in reality the white house 's plan actually only proposed $200 billion in federal funding. at the same time he proposed

slashing critical infrastructure funding to the department of transportation by nearly 20%, and the army corps of engineers' budget by 22%. how does that work, madam speaker? the truth is it doesn't. madam speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long and ocean wide. i suggest the following. that we stop being forced to spend our time checking off pow on o the wish list of -- on the wish list of powerful corporate special interest and turn to the business of the american people. republican and democrat, independent, conservative, and liberal american people. for starters, we could work together to end our pow -- on country's gun violence epidemic. bring relief to daca recipients, and bring thought out and serious legislation to the floor that will invest in our infrastructure. i'm sure that my friend is

likely to ing or say that we're here about financial services measures, and he's correct. that's what these rules call for. what these rules are about in the final analysis is a diversion from things that we know that are more critical. why, then, are we not dealing with prioritized matters that we know that the american people want rather than those that the corporate likely to say that we're here about financial greedy, needy, big old businesses want. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: i thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, for yielding to me. i rise in strong support of this important rule and in support of two underlying bipartisan bills

that will improve our banking system and help grow our nation's economy. h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act and h.r. 4061, the financial stability improvement act of 2017. these are two essential pieces of legislation that cleared the committee of on financial services with bipartisan support. i'm the sponsor of the stress test improvement act along side my democratic colleague from georgia, congressman david scott. stress tests are one of the aspects of current law that are contributing to the climate of legal and regulatory uncertainty because the federal reserve has failed to provide the necessary transparency around this process. this bipartisan bill will inject transparency, consistency and fairness into the stress testing process. without needed reform, rather than ensuring financial

stability, the federal reserve stress tests are likely missing real risks while constraining the flow of financial services that is critical to increasing economic opportunity. while results may be creating a false sense of security while at the same time sowing the seeds of financial stability. in order to succeed, a stress test must build from an accurate forecast of the next macroeconomic storm and sometimes the best forecasts tend to be wrong. this was amended in the committee markup with unanimous support with every committee member, including the ranking member. the amendment offered by mr. scott of georgia that we accepted focused the bill on core reforms to the stress testing process that will make the rules more transparent, effective and fair. we are not gutting standards but making them work for the real

world. this bill is a bipartisan team effort to accomplish those goals. and so, it is the other bill covered by this rule. the fsoc improvement act. i urge the passage of both of these important bills. and thank you, mr. buck, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. it has been one month since the tragedy. the district i'm privileged to serve is adjacent to that school. and i have two of my remaining cousins in life that live in parkland. and i live within 30 minutes of where that school is situated. a gunman killed 17 innocent students and teachers. since that heartbreaking day, americans from coast to coast

have raised their voices and said enough is enough. yesterday, thousands of students from across our country walked out of their classrooms to protest this body's inaction. and two days ago, as i said earlier, 7,000 empty pairs of children's shoes were laid on the capitol lawn to commemorate all the children who have been tragically killed by gun violence since the 2012 sandy hook elementary school shooting. i might add, not only at schools , in nevada, in california, in texas, in south carolina, churches, in orlando, bars these mass shootings are occurring. and people don't think it's an epidemic, while my friends on the other side of the aisle did bring a bill to the floor

yesterday that i voted for that was also co-joined by my friend ted deutch, whose district is where the parkland school is, and he, too, was involved in that legislation but it was done to impositive school security and much more needs to be done. and it needs to be done now. so today, i offer my colleague yet another opportunity to show the american people that they value their safety and the safety of their children over the lobbying of the national rifle association and the gun manufacturers. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring four commonsense gun safety bills. house resolution 4240, the public safety and second amendment rights protection act, check 64, the background

completion act, h.r. 2598, the gun violence restraining order act and h.r. 1478, the gun violence research act. these bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or to others can be prevented from possessing a gun and lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on causes of gun violence. and let me send a message to gun owners in this country. i own a gun and i believe in the second amendment and i don't want anybody to take anybody's gun but nobody can persuade that anybody but military and police officers are deserving are

having in their possession automatic weapons. i believe every american feels the same way. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: to discuss our proposal, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to my very good friend that i knew before we came to congress together, from south carolina, the distinguished assistant democratic leader, mr. clyburn, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: i thank my good friend for yielding me the time and thank you so much for amending the time. madam speaker, this rule fails to make in order four significant measures to address the gun violence epidemic that is plaguing our nation. in addition to closing the gun

show and internet sale loopholes and the background check system, lifting the prohibition on federal research into gun violence and creating a process to prevent dangerous individuals from owning firearms, the amendment includes my legislation to close the charleston loophole, which allows gun sales to be completed even if f.b.i. investigations are still going on to determine the outcome of a background check. the tragic consequences of this loophole were demonstrated on une 17, 2015, when a hate-filled gunman opened fire at historic emmanuel a.m.e. church in charleston, south carolina, killing nine and injurying three others. in that fateful instant, the

shooter attempted to buy a firearm on april 11 and was initially delayed due to possible red flags in his criminal record. despite the investigation not being completed in three days, was allowed to purchase the weapon. the f.b.i. later discovered the shooter would not have been allowed to purchase the firearm due to his documented history of drug abuse and had they been able to complete the background check. madam speaker, the consequences are too great to allow loopholes like these to persist. we have laws on the books to prohibit dangerous individuals like the shooter in charleston, from buying weapons. but these loopholes prevent them

from being enforced. thousands of weapons are sold each year through the charleston loophole alone. in fact, i read over 6,000 such weapons have been sold through this loophole. i appreciate the many of my colleagues have signaled they are supportive of improving the background check system, but no amount of improvement will protect the american people if all the loopholes are allowed to exist. for almost three years, the people of charleston south carolina and across the country have been demanding a vote from this house on closing the charleston loophole. they have yet to get one. i urge my colleagues to allow this body to take a vote on closing the loophole and giving the american people the protections they need and

deserve. i urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i yield five minutes to the sponsor of h.r. 4061, the entleman from florida. mr. ross: i rise in support of the rule and underlying legislation, the financial stability oversight council improvement act of 2017. when folks save for retirement, college or downpayment on a house they expect the system is safe and geared towards maximizing their benefit. a beautiful thing is how anyone can participate in the marketplace, strengthen the economy and earn a dividend of the american dream. that opportunity, however, is

not guaranteed and as lawmakers we have a duty to protect it. my bill would help us do just hat by improving the financial stability process by from potential system threats. designating more doesn't make our system. fsoc can work with prudential regulators to address threats to our economy before they transform into calamenties. would you say it is sufficient to identify a house on fire. of course not? this is the problem we face with nonbank financial institutions. it may identify tinder boxes but fails to explain how they may be less flammable and defaults to the heavy handed regulations of last resort.

they have begun to leverage the expertise as well as providing providing increased transparency. they have taken steps to improve the designation process including the february, 2015 guidance providing increased transparency in the nonbank sifi process. these reforms were welcome and this will codify them into law and provide a path for nonbank financial company to eliminate risk. it will ensure that the primary regulator has a primary role. after eight years if we address the shortcomings, the regulator intended to protect financial stability could very well become a liability. additional capital requirements sifi si finch -- designation could amount to

$100,000 of potential savings. that's why these reforms included in h.r. 4061 are critical to the 90 million investors who rely on the services of asset management firms. companies must have a chance to derisk before they can saddle their customers with extraordinary losses. this bill will give them that opportunity. i'm proud to work with my colleague and friend, john delaney on this strongly bipartisan piece of legislation and i thank chairman hensarling for his support and leadership in moving this bill through our committee and onto the house floor. it has 58 original co-sponsors. our bill demonstrates there can be broad bipartisan support for increased transparency. with that, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the chair will receive a message from the senate. >> madam speaker, a message from

the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed an act to provide regulatory relief and enhance consumer protections in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: good to know that the senate is doing something. i'm very pleased i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. carbajal, a member of the armed services and budget committees of this house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carbajal: thank you. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan gun violence restraining order act. after the parkland, florida, shooting tragically took the lives of 17 students and educators, students across the country have stood up and said enough is enough. they have demanded that

congress act to prevent these horrific acts of violence. since parkland, n.r.a. officials, republican lawmakers and even the president have repeatedly said that we need to disarm individuals who pose a threat to themselves or their community. those postings on social media are telling friends and family that they plan to take the lives with a gun. gbro laws do just that. that is why california passed these protections after the shooting at isla vista and now florida is considering similar legislation in the wake of the parkland shooting. only a handful of states currently have legal processes to temporarily remove those firearms. the gbro act encourages other states to follow their lead. to empower family members or

law enforcement officials to petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis. no one law will be a panacea, but that is not an excuse for inaction. since its introduction, the gbro act has gained significant support from my colleagues in the majority. speaker ryan, we're calling on you to bring the bipartisan gbro act to the floor for a vote. our children's lives depend on it. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: yes, madam speaker. i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, my colleague from lorida that represents my home area that i was born in, stephanie murphy, member of

armed services and small business, three members -- three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. murphy: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you to the gentleman from florida for yielding. america has always been a nation of problem solvers. when our country is confronted with a seemingly impossible challenge, we tackle it head-on. we conduct research. we examine evidence and we perform studies and we don't quit until we've made meaningful progress. from reducing automobile and aviation deaths to eradicating deadly diseases, we always rise to the challenge. in each case, a serious problem was claiming too many lives, and american determination based on rigorous research helped solve or mitigate that problem. however, there is one place where we have deviated from this proud american tradition and abandoned an evidence-based approach to addressing america's most pressing challenges and that is when it

comes to the problem of gun violence. homicides in this country occur as part of the daily drumbeat of violence in our communities. they also take place in the context of mass shootings, like the recent tragedies at pulse and parkland where a single individual transformed a place of life into a war zone. let me be clear. gun violence is a plague upon this nation and must be treated like the public health crisis it is. instead of confronting this problem with courage and candor, congress has coward in fear. for over 20 years, a single sentence known as the dickey amendment has added to the -- has been added to the annual bill that funds the c.d.c. and other federal agencies. we can debate the exact meaning of this amendment, what it does and does not allow but the reality is that federally response -- sponsored ways on research gun violence has come to a grinding halt. i introduced a bipartisan bill

to repeal the dickey amendment and it currently has 170 co-sponsors. there are many steps we can take right now to protect our communities and our children while respecting the second amendment. one of these steps should be to empower our nation to fund individual, unbiased gun violence research that will lead to policies that save lives. it's the right and patriotic thing to do. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: and i reserve. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i would advise through you my friend from colorado that i have no further speakers and i am prepared to close. mr. buck: i have no further speakers and i am also prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i would urge the previous speaker, i knew jay dickey. i served with him as did many members and my understanding is before his death he indicated

that he thought that his measure that has carried forth was a mistake. madam speaker, my friends across the aisle have clearly demonstrated where their priorities lie. and for the benefit of the american public, if it looks like we are ships passing in the night, then doubtless we are when it comes to priorities. and i would ask anyone in this country and anyone in this house, which do you think should be a priority -- addressing the gun epidemic in this country or bailing out big old banks with more opportunities to potentially carry us to yet another financial disaster by simply disallowing them having to undergo the stress test that they need? i listened to my fwrend when he talked about -- friend when he

talked about stress tests, that they don't know how they are going to be tested or what part. well, my goodness gracious. kids in school don't know what is going to be on the test so why should the bank know what's going to be on the test? but in the deal when it goes down, whether they know or not, they still are making a ton of money and, therefore, the regulations aren't affecting them in the way we make it sound here. and there, again, i ask the question -- which is your priority, america -- whether we address gun violence in this country and the epidemic that it is or whether we address these financial services regulatory measures that are more for corporate america than they are for you? americans working hard to make ends meet need answers. working hard to get their kids off to school, working hard to

make sure they can put food on the table at the end of the day, working hard to ensure that they can put a little money aside for their child's education, working hard to ensure that they can put some retirement money aside. footnote there, what are we doing to protect the pensions of people in this country? we are not addressing that. we are addressing big banks. they don't have to keep working two or three jobs for the rest of their lives, that's what americans are looking for. well, if they are working hard, then we need to be working hard, and we need to be working hard for them. it is with their interest in mind that we are sent here and we do a disservice to them and to our country when we abandon that responsibility and consider bills like those put before us today rather than addressing many, many needs that this country has. i urge a no vote on the rule

and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank my friend for his support of the stop school violence act yesterday, along with 406 of our colleagues that passed overwhelmingly. madam speaker, dodd-frank unleashed a torrent of regulation on our financial institutions. while it is understandable that people reacted strongly after the 2008 crisis, most of the federal response heaped needless red tape onto our banks and credit unions. much of this red tape at best has done nothing to improve the security of financial customers and at worst deprived americans of crucial capital and financial products. it is important that we rein in the federal government and allow our financial institutions to invest their resources in our communities. these two bills today continue the regulatory reforms that the

house has advanced since last year. i thank chairman hensarling and chairman sessions for bringing these bills to the floor today. i urge support of the rule and the underlying bills. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? hens madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting amendment umber 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 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 773, i call up h.r. 4545 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 447, h.r. 4545, a bill to amend the federal financial institutions examination council act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository institutions, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house rule 773 an amendment printed in part a of

house report 115-595 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. after one hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part b of house report 115-595 if offered by the member designated in the report which shall be considered as read, shall be separately -- equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver. each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i rise today in very strong

support of h.r. 4545, the financial institutions examination fairness 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. 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. this creation is important for our nation's banks and credit unions who will be able to appeal 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 increase the safeness and soundness of the financial system overall while ensuring they can access capital resources they need to grow and create jobs. 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 cole to help sure these regulations are tailored to the financial institution. the result has been catastrophic. this regulatory burden of which this is part has been resulting

in the closing or merger of one community bank or credit union a day on average. and again, they are not being lost financial causes. our community financial institutions serve as the backbone of our american economy and we simply cannot afford to lose them. 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, quote, this one size fits all approach is simple minded and has real consequences. we are making changes that will negative changes to help them meet their equity needs. and we know that a number of banks and credit unions have had to leave mortgage lending

because of the regulatory burden. and there is city credit union in wisconsin who said, quote, 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. he c.e.o. of commonwealth bank in tennessee thade there are fewer community banks than there were a few years ago. unless changes are made that will provide some relief to america's hometown banks. again, we are hearing this plea every single day. and so there is good reason why h.r. 4545 was reported by this committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 50 to 10

including a majority support of the democrats on the committee. again, the bill is strongly bipartisan. it is practical. it is necessary. h.r. 4545 will allow financial institutions to have supervisory determinations reviewed by newly established independent examination review board. this will allow for uniformity among regulatory agencies 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 depen, 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 buying your own home, starting your own business, sending that first kid

to college, it is imperative we enact h.r. 4545 and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4545. today, we are considering yet another measure that would weaken our system of financial regulations and bog down -- let regulators do their important work. it would ultimately take us right back to some of the problems that led to the largest financial crisis since the great depression. the bill puts financial institutions' profits before the protection of consumers. and the best interests of the american public. i rise, madam speaker, to say to members of both sides of the aisle that we must remember the past as we create policies.

i was here during that entire period and it created a very, very heavy darkness over this entire country. in the years preceding the financial crisis, the federal reserve failed to write rules stopping risky mortgage loans. o.t.s. preempted state regulators from waning in mortgage abuses. regulators failed to stem excesses at large companies and did not downgrade troubled companies until it was too late. legislation such as h.r. 4545 sets the stage to return us to an ineffective regulatory system. and so we come to the day and republicans have made it a habit to falsely claim that their legislation is designed to benefit small community banks and credit unions. and there are some things that could be changed to improve

dodd-frank and to provide response i will relief for small community institutions, which i believe we all recognize did not cause the financial crisis. i have said in our committee and i will say openly in any other place including on the floor here, that there are some things we can repair in dodd-frank. but what this bill would do is give all regulated financial institutions an additional way to appeal and thereby postponematerial supervisory determinations of their prudential regulator and consumer financial protection bureau. in other words, messy mega banks and other big financial firms could appeal and delay adverse determinations such as a downgrade of a bank's credit rating for capital asset quality, and sensitivity to the market risks. it would enable them to appeal

significant deficiencies of eir ain't money laundering programs and or a downgrade of their community re-investment act ratings. let's think about this. some banks would be allowed nder this bill to appeal the o.c.c. the well deserved downgrade of its rating. wells fargo would be allowed to unleash its army of lawyers to not only fight against the rating but to tie the o.c.c. up in proceedings. and we all know when the banks spend millions on legal teams each year, deploy those resources, that they deploy them to win. and if they win, american consumers lose. but let's focus on c.r.a. c.r.a. was intended to ensure that institutions were making loans and providing services to low-income neighborhoods in

which they were located to address the problems of red lining and as highlighted in a recent report, red lining is not just some realic of the past, sadly, painfully, embarrassingly, red lining appears to be still very much an ongoing troubling problem that continues to harm many minority mortgage loan borrowers in cities all across the united states of america. this bill will make red lining worse and that will happen because instead of trying to improve their ratings and end discriminatory practices, banks will challenge these ratings and bully their own regulators into submission. now this may be unintentional, as i would presume to believe, but this bill ignores the fact that prudential regulators and the consumer bureau each already

have an agency's ombudsman and intraagency review and appeals process. messy mega banks already have existing avenues to bring a court challenge to any formal regulatory enforcement action. what this bill would do is create unprecedented barriers to the affected prudential supervision of the messy mega banks and give messy mega banks and predatory lenders including yday lenders to resist regulations of violations of law. and the bill would allow these financial institutions to bog down agencies with frivolous appeals. n a letter op hosting h.r. 4545, the national consumer law center wrote that the bill would be most pronounced at the

largest banks who could appeal hundreds of material findings from every examination creating enormous roadblocks through supervision. the bank supervision process has been the first line of regulatory defense against threats to a bank's safety and soundness for a century or more. h.r. 4545 creates unprecedented roadblocks to the effectiveness of bank supervisory determinations and could be devastating to effective regulatory oversight in areas arranging from prudential oversight to key consumer protections that make our financial markets fairer. unquote. the congressional budget office found that h.r. 4545 would increase the deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars, by hundreds of millions of dollars. it would increase by hundreds of millions of dollars. hundreds of millions of dollars it would increase. millions of dollars would be

increased, because banks would be more likely to fail and need government assistance. in sum, 4545 would weaken our financial system of financial regulation and in so doing it would set the stage for a return to the captive hamstrung regulatory system that existed in the years before the 2008 financial crisis that enabled the risky profit-fueled activities of large complex, messy mega banks and others on wall street to go unchecked. i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose 4545 and reserve the remainder of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tech as is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds as he recounts parade of horrible horribles this was supported by a majority.

including mr. crist, mr. delaney, mr. foster, mr. gone zalezz, mr. gottheimer, democrat, mr. heck of washington, democrat. mr. himes of connecticut, democrat. d i think my 30 seconds is winding down. and now, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield five 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 investigation and is the author of h.r. 4545. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker and chairman hensarling. i appreciate the opportunity to advance this important bipartisan piece of legislation. the the act seeks to bring fairness to federal financial

regulators appeals process by instituting a uniform framework free from examination and retaliation. our community banks and credit unions currently have no independent recourse in the appeals process in the examination decisions. these institutions often lack the experience, capacity and resources needed to resolve challenges to financial regulators examination determinations. as each regulator has its own different rules and standards for the appeals process. under the current appeals framework, appeals of supervisory determinations which are decisions of significant consequence that can have serious impact on the financial institution's future run through the agency that handed down the decision in the first place. mr. speaker, that's like asking an arresting officer to be the judge and jury when a case goes to trial. put simply, this legislation

will move away from that framework and establish an independent office of review to address appeals of serious consequence and harmonize and consolidate the appeals process across the various federal regulators so the review process is fair and predictable. one banker put it to me this way, the dodd-frank act has added come flexity and uncertainty to the exam process and the bank aability to serve and in full compliance of regulations. for instance, overlap between he o.c.c. and cfpb is an ongoing issue. they lost oversight with the dodd-frank and foundation of the cfpb especially in the fair linding world. when they made it clear they were not going to examine the barnings the way that the o.c.c. had historically done it. .

questions about fair lending, including transaction, sampling and testing. it creates a very burdensome environment as well as duplication and the risk of double jeopardy. mr. speaker, an examination environment that runs the risk of duplication and double jeopardy between agencies is untenable and puts our community institutions at risk of being examined into extinction. this environment is further complicated by the reality that currently institutions that wanted to appeal double jeopardy examination results would have to appeal through two regulators who likely aren't communicating with one another about the other's exam determinations. the examination fairness bill before us today would solve that problem by establishing an office of independent examination review which would function as a consolidated sober judge of the examination appeals process. would wly created office

provide a community bank or a credit union an avenue for independent recourse to appeal a material supervisory examination where transparency, fairness, timelyness are paramount. because this new review process only applies to material supervisory examination, it is limited in scope and limited to the most serious appeals. this legislation is also careful not to constrain the power of the regulators to pursue enforcement actions or to prevent them from issue further material soup risery determination. -- supervisory determination. in fact, it would continue to be enforced under this new appeals process until the independent office either agrees with the finding of the regulator or overturns a determination of the regulator. mr. speaker, by creating consistency, instituting timeline expectations of examinations and appeals, increasing transparency and

adding independent sober appeals to the rights of the financial institutions, h.r. 4545 will go a long way to usher in a new environment of fairness in the examination appeals process for small banks and credit unions, giving these institutions of independent -- an independent recourse in the appeals process. and it will create greater certainty that they won't have to reduce their financial service products, offerings or be treated in an unfair or untimely review. mr. speaker, that translates to greater assurances for communities across the country that their small banks and credit unions will be able to provide for a mortgage for their home, a loan for their car and capital for their small businesses to be able to grow. this measure passed out of the financial services committee with strong bipartisan support with a majority of our democrat colleagues joining with us to able to support examine

fairness. i'd -- exam fairness. i'd like to thank mrs. maloney for hire -- her support of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas he reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, the chair of our committee is absolutely right. there are democrats on both sides. this is a bipartisan piece of legislation but it proves what i was trying to say earlier and that is i and many other people believe that we need to make some changes to dodd-frank. this is just not one of them. i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, who is the chairman of our financial services subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. hensarling for bringing this commonsense bill to the floor. i'd like to thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, for his commitment to this issue. the lack of consistency and

quality in the bank examination process has created serious problems for financial institutions and their customers. mr. tipton's legislation aims to remedy many of the resolutions we heard about from the banks and credit unions in our congressional districts. h.r. 4545 will allow financial institutions to have supervisory determination reviewed by a newly established independent examination review board. this will create uniformity among regulatory agencies while making the overall exam process fair and efficient. legislation includes several other key reforms such as the imposition of a reasonable time -- t on examiners examiners. it seems like a simple provision but today institutions may wait as much as a year or more and some cases several years to get the result of a single exam. how can you expected to comply with regulations if the regulators don't get back to you in a timely fashion with their feedback? i myself spent several years as a bank examiner.

examiners would work with bankers to make sure they understood their rules and addressed issues that manifested themselves during the course of an examination. today's examining environment is completely different. financial regulators seem to play a constant game of got you. the only recourse of financial institutions is to turn to an appeals process that has a predetermined outcome. something, mr. speaker, has to change. to be clear, this bill does not prevent regulatory agencies from conducting exams or imposing restrictions on financial institutions. what it does is restore order to the exam process which far too long has been politicized and abused. this is an incredibly important measure and one i hope will receive support from all my colleagues. with that, mr. speaker, i again thank the gentleman from colorado for his work, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, i

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i am now pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger, who is the vice chairman of the financial services subcommittee on terrorism and illicit finance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pittenger: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to convey my deep appreciation to my colleague on the financial services committee, mr. tipton, for his efforts to improve and reform the examination process for our nation's financial institutions. h.r. 4545 is designated to address enduring concerns about the lack of consistency and quality in the bank examination process. the current exam process can be both opaque and secretive. coupling this with overburdensome regulations and increased compliance costs have forced many community banks and credit unions to close up shop or reduce their ability to provide for consumers. look no further than my state,

north carolina, which has lost about 50% of its banks since the financial crisis. in my own city of charlotte a decade ago, we had six community banks. today we only have one because of the burdensome and costly compliance requirements. mr. tipton's legislation creates a fair and impartial process for financial institutions to appeal their examinations which gives the necessary clarity for banks and credit unions to provide services to their customers leading to a job creation and economic prosperity environment. that is why i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for working on this bipartisan piece of legislation. it is long past time we provide commonsense reforms and a transparent approach regarding regulators' decisionmaking during the examination process. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, now i am happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the vice chairman of the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized . mr. -- the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support this bill as the vice chairman of the financial institutions subcommittee and longtime advocate for review reforms, i commend my colleague, representative tipton, for his hard work on this issue. as we all know, our financial regulatory agencies are not without their flaws. examiners time, are misguided and these decisions deserve to be challenged. managers of financial institutions that believe that the he decisions passed down by their examiners if they believe they are wrong, they deserve a chance to challenge those decisions at an independent

forum and if necessary in the courts. we are all better served by a financial supervisory structure that is subject to the scrutiny of further revufmente i know community bankers in western pennsylvania who have struggled with their examiners for years to get flawed determinations changed. in many cases these individuals were doing the right thing for their companies and their communities. without the benefit of a clear timeline, this process has been allowed to drag on. without a truly independent review process and protection against retaliation, these men and women working in our community financial institutions understand that they are facing an uphill battle. the current system is not independent and it is not sufficiently transparent. this is unfair. it is bad for our community financial institutions and it is detrimental to the integrity of our regulatory system. i again urge my colleagues to support representative tipton's work, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from missouri.

mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, i yield now to the ranking member of our committee the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent for the gentlelady from california to control the time? mr. cleaver: yes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, now i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, a hardworking member of the financial services committee, mr. kustoff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kustoff: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the financial institutions examination and reform act. i also want to thank representative tipton for bringing this fine legislation. in the financial services committee, we often focus on releaving the regulatory burdens our smaller financial institutions face. while larger banks have the bandwidth, if you will, to

comply with various regulations, our smaller financial institutions have their hands tied with onerous regulations and high compliance costs. too often this strains the ability for our smaller banks and credit unions to loan money to people who rely on them for capital. the legislation that we're discussing today creates more transparency and certainty for community banks and for credit unions undergoing each regulators' examination process. currently each of the four regulators has its own appeals process and as we know, each regulator has their own rules about what decisions can or cannot be repealed. in many instances, this exam process can take months and is conducted secretively often leaving the institution in the dark about the possible violations. if an unfavorable determination the s from the exam,

financial institution is then forced to open new branches or from offering certain financial products. folks across the country rely on these financial institutions to access credit, to grow a business, to purchase a new car or to pay for an unexpected expense. this important legislation restores some of the transparency to the examination process and prevents the regulators from being the cop, the judge, and the jury. in addition, this legislation will restore accountability on the part of regulators to restore their own decisions and do so in a timely fashion, to limit the impact to our community financial institutions. as we all can agree, our community banks and credit unions are best equipped to work with communities in which they serve. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kustoff: this bill

establishes clear standards to ensure the consistency and transparency of all examinations. i want to thank chairman hensarling of the financial services committee for their hard work, and i urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california controls 22 minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much . mr. speaker and members, this is a very important bill that i'm asking the members of congress to vote no on because we don't want to empower the megabanks and huge conglomerates to be able to skirt adverse supervisory decisions about regulators. the bill would give all financial institutions, regardless of their size, an additional method to appeal thereby significantly delay adverse determinations by creating a new independent

review office to conduct de novo reviews without concern for the institution's safety and soundness or the protection of consumers. this bill goes far beyond relief for community banks and credit unions by enabling megabanks and nonbanks like payday lenders and exwhich fax to pursue limitless challenges o -- equifax to pursue limitless challenges in court. as you look at the examples we have prepared for you, take a look at wells fargo. wells fargo has been at the center of attention in this country for the fraudulent accounts that it established, using their customers' accounts and information to create more accounts without informing their customers. and then they had the illegal student loan servicing practices that we have all been so concerned about. .

even after the fraudulent accounts were exposed and fines were made because of the harm that they had caused to their customers, we then found that they had inappropriate placed insurance which means that people who were already paying for the insurance were forced to pay again because the bank basically forced them to have additional insurance. and there is jpmorgan with discriminatory lending and citi robot signing and and inappropriate fees, marketing, billing and administration of add-on products and forecast -- foreclosure abuses and bank of

erica, credit monitoring abuses, deceptive marketing for add-on products, violations of the service members. now, we find -- we fined them but these banks have determined and act in know that this is cost of doing business. it's a slap on the wrist and they are going to continue to be able to get away with this and if they're saying the bank examiners who come in and find these adverse conditions somehow will be ignored and they can literally get around them, then we're going to add to the problems of our consumers in this country. so i'm certainly asking for a no vote on this bill. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas has 11 minutes remaining and is

recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes to say that i just find some of the comments of the ranking member curious. i know as she continues this attack on the so-called wall street megabanks, i continue to be so curious why she supports bailing them out. she voted against the financial choice act that would allowed bailouts to these megabanks and supports a fund that continue to bail out these banks. second of all as she continues to attack them, i'm curious 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, 15 times what our quints are getting on their savings accounts. in many cases it's the .07% versus 1 ween 1/2% and i understand again they attacks them but i'm curious why does she find so many ways to support them? personally, i think in this economy there is a need for community banks and credit unions and regional and global banks as well. what we want is accountability. we want less, less federal control. and what we want is more private capital. and we want to ensure 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 a majority of democrats on her committee support this legislation? 16 of them support the legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, members, i always have these lively debates with my chairman and he never fails to point out that i voted for the bailout. and of course, you know, oftentimes when he comes with one of these deregulation bills and talks about bipartisan and had democrats. it was voted by republicans and democrats at a time when we were

in great difficulty in this country, it was the bush bail out and mr. paulsen who was the treasury secretary who led it and gave us the advice and had us participate in saving our economy based on the information that he had uncovered about the risk that was now, you know, proposed for our country. so i'm not for bailing out big banks at all. we had an emergency situation in this country where again, it was a bush bailout that we had to deal with the fact that we were in great danger. but let me just also say this. we have something now that we put into dodd-frank reform called the orderly resolution scenario that we're able to look at banks and because of the stress testing that they have

gone through, if there is an -- a need for orderly resolution because there are problems with the bank, we can not only recommend breaking off parts of the bank, reordering parts of the bank, doing what is necessary to ensure that the bank does not get into a situation where it fails and triggers the failures of others in our economy. and so, it is the orderly liquidation authority that i'm referring to. and i do not support bailing out big banks. this is one thing that i joined with my chairman and we both agree, that we should not be bailing out these big banks. and that's what dodd-frank is helping us to avoid. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from sconsin, the chairman of the

financial services subcommittee , three ng and insurance minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duffy: i would just note that the orderly liquidation authority is the authority to bail out big banks consistent with the bailout that the ranking member voted for in 2008 that the chairman i believe voted against. i want to talk about those who use rhetoric to say they don't support big banks but then actually vote for them. i think that is a hard note. i rise today to support h.r. 4545, the financial institutions examination and fairness reform act, the bipartisan measure introduced by mr. tipton. this bill would amend the federal institution economic council act of 1970 by updating the definition of financial

institutions establishing new requirements for the financial rocess and giving some independence here, some common sense. these updates are critical because in 1994, congress directed federal regulators to establish an independent intraagency appellate process for institutions to seek the review of examination ratings, adequacy of loan loss reserves and clarifications on loans. i agree that these entities should be reviewed to ensure that they are financially sound and we want to make sure we prevent failures so we don't have folks across the aisle voting for bailouts. we are hearing from our community financial institutions, the ones that serve most of my district in wimbing that the avenues to appeal these determinations are limited. the process is secrettive and

the regulators are overempowered. the intraagency process is criticized of not being independent because the regulatory determinations are reviewed not by a third party but by the employees of the same regulator handing down the verdicts. his is the judge, jury and excutioner. when they found someone guilty, didn't appeal it to the same jury. they have to go to independent reviewers. that's the way the american system works and should work in this scenario as well. our community bankers explained that they feel victimized and retribution for appealing the outcomes of these exams and that's a bad thing. add to the fear that these examinations lack transparency and now we have real problems to contend with, which is why the

solution is so bipartisan. the chairman mentioned, 16 democrats in the committee voted for this commonsense piece of legislation. that's why the bill is so important and embolden our community banks by creating an independent auditor to ensure fairness and transparency. this bill ensures there is -- mr. hensarling: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duffy: this bill ensures there is an open forum for these institutions to discuss the examination procedures, practices and policies without fear of re-- repriceals. gives a little bit of freedom. and there are written examination policies are being followed and adhered to. the bill would provide a right to hearing upon appeal, whether the appeal is heard on the record. you are getting due process. we want due process. that is something we fight for. no one agrees on ta. why can't we offer that to our

commal community banks and credit unions who feel victimized. this is a bipartisan bill and this is common sense. and i encourage the ranking member to join us and let's get something done for small community banks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i appreciate the offer from my good friend to join him, but i don't think i will be doing that today. i would like to get unanimous consent to enter into the record organizations that have sent us information in opposition to this bill. it is the national consumer law scme, center for american progress and americans for financial reform. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: and let me just from the center for american progress read you one of the paragraphs that i think is so profound.

the financial institutions examination fairness and reform act would give financial institutions the authority to appeal any material examination decision rendered by the federal banking regulators or consumer financial protection bureau to the office of independent examination review. a new office created by the bill, financial regulators already have internal appeals processes in place through their respective om budsmen financial institutions and can pursue legal remedy for flawed examination decisions. this new office and review process is simply an additional hurdle for regulators to contend with when supervising financial institutions and an additional point at which institutions can slow down or avoid punishment.

h.r. 4545 would undermine the examinations' process at a time when supervisory authority and penalties for financial sector mall fees eanings should be strengthened. in addition to that, there is another paragraph that i think is extremely important in explaining why this bill should be opposed. layering a new appeals process, this bill would increase the ability of banks to resist supervisory oversight and ignore or delay changes called for by supervisors. the impact would be most pronounced at the largest banks which can receive hundreds of material findings from every examination, the ability to appeal every one of those appeal supervisory findings or threaten to appeal them would create a

new barrier to effective supervision of big banks. in essence, mr. speaker, and members, what we're saying is, we have our bank exercise who are going in and looking for ways to strengthen the banks and hoping that they will not find these adverse conditions. but if they do, they have the responsibility to the consumers to try and get them corrected or try to get changes made. this bill says despite adverse conditions that are discovered, we don't want to have to comply. we don't want to have to change. we don't want have to correct but fight you and use our vast resources to say the exercise didn't know what they're doing and they're not so much concerned about the consumers as -- whether they are more concerned than just being part of the bureaucracy. doesn't make good sense about

what they are saying about the exercise and why they're not important. with that, i would just reserve my time. . mr. hensarling: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, a senior member of the financial services committee, mr. lucas. the speaker pro tempore: yies 3. mr. -- the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lucas: i am pleased to be here for the second time in as many times to support the bill mr. tipton, our colleague from colorado. he is bringing more credit options to more americans. this bill is no exception to that and i thank them for sponsoring it. this nation is founded on the idea those enforced the law -- this idea of due process is something all americans respect and we enjoy. in the case of financial institutions, there's been a noted lack of such process during appeals. if a bank or credit union today

is assessed a postinspection penalty that they feel is based on an accurate or incomplete information, the only recourse is back to the regulator that performed the inspection in the first place. such an argument turns the concept of proper process upside down. at the very least, i think we would all agree with a number of our colleagues who know the judge, the jury and executioner should be separate. there has to be a better way. this bill provides a better way. by giving these institutions a new recourse so they can be assured a fair treatment. we all know this could be an expensive and time-consuming process for a bank or credit union which is all the more reason to provide fair treatment. smaller banks and credit unions go through this appeal process are possibly running the risk of losing an appeal that will severely limit their ability to offer credit.

that's why a newer, fairer process will increase the access to credit and i'm not pulling that idea out of thin air. the national bankers association, which represents minority bankers, supports the legislation. that should tell us how this bill will benefit every american who relies on the financial services and on credit. and finally, mr. tipton's bill does not change the fact that some banks and credit unions will lose their appeals. no one is saying that bad actors should go unpunished. the point of the bill, however, is to make that process as fair as possible. by consolidating the appeals process into one office that is separate from the four main banking regulators that fairness can be achieved. again, mr. speaker, this bill not only supports the concept of due process but will also expand credit opportunities for all americans. i, again, commend the bill, the author, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor. i yield back the balance of my

time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i have no speakers and i am ready to close. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized to close. -- waters: i yield myself how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: 13 minutes. ms. waters: h.r. 4545 is another harmful bill that will help out wall street and predatory lenders. it has become a theme for the majority to claim their legislation is meant to provide relief for small community banks when in fact the legislation plainly benefits the nation's largest banks, including abusive megabanks like wells fargo and even payday lenders. this bill is yet another

example. the bill would allow any bank as well as any nonbank supervised by the consumer financial protection bureau to appeal negative supervisory determinations made by regulators in the examination process. h.r. 4545 makes it more likely that bad actors, including predatory megabanks like wells fargo, would avoid or delay accountability when they break federal law. it takes our system of financial regulation in exactly the wrong direction. megabanks, like wells fargo, already treat the fines they are required to pay for violations of the law as simply the cost of doing business. they don't need more escape routes to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing. i've made it clear many times that abusive megabanks with egregious patterns of harming consumers should face steep penalties from regulators. last year i introduced h.r. 3937, the megabank

accountability and consequences act, which would require the federal regulators to fully utilize existing authorities such as the ability to shut down a megabank and ban culpable executives and directors from working in the banking industry. to get tough on megabanks that repeatedly engage in practices that harm consumers, congress should be forced -- focused, rather, on measures that strengthen consumer protections, provide tailored responsible relief for community banks and ensure that abusive megabanks are held accountable. this bill, which would help megabanks and predatory lenders to get off the hook when they break the law, should be rejected. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, again, this is a very

commonsense bill which is one of the reasons it is strongly bipartisan. i'm sorry that the ranking member has not to be part of partisanship.-- over half of the committee support it. why? because they understand as part of our american d.n.a. to have due process and when we continue to lose a credit union or community bank every day in america on average and with their loss we're losing homeownership opportunities, opportunities to grow businesses. and so 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 on our constituents getting

homes and small business loans and auto loans. and so 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's why it's so important that we enact h.r. 4545. came out of our committee with a huge bipartisan vote. and so let's make sure credit continues to flow throughout america and i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 4545 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house eport 115-595 offered by ms.

maxine waters of california. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 773, the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my amendment is fairly straightforward. it would limit the applicability of the exam reforms under h.r. 4545 to only depository institutions with assets less than $10 billion. i have only heard from community banks and credit unions with respect to concerns regarding their exam process and the ability to enhance the opportunity to appeal exam findings. and as mrs. maloney made clear, when the committee marked up this bill, the sole purpose of the bill is to help community banks and credit unions. so my amendment seeks to narrow the scope of the bill's relief to these small firms. congress used a similar $10

billion asset threshold in dodd-frank to exempt small banks and credit unions from the consumer bureau supervision, so applying a similar threshold for the purpose of appealing bank supervisory findings makes sense. today, 99.8% of all credit unions have less than $10 billion in assets. while i am in favor of sensible relief for smaller financial institutions, i believe that the 2007, 2009 financial crisis showed the dangers of weak oversight of these big banks, including a $30 billion bank like one. the bank's costly failure was the fourth largest in the history of the united states and contributed to the most damaging financial crisis in generations. as the largest firms pose the greatest risk to the country's economy and the safety and soundness of our financial

system, it's only prudent to apply a stringent supervisory approach for the largest institutions. in fact, the g.a.o. issued a report last year criticizing the federal reserve's large bank supervision program underscoring there is more work that must be done. i've been pushing bank regulators to deploy the full sweep of their enforcement tools against megabanks. like wells fargo that repeatedly and carelessly break the law and harm millions of consumers. that is why i introduced again h.r. 3937, the megabank accountability and consequences act so, no, i do not think it is appropriate for -- to let megabanks like wells fargo hijack what should be regulatory relief for community banks so that they can challenge their exams. and nonbanks regulated by the consumer bureau like equifax or payday lenders do not need this

kind of regulatory relief either. so my amendment narrows the scope of the bill on what should garner broad bipartisan support, sensible relief for the community banks and credit unions that need it. so i would urge my colleagues who want to help -- truly want to help community banks and credit unions rather than wall street megabanks to support my amendment and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise in -- to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. again, what we are talking about here is fundamental due process. due process to every american. due process to every institution. regardless, regardless of its ize, regardless of its

jyography -- geography, this is about due process. as justice 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 chilly ith opportunity to be heard. -- conception of a fair opportunity to be heard. 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. is your no due process only practical appeal is the one who rendered the judgment in the first place. and so, number one, it is important that all americans, all institutions receive due

process which is perhaps why even half -- over half of the democrats on the financial services committee chose to support h.r. 4545. so the ranking member's amendment would set a threshold here but her threshold, as she talks about the so-called megabanks, at $10 billion, that's one half of one percent of the size of j.p. moringan. so mr. speaker, i don't -- size of jpmorgan. so, mr. speaker, i don't i believe in too big to fail banks. that's why the other side supported -- 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. and we have to remember, regardless of the size of the bank, it's their capital that's helping capitalize our businesses. i mean, i'm from dallas, texas. one of our major employers is american airlines. i wish they could do business with first state bank of athens but they do not. sometimes, yes, global banks are necessary to our economy. regional banks are necessary to our community. 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 of 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 house hold that's worthy in america. let's reject the ranking member's amendment and let's support the underlying bill, h.r. 4545, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california, ms. waters. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california, ms. waters. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. . ms. waters: recorded vote is requested. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady ask tore the yeas and nays? ms. waters: the gentlelady asks for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, and the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 773, i call up h.r. 4263 and

ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 409. h.r. 4263. the bill to amend the securities act of 1933 with respect to small company capital formation, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 773, the amendment printed in part d of house report 115-595 adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise in very strong support of

reg a plus he improvement act. i thank the sponsor of this 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 acuemen is well positioned to help serve us. and his leadership on this bill should be commended. although small companies, mr. speaker, 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, place on small companies when they seek to go public. in 2012, the jump-start our business start-ups act, known as jobs act, sought to

modernize and better tailor some of these regulation, thrugreg a under our securities law. it is a long-standing exemption from s.e.c. registration that permits public official without formal registration as long as certain conditions are met. prior to the jobs act a small company seeking to use regular a was regulated to raising $5 million in securities in a 12-month period. as you can imagine over time, mr. speaker, regular a official became increasingly rare due to the relatively small offering size that was available and requirement that reg a securities still comply with 50 different state securities law reblingstration -- registration and requirements. title 4 of the jobs act attempted to address the antiquated regulation a by directing the s.e.c. to update it. we see s.e.c. did in 2015 under the moniker regulation plus by

creating two tiers of official and allowing certain securities to qualify from preemption from state securities law. under the second tier they increased the amount the companies can offer from $5 million to $50 million. mr. macarthur's legislation only pertains to the tier 2 limit. since reg a plus was implemented in 2015, small business vs. 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 s.e.c. office f small business policy, as of november, 2017, 69 completed reg a plus official are raised a total of $611 million. unfortunately the $50 million cap leaves significant opportunity on the table for our start-ups. opportunity that could be better realized if the limit was increased to 75 million, which the treasury department

has recommended as a potentially less costly alternative for start-ups to raise capital. moreover, increasing the reg a plus limit would better position companies that want to use the exemption as an on ramp to list publicly or bear the corresponding compliance burdens and still invest in jobs and growth. mr. speaker, more and more we have seen i.p. o o.'s of companies with products that we use every day. uber, facebook, spotify, snapchat come after the company is already, these i.p.o.'s after the company is valued over $1 billion. for everyday investors, this often means missing out on some of the most dynamic growth stages of a company that would provide the highest rate of returns for them and their family. all while the wealthy accredited investors in venture capital firms can invest early and they get to rake in the better rate 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. after all the s.e.c. has estimated that the cost of going public on average are $2.5 million in regulatory cost for undergoing an i.p.o.e. an annual compliance cost averaging $1.5 million thereafter. those costs stand in stark contrast to the $111,000 the s.e.c. says the average legal and auditing cost for reg a plus official. by utilizing reg a plus, small businesses can 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 regular a plus is so important, provides a more cost-effective way to raise equity capital early on in the

stage -- gross stages of these -- growth stanges of these companies. additionally they 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 start-up computer company, by the way called apple, decided to go public, massachusetts, 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 largest the companies in the world. and it is, again, potentially going to be the first public company with $1 trillion market cap. if you had bought 45 shares of apple when it was offered at its i.p.o. by the end of last year, you would have over $394,000. that's hardly crumbs, mr. speaker.

in short, i strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. it's a very smart but modest improvement in the popular jobs act provision. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: h.r. 4263, the so-called regulation a+ improvement act is a solution in search of a problem that threatens to undermine protections from mom and pop investors and the infeg grit -- integrity of our capital markets. the bill would arbitrarily increase the maximum a securities that private companies can sell each year to e public from $50 million to $75 million under the securities and exchange commission's regulation a+. exemption from registration. mr. chairman, such a change makes no sense.

first, the s.e.c. only recently implemented regulation a+ pursuant to the jump-start our business start-up. the jobs act. effective june 19, 2015, that rule now allows private companies to raise either 20 million under tier one, or 50 million under tier two from the public with less investor protections and oversight than a public securities offering registered with the s.e.c. little data we have since it became effective suggests that there is no need to raise that 50 million limit. s of december 31, 2017, only 39% of the 172 little data comp tier 2 of regulation a+ sought the maximum amount of 50 million, and only three issuers

or 5% of the 61 issuers that have reported proceeds in tier two official actually raise the amount. second, in the jobs act, congress specifically directed e s.e.c. to review the regulation a+ limit every two years and report its reasons for not raising it to congress. on april 5, 2016, the s.e.c. sent congress its report stating, quote, given the short period of time that the final rules have been in effect and in light of the limited number of regulation a+ official qualified and completed to date, the commission does not believe that the information currently reported by companies on the amount of capital raised regulation a+ is to determine whether

it would be appropriate to propose an increase in the tier 2 50 million offering limit, unquote f my to determine wheth it would be appropriate to republican colleagues think that the s.e.c. should be doing more, they overwhelm have to wait a few more weeks for the s.e.c.'s next review and report on the regulation a+ offering limit. there is no reason why congress shouldn't acknowledge the s.e.c.'s existing efforts to study the empirical republican colleagues think evidence instead of making arbitrary decisions devoid of any real analysis. finally, and most importantly, the bill may hoorm retail investors -- harm retail investors in our markets. what my republican colleagues fail to acknowledge is the purpose of regulation a+ is to provide small private businesses with access to financing from mom and pop investors, many of whom are in their community so that they can grow and eventually enter the public markets as full s.e.c. reporting companies, traded on a national securities exchange.

as public companies, they are subject to the full set of investor protections under the securities laws, but also gain access to much deeper sources of capital. indeed, under the current system, eight regulation a+ issuers have already listed their shares on an exchange, becoming true public companies. this positive development suggests that regulation a+ is working as congress intended, and expanding it would discuverage companies from becoming -- discourage companies from becoming truly public. however it is also clear that an additional study of the existing regulation a+ exemption is warranted. a series of recent press articles highlight the high risk of loss that investors face in investing in companies that have used regulation a+ even when those companies later list their securities for trading on an exchange.

according to a february, 2018 article in the "wall street journal," seven out of the eight companies that listed their securities for trading on n exchange in 2017 following a regulation a+ offering are trading an average of 42% below their offering prices. by comparison, companies that engage in a traditional initial public offering or i.m.o. in -- i.p.o. in 2017 are trading on average 22% above their offering prices. moreover, those regulation a+ companies were trading lower even as the s&p 500, which tracks 500 large publicly traded companies, has risen 18% since the start of 2017. congress should better understand why regulation a+ companies that have gone public fared so poorly compared to the rest of the market before we

regulation a+ like legislation like h.r. 4263. mr. speaker and members, i joined with my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and mr. mack henry in -- mchenry in particular, and supported the jobs act. and of course hi some question about the risk that would be involved with our mom and pop investors and i wasn't sure, but i decided to support the jobs act, mr. mchenry, even with my concerns, because i certainly wanted the opportunity for these small businesses to have access to capital that perhaps they would not be able to get otherwise. . we talked about the review that would be done to determine whether or not we should be increasing particularly tier 2

that would expand the ability for the small businesses to have access to more than 50 million. i don't know why we don't stick what we did. despite whatever we're learning bout the a+ regulation, we need to understand thoroughly what the advantages are, what the disadvantages are and what the risk are to investors, etc., etc., etc. so i'm going to ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. macarthur, the sponsor of this legislation and a hardworking member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. well, i thank

the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i am proud to advance this bill, this bipartisan bill, and i'm grateful for my democratic co-sponsor, congresswoman sinema, and my democratic congressman gottheimer, and my republican congressman hollingsworth for joining me in this effort. the purpose of this bill is pretty simple and pretty narrow. seven out of 10 new jobs in this country come from our nation's 28 million small businesses, and when we help those businesses grow, we help them create new jobs. i think of the biopharmaceutical companies in my home state of new jersey as an example of companies that desperately need capital to continue to grow and that growth creates new jobs. the federal government cannot do everything, but we can surely help these companies grow in our country. 1933 securities act laid the

groundwork that all interstate security offerings have to be registered with the s.e.c. it's cumbersome, it's expensive and so that congress made some exceptions. regulation a allowed unlimited amount of offerings for main street investors. regulation d allowed unlimited offerings for accredited investors. this bill is working at regulation a. over time those limits have gone up prdically. the last time it was -- periodically. the last time it was lifted was 2015. it was raised to $50 million, and it's been helpful. it's created growth. it's created new jobs. this bill is a modest improvement, raising that $50 million to $75 million. this was contemplated in the original jobs act where we raised it to $50 million. in that law, the s.e.c. was required to