[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4664-H4671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1300
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, FINANCIAL CHOICE ACT OF 2017
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 375
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 10) to create hope and opportunity for
investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs by ending bailouts
and Too Big to Fail, holding Washington and Wall Street
accountable, eliminating red tape to increase access to
capital and credit, and repealing the provisions of the Dodd-
Frank Act that make America less prosperous, less stable, and
less free, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schweikert). The gentleman from Colorado
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. This rule provides a
[[Page H4665]]
structured process for debate and makes in order six amendments to the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to return hope and opportunity to Main
Street America through the Financial CHOICE Act. This legislation
touches at the very heart of our economy, ensuring that our financial
system facilitates job creation, economic growth, and fairness.
Nearly 10 years ago, the American economy cratered. The Great
Recession of the late 2000s revealed that our financial system was
fragile, and many Americans got the short end of the stick.
In 2010, Democrats passed H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. They promised the bill would lift
the American economy. They promised an end to Wall Street bailouts.
They promised to protect consumers. Seven years later, we know that
these promises never came true.
Due to Dodd-Frank's excessive regulatory burden, big banks are
getting bigger while small banks and credit unions are disappearing.
There have only been six new bank charters since Dodd-Frank--a drastic
decline from the 170 on average per year before the bill. In fact, 43
percent of banks with assets under $100 million have disappeared.
Large banks survive because they can afford armies of lawyers to
understand Dodd-Frank regulations. In 2010, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd
Blankfein even suggested his bank would be among the biggest
beneficiaries of Dodd-Frank. But for community banks with community
budgets, the effects of the law have been devastating.
Dodd-Frank also failed to address the too-big-to-fail problem. Under
the Dodd-Frank law, big banks are growing larger, and taxpayers are
still responsible for bailing them out. Furthermore, Dodd-Frank has
made access to banking and credit more difficult for average Americans.
Since the passage of the bill, bank fees have increased and millions
more Americans are now considered unbanked or underbanked.
Declining liquidity has limited access to credit for small businesses
and the regulatory restrictions on mortgages have pushed homeownership
out of reach for the middle class. Seventy-two percent of community
banks say that the Dodd-Frank regulations restrict their ability to
offer mortgage loans.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the price we must pay to be a hopeful and
prosperous nation. That is why I am here supporting the Financial
CHOICE Act. It repeals Dodd-Frank, replacing the harmful law with
reasonable regulations that ensure consumer protection, job growth,
economic growth, and strong community banks.
The Financial CHOICE Act ends the coddling of big banks. It
implements historically tough penalties on financial fraud and insider
trading. It ends taxpayer-funded bailouts and creates new bankruptcy
laws designed for failing banks. It is time that Congress put Main
Street ahead of Wall Street.
The Financial CHOICE Act also reins in the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, a government agency that has incredible power to
regulate the financial industry but that has nearly no accountability.
The judicial branch has actually declared its structure
unconstitutional.
The CFPB is causing problems for consumers. They have a database for
complaints from consumers, but it publishes consumer complaints before
even checking if they are true. The CFPB also weighs in on financial
regulations where Congress should instead be making these decisions,
and the CFPB wasted over $200 million on lavish renovations of their
office space in downtown Washington, D.C.
This legislation we are considering today will restructure the CFPB,
restoring congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back
under the regular legislative appropriations process. We will also be
refocusing the CFPB on enforcing consumer protection laws, rather than
making up their own laws that only hurt the average American consumer.
Perhaps most important to Coloradans, the Financial CHOICE Act
creates economic growth and jobs by making credit easier to access for
Main Street America. Thanks to the TAILOR Act, introduced by my friend
and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), regulators will be able to
craft custom regulations to reflect the specific business model of
local banks.
This bill also creates jobs and economic growth by requiring more
transparent policymaking at the Federal Reserve. We rein in stifling
regulations on small, community banks, allowing them to compete against
their larger counterparts. We increase consumer choice by ensuring
Americans can access a bank and a credit card.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to transform our Nation's
financial system. We have the opportunity to level the playing field
between big and small banks. We have the opportunity to turn up the
heat on financial fraud. We have the opportunity to return regulatory
power from the hands of unelected bureaucrats to the people. We have
the opportunity to roll back hurtful regulations.
We are here to restore hope and opportunity through the Financial
CHOICE Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, I brought the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act to the floor of the House as chairwoman of
the House Rules Committee. This law was a statement from Congress on
behalf of the American people that unchecked corporate greed will never
again bring the United States of America to financial collapse.
My colleague began his speech this morning by saying that this law
had not worked, but I am not aware of major bank failures or bank
failures of any kind since we passed it, and I would say, indeed, this
law has worked.
Since it has been enacted, our economy has had over 80 consecutive
months of private sector job growth. That is pretty good. In fact, it
is a record-setting streak. More than 16 million jobs have been
created, and business lending has been increased by 75 percent. I am
not getting all the complaints that I used to get that they could not
borrow money from banks, particularly the small businesses.
Along the way, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established
under this law has helped 29 million people in all of our 50 States to
receive nearly $12 billion in relief from companies that engaged in
irresponsible or predatory practices.
One group that sent us a letter begging us not to do away with Dodd-
Frank was the Veterans of Foreign Wars who said that far too often
their veterans were the victims of predatory lenders--shysters, people
not telling them the truth--and that is exactly what the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau was established to do.
You can't argue about whether or not it has been a success if 29
million people in 50 States have gotten back $12 billion in relief of
bad practices. But this legislation completely will do away with the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the only thing we have left to
protect Main Street and the small investors.
These gains weren't a coincidence, Mr. Speaker. They were the result
of the Dodd-Frank law. Gutting Wall Street reform will be a historic
giveaway to special interests.
{time} 1315
The Wall Street firms who plunged our country to the brink, in 2008,
would be free once again to take advantage of consumers and force
middle class families to go it alone, without the protections this bill
has provided them.
The CHOICE Act is the wrong choice for consumers and families.
Instead of standing with financial lobbyists, I urge the majority to
uphold the trust of the people we all represent.
Five years ago, Democrats and Republicans came together to almost
unanimously pass my bill to end insider trading in Congress. The STOCK
Act passed this Chamber by a vote of 417-2, one of the most bipartisan
bills of that entire session of Congress.
It wasn't easy. I led a 6-year fight to get it signed into law after
learning that Members of Congress and their staffs were abusing their
positions by making money from the information that they gleaned and
that was not available to everybody else in America. They gleaned this
information while
[[Page H4666]]
working on behalf of the people whose information they were stealing.
It took a ``60 Minutes'' investigation on television and a groundswell
of public support, but the bill became a reality.
For me, upholding the people's trust is the most sacred
responsibility I have as a Member of Congress. That is why I am waging
a new battle to strengthen the STOCK Act, after learning that some in
this Congress have used legal loopholes to get around this law.
Once again, we see the importance of investigative journalism and a
free press, which has shined a light on the fact that some Members of
Congress have purchased private, discounted stock deals and taken a
part in initial public offerings outside of the United States. These
special deals are not available to the general public.
All this would have remained in the dark, had the STOCK Act not put
into place a new requirement to timely disclose sales and purchases of
stock. This is precisely the kind of outrageous conduct we intended to
outlaw under the STOCK Act. It plays directly into the public's most
cynical view of Congress.
This, Mr. Speaker, comes at a time when just 20 percent of the public
approves of how Congress is doing its job under the majority's
leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup.
This Chamber put aside partisanship and took a strong, bipartisan
stand against this abhorrent behavior just a few years ago. It has
become increasingly clear that we need to act again today to hold
ourselves accountable to both the letter and the spirit of the STOCK
Act law.
We are not doing that today. Once again, we are taking away the
regulations because some people find them so terribly abhorrent, but
they protect the small investor and the people in the banks. We surely
will never, I hope, see the day where we will ask the taxpayers of the
United States to bail out the enormously rich, big banks. One of the
worst things of that whole era was not a single fraudulent banker went
to jail.
Just 535 of us in a country of more than 300 million people have been
chosen to serve on the American people's behalf in Congress. It is a
sacred responsibility, one we should not be squandering, doing the
bidding of the financial lobbyists or Wall Street firms, who are the
ones behind the CHOICE Act.
The majority should stop fulfilling the wish list of Wall Street and
act on behalf of millions of Americans outraged by insider trading and
other chicanery that still permeates the halls of Congress today. This
Chamber must take action so that Americans recognize we came here to
represent them, not enrich ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Williams), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy
and Trade.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
rule because it is time to, once and for all, end the harmful
regulations caused by this disastrous law.
Mr. Speaker, let me take just a few moments to talk to you about the
harmful effects Dodd-Frank has had on my home State of Texas. As of
just a few months ago, in Texas alone, 358 State or federally chartered
banks, credit unions, or thrifts have either closed or merged since
2010, when Dodd-Frank became law.
According to our Texas State Banking Commission, the last bank or
credit union chartered in Texas was in 2009, in a State with one of the
healthiest economies in the country. Mass consolidations and closures
have left many Texans few options, something the previous
administration promised.
While Dodd-Frank aimed at fixing our recovering financial system,
one-size-fits-all regulations have only hurt one person: the consumer.
Increased bank fees, less access to consumer credit products, 1,000-
page rules, and billions of dollars in regulatory costs all have become
the hallmark of our financial system over the last 7 years.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I will leave you with
this: If you support crushing regulations that have hurt our community
banks and our credit unions, if you support taxpayer bailouts, if you
support an agency that is accountable to none, and if you support less
accountability for both Washington and Wall Street, would you please
vote against this rule and the underlying bill?
But if you support financial opportunity for all, taxpayer bailout
for none, less regulations on small community financial institutions,
and more accountability and transparency, then support this bill,
support consumers, and support Main Street America.
In God we trust.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, those wondering why Republican lips are
sealed so very tight when it comes to President Trump jeopardizing our
national security, threatening our democracy, and engaging in one crazy
action after another need look no further than this bill.
You see, this is a bill to handcuff the cop on Wall Street. So many
of our Republican colleagues are so eager to shield Wall Street from
action and eventually to bestow one tax break after another on Wall
Street, that they are willing to pay almost any price in silence
concerning Mr. Trump's outrages.
As a person who voted against all of the big bank bailouts, I am most
concerned that this bill will produce only more. When the banks were
bailed out, American families paid the price, as taxpayers. They paid
the price for the recklessness that led to that unnecessary financial
crisis.
A more immediate concern is what happens to the cop on the beat, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new law enforcement agency that
the AARP described as one designed to hold scam artists accountable.
That is exactly what the CFPB has done. Whether it is payday lenders or
deceitful language in the fine print of financial agreements, reverse
mortgages, contracts denying consumers their legal remedies to address
wrongdoing, or many other issues, this agency has been there to protect
the consumers.
Among those most threatened that have benefited from this law
enforcement agency are our military families, who face unique financial
challenges, from illegal foreclosures, to cheating them on student
loans, to payday lenders who overcharge their families. This law
enforcement agency has been there to protect them. Today, it would be
substantially weakened by this legislation.
One of the leading examples of the success of this law enforcement
agency is Wells Fargo: fined $100 million, $85 million in restitution,
$75 million in claw-backs from executives, a CEO resigned. None of that
happened to the other banks, but Wells Fargo was caught. It was caught
because there was a law enforcement agency on the beat doing something
about it.
There are those who fought this legislation from the start, and they
won't give up on trying to undermine it.
You need only look at what happened this year in enforcement actions
to see what this agency is doing: a company failed to provide redress
for illegal collection tactics, deceived consumers about credit scores,
misstated the charges associated with pawn loans, denied consumers
access to their own money, and kept borrowers in the dark about options
to avoid foreclosure. One bit of wrongdoing after another. Why not have
a cop on the beat working for us? Some people want to have the
unlimited right to exploit consumers. This agency is the one thing
standing in the way to protect them.
I say: stop this Republican interference with law enforcement and
send a message at the same time to President Donald J. Trump that our
laws apply to him too, and ought to be enforced against him when he is
engaged in wrongdoing.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most deceptive things that Congress does is
regulate one part of an industry for the problems created by another
part.
The community banks had nothing to do with the collapse in 2008. It
was Wall Street, the people in New York, the big banks. Yet the Dodd-
Frank regulation kind of let them scoot by and
[[Page H4667]]
gave them permits to continue operating, while many of the Main Street
businesses and many of the Main Street banks have closed down.
My friend just mentioned Wells Fargo. CFPB stood on the sidelines
silently and mute while they were conducting their affairs. It was a
county prosecutor who actually uncovered it.
So this idea that we here in Congress are going to do things that are
going to get it in check simply is not true. What is true is that the
agency created by Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, or the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, was so annoying that it put New Mexico's most
sparsely populated county, with about 8 people per square mile, to be
regulated the same as New York City. That is how much CFPB understood.
In the process of their regulating, they shut down the loans for
manufactured housing. That means nothing to the people in New York, but
in New Mexico, that is 50 percent of the homes in my district. The CFPB
didn't much care.
They also limited the ability of regular banks to make loans on
mortgages, establishing something called qualified mortgages. They
simply said all balloon notes are prejudicial. Those things were
hurting and penalizing the rural parts of this country. The people who
suffered most were the people at the lowest end of the economic
spectrum.
Our credit agencies, our credit system in the U.S., has done much in
order to make credit available, no matter where you are in the
political and income spectrum.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PEARCE. The people at the low end of the spectrum had access to
many different ways of borrowing. CFPB simply routinely eliminated
almost every single one of them.
As a representative of one of the poorest districts in the country, I
have found CFPB's efforts to be meaningless to the big guys and
punitive to us who are just trying to make a living out in the rural
parts of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and support for the
underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the distinguished ranking member of
the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and
Investments.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership and for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.
This bill will take us back to the regulatory stone age and would be
a disaster for the entire financial system.
Let us remember why we passed Dodd-Frank: we confronted the worst
financial crisis, caused by mismanagement from the financial industry,
that cost this country $18 trillion in household wealth, millions lost
their homes, millions lost their jobs, and the suffering was deep and
strong.
First, this bill, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, would repeal the orderly
liquidation authority, which is the only tool that would allow large
financial institutions like Lehman Brothers or AIG to be wound down
safely, without requiring a taxpayer bailout or causing a financial
panic, like Lehman.
We had two choices in the crisis: either bail them out--a bad
choice--or let them fail--another bad choice.
The liquidation authority is helpful, yet the majority claims that
the liquidation authority codifies taxpayer bailouts. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Under the liquidation authority, the FDIC wipes
out the firm's shareholders, imposes losses on the firm's creditors,
fires the firm's management, and completely liquidates the entire firm.
The only people who are guaranteed not to suffer losses are the
taxpayers.
So if we wipe out this protection to the taxpayers, we are putting
the taxpayers in harm's way yet again.
{time} 1330
This bill would also devastate investors by rolling back decades of
investor protections and trampling on the property rights of
shareholders by making it virtually impossible for them to influence
the management of the companies that they own.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Finally, the bill would
completely gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been
an incredible, effective watchdog for consumers and has protected the
consumers who were often not thought about first of all or second of
all--or not thought about at all. This agency protects them. If we
would have had it, we would not have had the financial crisis we
suffered. This would just make it easier for banks like Wells Fargo to
rip off consumers and would protect them from being punished if they
are caught.
So I want to point out that the Republican ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act puts
Wall Street ahead of Main Street, leads to taxpayer bailouts for big
banks, guts consumer protections for seniors and their families, and
brings back risky practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis. It
is the wrong direction, it is a wrong vote, and I caution my friends on
the other side of the aisle the voters are going to remember this vote.
Don't turn us back to the Stone Age of regulation.
I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this wrongly directed ``Bad''
CHOICE Act.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets, Securities, and Investments.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, the economic downturn in 2008 caused
Michiganders and citizens around the country to lose their jobs,
families to lose their savings, and way too many to lose their homes.
Since that time, our friends on the other side of the aisle have
attempted to convince the American people that Dodd-Frank was ``the
answer'' to the financial crisis, despite the law failing to actually
address the root cause of the downturn. In reality, Dodd-Frank has made
it more difficult for hardworking taxpayers to secure a future for
themselves and their children by denying them the economic recovery
that they deserve.
Let's be honest: Dodd-Frank was an agenda waiting for a crisis. So
many issues not related to economic stability were crammed into this
flawed law that, now, big banks have gotten even bigger and small banks
have disappeared at an alarming rate. Even worse, Dodd-Frank enshrined
``too big to fail'' and, frankly, put in place ``too small to save.''
Enough is enough. In order to increase economic opportunity, we must
enact commonsense regulatory reform and restore accountability to Wall
Street and to Washington. The House Financial Services Committee
achieves this goal through a carefully crafted Financial CHOICE Act,
which we are debating here today.
The Financial CHOICE Act eliminates Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all
regulatory structure that has strangled community financial
institutions with overly burdensome regulations that were meant for the
largest banks in America. By enacting the CHOICE Act, community banks
and credit unions can utilize their resources to help individual
customers and small businesses achieve financial independence.
If we want small businesses to continue to be the engine of economic
growth, we must remove the regulatory red tape that is preventing these
community lenders from supporting small business job creators.
Additionally, the Financial CHOICE Act holds Wall Street accountable
by imposing the toughest penalties in history. To protect consumers
from financial fraud is a key goal for all of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation also holds
Washington bureaucrats accountable by creating constitutional checks
and balances for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that it
can more effectively do its job. No government agency should be
unaccountable to the American people.
[[Page H4668]]
Lastly, this commonsense legislation protects taxpayers by
eliminating too big to fail, something that my colleague had just
talked about, and requires failing institutions to liquidate through a
streamlined bankruptcy process, not taxpayer-funded bailouts. The
process that she was talking about, this orderly liquidation authority,
the government runs the bank for 5 years, and that is unacceptable.
So I hope you will join me in supporting this rule and supporting the
underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. This bill will have a devastating impact on the
ability of regulators to protect everyday Americans from future
wrongdoing on Wall Street.
If you support consumers, you must oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.
If you want to make sure that consumers have a fighting chance against
those big banks and against illegal practices, then you must oppose the
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, because this act guts the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
In nearly 6 years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has
returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million Americans hurt by illegal
financial practices, reduced $7.7 billion in consumer debts while
winning $3.7 billion in compensation for consumers, and it has
benefited nearly 50 million households in the form of new protections
shielding consumers from surprise costs in terms on their mortgages and
their credit cards.
Now, at a time when we have a student loan crisis in this country,
$1.4 trillion in student debt, we have to make sure that we are
protecting families, students, and young people around these predatory
debt collection practices and all working families around predatory
lending.
My home State of Washington was proud to work with the CFPB on those
new regulations that would actually protect working people, make sure
that they have off-ramps if they get into predatory loans and make sure
that we regulate that industry.
The benefits of Dodd-Frank are not limited just to consumers, by the
way. Big and small banks have benefited: lending is at record highs,
and 2016 data from the FDIC shows that those banks are doing pretty
well.
The financial crisis, which destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth
and wreaked havoc on the financial lives of millions of families, was
not a random event.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JAYAPAL. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission itself said that
widespread failures in financial regulation and rampant predatory
lending practices were key drivers of the crisis. This bill ignores
those lessons and takes us so far backwards, Mr. Speaker.
Real people are struggling to recover from that 2008 crisis, still,
and instead of rolling back protections for consumers, we should be
investing in jobs for everyday Americans. We should be making sure that
the guy on Main Street or the woman on Main Street has a chance against
those big banks and against all those predatory practices.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support consumers and working
Americans and to oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I note for the record that the best way for a
student to repay student loans is to have a strong economy and not the
anemic recovery that we had from the last recession.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the
chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today to
speak on the rule and in support of H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act,
which represents years of hard work by our chairman, Jeb Hensarling,
and the entire Financial Services Committee.
For nearly 8 years, Dodd-Frank has targeted Main Street pocketbooks
and stripped families of real opportunities for financial success and
independence. For instance, the CFPB has spent years removing choices
and making access to financial products more difficult to obtain. Under
these regulations, it is now harder for families to qualify for a
mortgage, to obtain an auto loan, and to access other forms of credit
that they have depended on every day of their lives. Meanwhile, the
CFPB fails to monitor and prevent actual and real instances of consumer
fraud like we saw with the opening of millions of unauthorized
customers' accounts at Wells Fargo.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of chairing the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee on Financial Services, and today--today--we
released a report titled, ``Was the Cop on the Beat?'' This is
regarding the CFPB's wholly inadequate role in investigating the Wells
Fargo fraudulent account scandal.
We have received numerous records from both Wells Fargo and the OCC
and others that indicate that the CFPB was asleep at the wheel when it
came to investigating Wells Fargo. Unfortunately, the CFPB has produced
no such documents, even under subpoena, that contradict this assertion
and support the testimony of Director Cordray in front of this
committee earlier in the year. This report highlights the need for
reforms to the CFPB that are contained in the CHOICE Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, we need to bring accountability and
transparency to a Bureau that has been thwarting congressional
oversight and due process.
Additionally, the CHOICE Act will increase lending in our
communities, open up our economy, end taxpayer-funded bailouts, and
hold Wall Street and Washington accountable. Americans today deserve
the ``Right'' CHOICE Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has
further speakers?
Mr. BUCK. I do.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy
and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, when former President Obama signed the Dodd-
Frank financial control law into law about 7 years ago, supporters
promised that it would repair the economy; they promised that it would
end too big to fail; they promised it would enhance financial stability
and protect consumers. But none of those promises have been kept.
Nearly 9 years after the financial crisis, Americans are still stuck
in the slowest, weakest economic recovery in 70 years. The percentage
of Americans who are actually in the workforce is at its lowest level
since the late 1970s, and we still have not fully reached the potential
of our economic recovery. This is precisely because of the Dodd-Frank
law. The Dodd-Frank law has clogged the plumbing of our economy with an
avalanche of red tape.
Far from ending too big to fail, Dodd-Frank has guaranteed that too-
big-to-fail banks will get a taxpayer bailout whenever they go into
distress.
As big banks have gotten bigger as a result of Dodd-Frank, the small
banks, the community banks, the credit unions--the credit providers for
the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, the job creators in this
country--are fewer. That is a huge problem for the dynamism of the
economy, and that is one of the reasons why we haven't seen economic
recovery the way that we should.
Dodd-Frank has made it more difficult for small businesses and
startups to obtain capital to grow, invest, and hire. Before Dodd-
Frank, small business lending was more than 150 percent of large bank
lending. Today, due to Dodd-Frank, small bank lending is about 80
percent below that of large bank lending. This is why new business
formation is at a generational low, because small businesses and
startups and entrepreneurs have much more success obtaining capital
from community banks than Wall Street banks.
[[Page H4669]]
Financial services and products have been impaired. Since Dodd-Frank,
the number of banks offering free checking has shrunk from 75 percent
to 37 percent, the ranks of the unbanked have gone up, and one in five
community banks in my home State of Kentucky have disappeared as a
result of Dodd-Frank.
Consumer protection? Hardly. Taking away financial services and
products, eliminating competition and choice from the marketplace,
eliminating free checking, taking away access to credit, that is not
protecting consumers. That is hurting consumers. Dodd-Frank is the
worst bill for consumers that we could possibly have.
We need the Financial CHOICE Act, which will preserve access to
financial services and products and give consumers access to mortgages
and access to financial products like credit cards and overdraft
protection and home equity loans. All of these services and products
are going away because of Dodd-Frank and the busybodies in Washington.
We need to protect consumers. There is nothing wrong with effective
regulation, but this is regulation gone awry. It is unaccountable, it
is not transparent, it is hurting the American consumers, and it is
certainly not adding to financial stability when big banks and Wall
Street are getting bigger and our community banks are going away.
{time} 1345
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chief deputy whip of the Republican
Conference.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses and families are the backbone of small
rural communities like the ones I represent in western North Carolina.
The fact is that Dodd-Frank has had a crushing impact both on the
ability of families and small businesses to access loans and the
financial products that they need and deserve.
Half of what community banks did prior to Dodd-Frank was lending to
small businesses. Now it is down to 20 percent of what they do. That is
as a result of massive regulations that have come about as a result of
Dodd-Frank.
For families, the availability of services that they used to commonly
think is acceptable, like free checking and mortgage lending, are
significantly diminished or altogether gone for them. Since Dodd-Frank
became law, nearly three-quarters of community banks have either left
or greatly reduced their mortgage businesses. This is problematic for
families. The impact of these changes has hit rural communities like
the ones I represent in western North Carolina the hardest.
But it doesn't end there. The law's mandates have driven up the cost
of borrowing, making it harder and more expensive for families to
access credit or save for important life events like saving for your
child's college education.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial CHOICE Act changes much of this. It begins
to undo the damage caused by Dodd-Frank by removing onerous Washington
mandates, very expensive regulations, by cutting off access to
financial products that the American people need and desire.
Additionally, the Financial CHOICE Act actually addresses the plight
of small businesses by cleaning up these messy regulations that are
unclear, that have made the marketplace less safe and secure for
lending and small businesses, and encouraging the use of innovative new
forms of capital formation that help businesses grow and prosper.
That means jobs. This bill is directed at growing the American
economy, getting us back on our feet, and helping expand prosperity not
just to urban or rural areas, but to both, to all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill and
get on with the business of legislating.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation, the Financial CHOICE Act. The acronym
CHOICE stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors,
Consumers, and Entrepreneurs. This legislation could be very well
entitled the ``Make America Grow Again Act.''
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, understate the importance of economic growth
and what that means to this country: jobs, better jobs; wages, higher
wages; and revenues, more revenues coming into the Federal Treasury as
a result of healthy economic growth that will allow us to pay for the
critical programs that people in this country depend on, whether
seniors, veterans, infrastructure.
You pay for your government with a healthy growing economy. That is
not what we have today. We must grow again, especially as we think of
these individuals.
Opponents of this legislation are defending a stagnant status quo.
They are defending a status quo that has given us the slowest economy
since the Great Depression, a status quo responsible for the loss of
1,400 community banks, a status quo that has a community bank or credit
union closing every single day, a status quo that has resulted in the
noncreation of 650,000 small businesses--that would mean 6.5 million
jobs. Six and a half million people who would be paying taxes, paying
Social Security taxes, paying Medicare taxes, allowing us to meet the
commitments that we have--a status quo that has eliminated free
checking, a status quo that is closing branch office banks in small
towns in my district, a status quo that allows unaccountable agencies
in this town to continue to have too much power and taking away choices
from individuals.
This legislation will end too big to fail and will end too small to
succeed. Regardless of who you are or where you come from, you should
have access to affordable reliable financial services.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. The
points have been made. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
With each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of
conflicts of interest and links to Russia and the Trump administration.
Just last week we learned that President Trump's son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, attempted to establish a back channel of communications with
Russia and the Trump transition team before they were even inaugurated.
Tomorrow, former FBI Director James Comey will likely testify that
President Trump attempted to influence the FBI's investigation into
possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian Government.
Who knows what further ties to Russia we will uncover from his
testimony.
Without President Trump's tax returns, we simply have no way of
knowing if he himself has financial ties to Russia, as news reports
have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not our
President has any business dealings with Russia or other foreign
governments. It is imperative that we prevent the White House from
becoming another arm of the Trump organization.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R.
305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the
Presidency to release their tax returns.
If the President has nothing to hide, including financial interests
or business dealings with Russia, then he should freely release his tax
returns to reassure the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior
to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the majority why we enacted
the Wall Street reform in the first place.
[[Page H4670]]
Our country was plunged into the worst recession since the Great
Depression after big Wall Street firms played Russian roulette with our
future for years. During the 2008 financial crash, more than 8 million
Americans lost their jobs, $13 trillion in wealth vanished overnight,
and 11 million homes were lost.
After years of excesses and dodging regulation, the financial firms
were finally brought under control by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act. The perverse notion of too big to fail was
finally ended, and the financial playing field was tilted back toward
consumers.
We have all seen the results of the law in the form of record-setting
private sector job growth, millions of new jobs, and historic rates of
business lending. It is beyond me why anyone in the world would want to
repeal this law and threaten this progress. Instead of doing the
bidding of the financial lobbyists who don't really care for the law,
we should be acting to uphold the trust of the people who sent us here.
This begins with passing the End Congressional Stock Market Abuse Act
to bring an end to the egregious use of exclusive stock deals and
foreign initial public offerings by Members of Congress.
The American people must be able to trust what we are doing here and
trust that it is right for them without concern that we are using our
position to enrich ourselves.
My bill would enhance the STOCK Act, which passed the Chamber
virtually unanimously--two ``no'' votes--in 2012, with provisions that
I think we could all agree on: no exclusive stock deals for Members of
Congress, no initial public offerings, regardless of where they are
offered.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be focusing on today, not
dismantling a law that has brought financial security to millions of
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the
underlying legislation, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is not for the
big banks. It is not for the bureaucrats and their swanky downtown
office at CFPB. This legislation was crafted for the American people,
the men and women who work hard every day to earn a living. These
individuals want choice in the financial products they can buy. They
want healthy community banks. They want lower taxes instead of Wall
Street bailouts.
The Financial CHOICE Act was written over the past several years with
these people in mind. We will restore hope and opportunity for them.
I thank Chairman Hensarling and the Financial Services Committee for
their hard work on this bill. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing
this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and
then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and
the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Previous
Question so that the House can vote on my bipartisan legislation, the
Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
I first introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act exactly one
year ago today, along with my Senate counterpart Ron Wyden. This bill
would codify the longstanding tradition of presidents disclosing their
tax returns. The bill is simple, it is bipartisan, and it has the
support of the American people. A recent poll found that 80 percent of
Americans believe the President should disclose his tax returns.
Earlier today, a petition was delivered to Congress with over 4 million
signatures calling on the House to take up this bill.
Since I introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act a year ago,
candidate Trump and now President Trump has amassed serious ethical
lapses, troubling connections to Russian officials, and countless
potential conflicts of interest, all while hiding his full financial
information from the public.
Mr. Trump is the first president in decades to refuse to disclose his
tax returns as a candidate and as President. We know from his candidate
financial disclosure filed last year that the President has 564
financial positions in companies around the world, and owes at least
$300 million in debts to various banks. But there's no way for us to
verify these claims without his tax return information.
Disclosure of the President's tax returns would provide answers to
many of the troubling questions surrounding this Administration's
connections to Russia. In recent weeks, the President pressured the FBI
Director to stop investigating Michael Flynn's Russia connections and
then fired him. There are near-daily revelations of undisclosed
meetings with Russian officials, disclosures of classified information,
and more evidence that the Russians sought to directly interfere in our
election.
Only with full disclosure of his tax returns will we know the true
sources of the President's income, the holders of his debt, and the
extent of any business ties to Russia and other foreign countries.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the will of the American people and
join our bipartisan effort to exercise Congress's constitutional duty
to serve as a check on the Executive Branch. By defeating the Previous
Question and voting to approve the Presidential Tax Transparency Act
today, this body can start the process of obtaining the truth that the
American people want and are entitled to.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 375 Offered By Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote on whether to order the previous question on a
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against
ordering the previous question is a vote against the
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic
minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about
what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
[[Page H4671]]
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________