[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1136-H1146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 620, ADA EDUCATION AND REFORM ACT 
     OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3299, PROTECTING 
CONSUMERS' ACCESS TO CREDIT ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
H.R. 3978, TRID IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS 
  DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2018, THROUGH FEBRUARY 23, 2018

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 736

       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. 620) to amend the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990 to promote compliance through education, to 
     clarify the requirements for demand letters, to provide for a 
     notice and cure period before the commencement of a private 
     civil action, 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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. 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3299) to amend 
     the Revised Statutes, the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Federal 
     Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to 
     require the rate of interest on certain loans remain 
     unchanged after transfer of the loan, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend 
     the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to modify 
     requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-59, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by the Member designated in 
     the report, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     February 16, 2018, through February 23, 2018--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on House Resolution 736, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule today on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act; H.R. 3978, 
the TRID Improvement Act; and H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' 
Access to Credit Act of 2017.
  The rule provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 620, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The 
rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order multiple 
amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  It also provides for one hour of debate on the two Financial Services 
bills, with time equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
member of that committee.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my 
fellow Judiciary Committee members: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Poe, as well as Mr. 
Langevin. We also heard from Mr. Hill and Ms. Waters on the Financial 
Services bill.
  H.R. 620 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee and 
enjoyed a rigorous markup process. H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978 were 
considered and reported by the Financial Services Committee.
  The bills before us today address different topics on different 
segments of our economy and our Nation, but they have something in 
common. They are all pro-growth bills aimed at righting wrongs, 
increasing common sense, and improving the way that the current system 
works.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act and, 
as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have had multiple occasions to 
talk and listen about this bill. It is sponsored by my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), and several of my friends from both sides of the aisle 
have cosponsored this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this bill because I believe the 
Americans with Disabilities Act is critical legislation. No individual 
should ever suffer discrimination for any reason, and disabled 
individuals should have access to businesses and other sites that 
provide public accommodation. I am a former small-business owner, so I 
speak from experience running businesses.
  Even more importantly, however, one of the main reasons I stand 
before you on this issue and behind this bill is I am the father of a 
strong, intelligent, capable, and a little sassy daughter named Jordan. 
Jordan is 26 years old and has spina bifida. Jordan has been in a 
wheelchair her entire life. Her first walk and first steps came in a 
little, pink wheelchair.
  Jordan makes this issue personal for me. Discrimination is 
unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable for opportunists to build a 
cottage industry of serial litigation on the backs of the disabled, 
especially when these drive-by lawsuits offer little to no discernible 
benefit to disabled individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, my daughter Jordan helps me understand the importance of

[[Page H1137]]

access to public space and the danger posed by lawsuits that exploit 
the disabled community instead of serving its members. I believe that 
there are good actors genuinely seeking to increase access and call to 
task those who block access to disabled individuals. Unfortunately, 
what we are seeing too often is bad actors intentionally exploiting the 
law for their own financial gain.
  When these bad actors, these serial litigants, clog up the courts by 
drive-by lawsuits geared not at solutions but at profits, they take up 
time the courts could be using to address issues that truly need 
remediation. They also undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
The intent and purpose of the ADA is not to drum up lawsuits; it is to 
prevent discrimination, increase access, and to protect those with 
disabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, the disability community, my daughter included, 
represents some of the strongest people I know. They have a voice, and 
they are powerful. Today, we are here making sure the law works better 
for them and that it isn't being exploited by those who seek to 
undermine that law.
  Today, small businesses face legal fees and complex technical jargon 
when presented with an impediment to access. Most businesses want to 
fix such issues and would, but instead of being able to make this issue 
right, they are forced into court before they have the chance to do so. 
In some examples of these serial lawsuits, the issues have not even 
been perceptible to the human eye; in others, building codes have 
changed--and yes, even the ADA--yet business owners have been hauled 
into court before they have a chance to respond or to fix the problem.
  H.R. 620 ensures businesses have the opportunity to fix any access 
issues once they have been made aware of them. It provides notice and a 
cure period and clarifies the requirements for demand letters. It also 
provides training for business owners and State and local governments 
so that they can better understand proper ADA compliance.
  The number of ADA title III lawsuits has skyrocketed in recent years. 
Since 2013, there has been a 132 percent increase in the number of 
lawsuits in Federal courts. H.R. 620 addresses this problem in a smart 
way that maintains the integrity, purpose, and key provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act while ensuring there is a chance to fix 
access issues.
  This bill does not take away an individual's right to sue for access. 
This bill does not overturn the ADA. It does give business owners a 
chance to fix ADA problems quickly. Some owners may not even actually 
realize they are not in compliance. Codes have changed, and there are 
literally hundreds of pages of compliance.

                              {time}  1230

  That, however, is not an excuse for willful noncompliance. Far from 
it. But it is a reason that good actors who may need to update their 
accommodations should have a chance to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill has bipartisan 
support and that the Rules Committee made in order several amendments 
from Members on both sides of the aisle so that we can consider ideas 
to even further strengthen this legislation. I would ask that all 
Members listen to that amendment debate because these amendments do 
have an impact on this bill, and I would encourage them to be a part of 
that.
  H.R. 620 makes sense and focuses on fixing issues rather than 
spending money on trials or, better yet, extorting money from 
businesses with no thought of helping those with disabilities.
  We also have a chance to consider some other commonsense measures 
today with the two important Financial Services bills also provided for 
by this rule.
  H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, was 
introduced by Mr. McHenry and Mr. Meeks, and reported by the Financial 
Services Committee with bipartisan support. Similar language was 
included in the House-passed CHOICE Act last year.
  This legislation codifies the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, a 
longstanding legal principle that, if a loan is valid when it is made 
with respect to its interest rate, then it does not become invalid or 
unenforceable when assigned to another party. This bill is a response 
to the 2015 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden 
v. Midland, which appears to have ignored the longstanding legal 
principle.
  The decision in the Madden case created instability and uncertainty 
in the secondary credit market, and restricts the availability of loans 
to borrowers, particularly those with less access to traditional 
lending sources. It has also led to regulatory uncertainty and fallout 
for fintech lenders. My home State of Georgia has an increasing 
presence in fintech, and H.R. 3299 provides a legislative fix that 
increases certainty and supports economic opportunity.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss 3978, the TRID 
Improvement Act, which incorporates numerous important provisions from 
several smart Financial Services bills. It was introduced by 
Congressman Hill from Arkansas, and takes steps to provide important 
regulatory relief and make capital markets more competitive and 
efficient.
  Dodd-Frank led to an explosion of regulations and requirements that 
ultimately have squeezed access to capital, created hurdles to smaller 
market entrants, and imposed burdens on small businesses, startups, and 
investors.
  One especially critical provision is H.R. 3978, the language authored 
by Mr. Duffy from Wisconsin. This provision prohibits the SEC from 
compelling the production of source code or similar intellectual 
property without a subpoena. The SEC has had a data breach, and the GAO 
has been critical of its cybersecurity.
  I think Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hill, along with my colleague David Scott 
from Georgia, are right to recognize that we shouldn't be forcing SEC 
registered entities to hand over their highly sensitive source code 
without due process protections. This legislation ensures normal 
processes can be followed to access this information is needed, but 
prevents unnecessary disclosures of this intellectual property.
  Mr. Speaker, source code for security and other financial entities is 
similar to what the Coke recipe is to Coca-Cola, or the doughnut recipe 
is to Krispy Kreme. It is critical intellectual property that 
represents the backbone of a company. This bill makes clear that this 
sensitive and highly valuable information doesn't have to be simply 
handed over to the SEC with the hope that the information remains 
secure.
  H.R. 3978 includes numerous other key provisions, including 
recognizing unique needs of emerging growth companies and tailoring 
regulatory burdens accordingly, and requiring the CFPB--the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau--to allow for more accurate and clear 
calculations to be provided to consumers when they purchase lenders and 
owners title insurance policies.
  Mr. Speaker, today, you are seeing a theme. You are seeing a rule 
that provides for numerous bills that make commonsense changes to the 
current system to spur growth and simply increases fairness. And you 
are seeing bipartisan bills, including bipartisan amendments, that will 
be coming forward on this in support of these bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today, sadly, we find ourselves considering legislation 
that would actually make it easier for unscrupulous payday lenders to 
actually skirt State interest rate caps and another bill that guts 
enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act that puts an unfair 
burden on people with disabilities.
  These bills hurt the American people. Instead of spending our time 
here debating a very important immigration bill, like the Senate is 
doing across the way, we are considering bills that will only harm our 
most vulnerable populations.
  Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is having an open 
debate about immigration in our country. This House owes the American 
people no less. The Senate is trying to find solutions to help the 
hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, to improve border security, 
or to address family reunification. The Senate is debating different 
proposals from both sides of

[[Page H1138]]

the aisle. We will see what they come up with.
  Again, this House is simply not doing its job. This House is doing 
nothing to improve border security, nothing to address the DACA 
recipients or family reunification. Over here, there is not even a plan 
to bring any immigration bill or amendment to the floor. In fact, there 
is no commitment at all to actually address the issues that the 
American people care about. We have bipartisan bills today that Speaker 
Ryan could bring to the floor. They would pass with probably 70 or 60 
percent of the vote.

  Mr. Speaker, the March 5 deadline for DACA protections is rapidly 
approaching. There is no plan in place to protect Dreamers like 
Anareli, Marcos, and Javier in my district. Instead, over 800,000 young 
adults are trying to see what happens next, hoping that the court 
system intervenes, hoping that somebody somewhere does something so 
they can continue to live and work legally in the only country that 
they know, the country that they call home, the United States of 
America.
  I have offered the Dream Act as an amendment to every spending bill 
that has come through the Rules Committee. I will continue to do so 
until we finally get it done.
  But, again, instead of bringing up a bill to help protect Dreamers 
before the self-Trump-imposed March 5 deadline, the House will consider 
legislation that undermines the civil rights of disabled Americans, and 
it also makes it easier for predatory lenders to evade consumer 
protection laws. And people wonder why the House of Representatives is 
as unpopular as it is.
  H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act is a bill 
that hurts consumers. It is one that makes it easier for payday lenders 
to evade well-thought-out State-level protection laws.
  That is why over 200 national and State organizations have written in 
opposition to this bill, which they fear would open the floodgates for 
predatory lending with interest rates as high as 300 percent. 
Additionally, 20 State attorneys general have also written in 
opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two letters.

                                                November 29, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), 
         Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

       Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned 202 national and 
     state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299 
     (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers' 
     Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill 
     will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that 
     exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to 
     originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling 
     predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable 
     loans have devastating consequences for borrowers--trapping 
     them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms 
     such as greater delinquency on other bills.
       Specifically, the bill makes it easier for payday lenders 
     and other nonbanks to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore 
     state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. The bill 
     overrides the Second Circuit's Madden v. Midland decision, 
     which held that a debt buyer purchasing debts originated by a 
     national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's 
     preemption of state interest rate caps. The Madden decision 
     did not limit the interest rates that banks may charge on 
     credit cards and other forms of credit, but it does limit 
     nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. Reversing the 
     Second Circuit's decision, as this bill seeks to do, would 
     make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online 
     lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use 
     ``rent-a-bank'' arrangements to charge high rates on loans.
       The bill provides that ``a loan that is valid when made as 
     to its maximum rate of interest . . . shall remain valid with 
     respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is 
     subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a 
     third party, and may be enforced by such third party 
     notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' In other 
     words, if a bank originates a loan that exceeds state 
     interest rate caps, and then sells or assigns the loan to a 
     nonbank, that nonbank can continue to charge a usurious rate.
       This bill could open the floodgates to a wide range of 
     predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or 
     higher. The bill could bless arrangements such as the 
     partnership between the payday lender Elevate and Republic 
     Bank, through which Elevate is making high-cost loans that 
     exceed state interest rate caps. Through its Elastic brand, 
     Elevate offers purportedly open-end loans in 39 states and 
     the District of Columbia.
       Elevate does not disclose an APR, but a $380 advance repaid 
     with monthly minimum payments would cost $480 to repay over 
     five months. Including all fees, the annual rate for this 
     extension of credit is about 100%, which is nearly three 
     times the 36% legal interest rate approved by voters in 
     Montana, one of the states where the lines of credit are 
     offered. Through its Rise brand, Elevate also makes closed-
     end loans at rates up to 365% in states where those rates are 
     permitted, and it could attempt to expand to other states.
       Enova, dba NetCredit, also offers high-cost installment 
     loans in a number of states through a rent-a-bank 
     partnership. Enova, like Elevate, relies on Republic Bank and 
     Trust to facilitate this scheme.
       Other payday lenders have regularly attempted to avoid 
     state usury caps through rent-a-bank arrangements. For 
     example, CashCall has attempted to partner with banks to make 
     usurious loans in several states. Courts have struck down 
     those arrangements, finding that CashCall had to comply with 
     state interest rate caps. The bill could undermine these 
     decisions, by stating that a loan's interest rate remains 
     valid even if a loan is transferred or assigned to a third 
     party and ``may be enforced by such third party 
     notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' This could 
     allow high-rate lenders to use banks to originate and then 
     immediately transfer usurious loans.
       This bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection 
     laws. In a letter by 20 State Attorneys General opposing 
     provisions in another bill that would have overturned the 
     Madden decision, the state law enforcement officers warned 
     that the bill ``would restrict states' abilities to enforce 
     interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability 
     of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and 
     oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt 
     state usury caps.'' ' In fact, the Colorado Attorney General 
     is in the midst of challenging online lenders' use of a rent-
     a-bank scheme to make loans in violation of the state's usury 
     limits. This bill aims to thwart actions like these that seek 
     to enforce state laws.
       The potential costs and damage to consumers are 
     significant. In about 34 states, a $2,000 loan, 2-year 
     installment loan at an APR exceeding 36% would be illegal. 
     This bill risks making high-cost loans permissible across the 
     country. The bill also could potentially expand short-term 
     payday lending to the 15 states plus the District of Colombia 
     whose state interest rate limits currently save borrowers 
     over $2.2 billion annually in payday loan fees.
       Fintech lenders also should not be allowed to make loans 
     that exceed state interest rate caps. State interest rate 
     caps have not impacted responsible marketplace loans. The 
     leading marketplace lenders do not make loans above 36% and 
     the vast majority of their loans are well below that rate, 
     comfortably within state interest rate caps. But the mere 
     fact that a lender uses the label ``fintech'' or 
     ``martketplace lender'' does not ensure that it is a safe or 
     affordable loan. For example, OnDeck, a lender focused on 
     small business lending, offers term loans up to 99%.
       Moreover, many marketplace lenders make very large loans of 
     $30,000 to $50,000 or higher, and even 36% is a very high 
     rate for such loans. Many states have tiered rate structures 
     in recognition that interest becomes more unaffordable the 
     larger the loan. Iowa, for example, caps interest at 21% for 
     loans over $10,000.
       There are also signs that some online lenders may not be 
     appropriately underwriting their loans to ensure that the 
     loans are affordable, and that many borrowers may not have 
     the ability to repay, especially, if the economy sours. 
     Recent news reports and SEC filings show that delinquency and 
     charge-off rates at these marketplace lenders are rising. One 
     online lender apparently failed to verify a borrower's income 
     for a full two-thirds of its loans in 2016. Another lender 
     has had so many of its loans fail, that it has had to repay 
     investors for their losses in the last three securitizations 
     of the loans it bundled up and sold to Wall Street.
       This bill would weaken lenders' incentive to underwrite 
     properly by making it easier to make high-rate loans. High 
     interest rates result in misaligned incentives that can lead 
     to lender profits but borrower catastrophe. Skewed incentives 
     are already a problem in the marketplace loan industry. 
     Moody's credit-rating firms liken this industry to mortgage 
     lending in the years leading up to the 2008 financial 
     crisis--``because the companies that market the loans and 
     approve them quickly sell them off to investors,'' relieving 
     themselves of the risk of the loan later going bad. This bill 
     could make that problem worse.
       The bill is not necessary to ensure access to affordable 
     credit. Proponents of this bill claim that the Madden 
     decision has had an adverse impact on access to credit. They 
     point to a study that showed a drop in marketplace lending by 
     three lenders in the Second Circuit after the Madden decision 
     for subprime borrowers, especially for those with FICO scores 
     below 644. However, the study showed that these lenders 
     offered only miniscule amounts of credit in the low FICO 
     range even before the Madden decision. Thus, the impact on 
     access to credit was trivial. Moreover, it is likely that the 
     credit extended before the decision at the lower end of the 
     FICO spectrum was made to borrowers who had trouble repaying, 
     and that lenders were relying on high interest rates on large 
     loans to compensate for high default rates.

[[Page H1139]]

       The bill wipes away the strongest available tool against 
     predatory lending practices. Strong state rate caps, coupled 
     with effective enforcement by states, remain the simplest and 
     most effective method to protect consumers from the predatory 
     lending debt trap. Contrary to what lenders often claim, 
     robust state loan laws do not drive people to find loans 
     online. In fact, illegal online lending is more prevalent in 
     states that do not effectively regulate predatory lending 
     than it is in states that enforce state interest rate caps.
       Accordingly, we urge you to reject this bill. For more 
     information, contact Lauren Saunders at [email protected] or 
     Scott Astrada at Scott.A[email protected].
       Action NC; Albany Center for Economic Success, Inc.; Allied 
     Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Arbor Farm Press; 
     Arizona Community Action Association; Arizona PIRG; Arkansans 
     Against Abusive Payday Lending; Ashe County Habitat for 
     Humanity; Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity; Baker 
     Organizing School South.; Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc; 
     Billings First Congregational Church; Brazos Valley 
     Affordable Housing Corp.; Bucks County Women's Advocacy 
     Coalition; Business Outreach Center Network, Inc.; California 
     Reinvestment Coalition; CALPIRG; Capital Good Fund; CARECEN-
     Central American Resource Center.
       Carolina Behavioral Health Alliance; Carolina Jews for 
     Justice; CASH Campaign of Maryland; Catalyst Miami; Catholic 
     Charities of Southern New Mexico; CCCS of WNC, Inc. DBA 
     OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling; Cedar Grove 
     Institute for Sustainable Communities; Center for Economic 
     Integrity; Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico Office; 
     Center for Financial Social Work; Center for Global Policy 
     Solutions; Center for Responsible Lending; CEO Pipe Organs/
     Golden Ponds Farm; Children First/Communities In Schools of 
     Buncombe County; Church Women United in North Carolina; 
     Clarifi; CO PIRG; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in 
     Ohio; College Park: An American Baptist Church; Colorado 
     Center on Law & Policy; Communications Workers of America 
     (CWA).
       Community Capital New York; Community Council of 
     Metropolitan Atlanta; Community Economic Development 
     Association of MI (CEDAM); Community Loan Fund of the Capital 
     Region Inc.; Connecticut Association for Human Services; 
     Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action; 
     Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Covenant 
     House of WV; Credit and Homeownership Empowerment Services 
     Inc (CHES, Inc.); Credit Counseling Agencies of NC; Creighton 
     College Democrats; Davidson Housing Coalition; Demos; 
     Disability Rights North Carolina; Durham Regional Financial 
     Center; East LA Community Corporation; Ecumenical Poverty 
     Initiative; Empire Justice Center.
       Faith in Action Alabama; Faith in Texas; Fayetteville Area 
     Habitat for Humanity; Federation of Democratic Women DAC; 
     Financial Pathways of the Piedmont; Florida Alliance for 
     Consumer Protection; Florida Alliance for Retired Americans; 
     Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Fons Law 
     Office, representing consumers; Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch; 
     Gowen Consulting; Greater Ward's Corner Area Business 
     Association (Virginia); Habitat for Humanity of Catawba 
     Valley, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of Davie County; Habitat 
     for Humanity of Greater Greensboro; Habitat for Humanity of 
     North Carolina; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human 
     Rights; Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; Hispanic 
     Federation; HomesteadCS; Housing Consultants Group.
       IDA and Asset Building Collaborative of NC; Illinois 
     People's Action; Illinois PIRG; Indiana Assets & Opportunity 
     Network; Indiana Institute for Working Families; Indiana 
     PIRG; Innovative Systems Group; Iowa PIRG; Jesuit Social 
     Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans; Just 
     Harvest; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; La Casa de Don Pedro; 
     Legal Aid Justice Center (Virginia); Legal Aid Society of 
     Milwaukee; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Long Island 
     Housing Services, Inc.; Louisiana Budget Project; Lutheran 
     Episcopal Advocacy Ministry NJ; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--
     New Mexico; Maine Center for Economic Policy; Maryland 
     Consumer Rights Coalition; Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG; 
     Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.
       MICAH; Mobilization for Justice, Inc.; Montana Organizing 
     Project; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; MoPIRG; 
     Mountain State Justice; NAACP; NAOMI; National Association of 
     Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers 
     West Virginia Chapter; National Consumer Law Center (on 
     behalf of its low-income clients); National Rural Social Work 
     Caucus; Native Community Finance; NCPIRG; New Economics for 
     Women; New Economy Project; New Jersey Appleseed Public 
     Interest Law Center; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey 
     Tenants Organization; New Mexico Fair Lending Coalition; 
     NHPIRG; NJPIRG; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, 
     Inc.
       North Carolina Assets Alliance; North Carolina Council of 
     Churches; North Carolina Housing Coalition; North Carolina 
     Institute of Minority Economic Development; North Carolina 
     Justice Center; North Carolina PIRG; North Carolina Rural 
     Center; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina United 
     Methodist Conference; North Dakota Economic Security and 
     Prosperity Alliance; OhioPIRG; Oklahoma Policy Institute; 
     Oregon PIRG; PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; 
     Pennsylvania Military Officers Association of America; 
     Pennsylvania War Veterans Council; People's Action Institute; 
     Philadelphia Unemployment Project; Piedmont Housing Alliance 
     (Virginia); PIRG in Michigan; Power New Mexico.
       Prince George's CASH Campaign; Prosperity Indiana; 
     Prosperity Works; Public Justice; Public Justice Center; 
     Public Law Center; Reinvestment Partners; Rural Dynamics, 
     Inc.; Safety MD LLC; Samaritan Ministries; Sisters of Charity 
     of Nazareth Congregational Leadership; Sisters of Charity of 
     Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South 
     Central Community; Southern Poverty Law Center; Statewide 
     Poverty Action Network; Step Up Savannah; Tabor Community 
     Services; Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; TexPIRG; 
     The AMOS Project; The Bell Policy Center; The Episcopal 
     Diocese of North Carolina; The Midas Collaborative; The One 
     Less Foundation.
       Tuscaloosa Citizens Against Predatory Practices; Tzedek DC; 
     U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative 
     Advocacy Network; UNITE HERE; United for a Fair Economy; 
     University of Wisconsin Law School, Consumer Law Clinic; 
     Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Interfaith 
     Center for Public Policy; Virginia Organizing; Virginia 
     Poverty Law Center; Virginians Against Payday Lending; VOICE 
     Oklahoma City; WASHPIRG; Watauga County Habitat for Humanity; 
     WESST; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; West 
     Virginia Citizen Action Group; WISDOM; WISPIRG; Women 
     AdvaNCe; Woodstock Institute; WV Citizen Action Group.
                                                State of New York,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                     June 7, 2017.
     Re The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10).

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority 
     Leader Pelosi, and Minority Whip Hoyer: On behalf of the 
     undersigned State Attorneys General and the Executive 
     Director of the Office of Consumer Protection for the State 
     of Hawaii (the ``States''), we write to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 10 (the ``Act''), which we understand the 
     full House of Representatives intends to vote on this week. 
     The proposed Act will eliminate many of the critical consumer 
     protections implemented as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
     Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'') in 
     the wake of, and in response to, the financial crisis. As the 
     chief consumer protection officers in each of our respective 
     States, we write to call your particular attention to those 
     portions of the Act that would effectively eviscerate the 
     role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''), 
     the only independent federal agency exclusively focused on 
     consumer financial protection. While the Act purports to 
     protect consumers from over-regulation by federal agencies, 
     its far-reaching consequences would make consumers more 
     vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the marketplace. The 
     undersigned States support the work of the CFPB and oppose 
     any effort to curtail its authority. While we find numerous 
     provisions of the Act to be objectionable, we write to 
     highlight certain provisions that would significantly impact 
     consumer protection -- a core function of our States.

                             I. Background

       Our States' work to protect consumers from unscrupulous 
     marketplace actors and practices is greatly enhanced when the 
     federal government serves as an effective partner. In the 
     years leading up to the global financial crisis, residents of 
     our States suffered the consequences of a federal government 
     that failed to fulfill its basic obligations to U.S. 
     consumers to prevent fraud and misconduct by mortgage 
     providers, servicers, and other financial firms. Families 
     nationwide suffered dire financial consequences as a result 
     of lax federal oversight and inaction.
       Since its inception, the CFPB has emerged as the 
     independent federal consumer watchdog the nation has long 
     needed, and as a key partner in critically important consumer 
     protection work undertaken by our States and by State 
     Attorneys General across the country. The exceptional record 
     of the CFPB speaks for itself. As of January 1, 2017, the 
     CFPB has handled over one million consumer complaints, and 
     obtained $11.8 billion in relief for 29 million consumers. 
     The CFPB has taken enforcement actions to stem abuses by 
     student loan originators and servicers, for-profit schools, 
     debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders, 
     and foreclosure ``rescue'' companies, among others. Among its 
     more recent, significant enforcement actions have been cases 
     against

[[Page H1140]]

     mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation for widespread 
     mortgage servicing failures, including improperly calculating 
     balances, misapplying payments, and failing to investigate 
     consumer complaints, student loan servicer Navient for 
     student loan servicing abuses, including failing to notify 
     struggling borrowers of their eligibility for income-based 
     repayment plans and steering such borrowers into more costly 
     forbearance plans--and Wells Fargo bank for its widespread 
     practice of opening unauthorized bank and credit card 
     accounts for consumers. In addition, as part of its statutory 
     mandate, the CFPB has conducted thorough and nuanced studies 
     of complex financial issues that impact consumers and has 
     issued rules intended to protect consumers in a thoughtful, 
     consensus-driven manner.

     II. The Devastating Effects of the Act on Consumer Protection

       The Act would effectively cripple the CFPB from doing the 
     job it has been doing so effectively since its inception.


   A. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Rulemaking and Enforcement 
    Authority Over Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices

       Section 736 of the Act would eliminate the CFPB's authority 
     to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices 
     (``UDAAP''). The CFPB's authority to prohibit entities it 
     supervises from engaging in UDAAP violations has been the 
     basis for many of the CFPB's most significant enforcement 
     actions, including the Ocwen, Navient, and Wells Fargo 
     matters discussed above. In addition, several of the 
     undersigned States have jointly filed cases with the CFPB 
     against businesses and individuals engaged in unfair, 
     deceptive, or abusive practices. UDAAP authority gives the 
     CFPB the flexibility to respond swiftly to new technologies 
     and practices that harm consumers, without the need to wait 
     for legislation expressly addressing a given practice.


   B. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Supervision and Enforcement 
                       Authority Over Large Banks

       Section 727 of the Act would similarly eliminate the CFPB's 
     supervision and enforcement authority over large banks and 
     permit financial institutions that meet certain criteria to 
     elect to be exempted from the CFPB's supervisory authority. 
     This provision is concerning in a number of ways, not the 
     least of which is that it is through the supervision process 
     that the CFPB often learns of systemic issues in the 
     companies and industries it regulates. The CFPB is the only 
     federal agency that has been conducting consumer protection 
     reviews as the focus of their supervisory authority (rather 
     than safety and soundness), which is important for the 
     reasons previously discussed. In addition, many of the CFPB's 
     enforcement actions have been against the large banks.


C. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Authority to Regulate Payday and 
                          Vehicle Title Loans

       Section 733 of the Act expressly prohibits the CFPB from 
     engaging in any rulemaking or enforcement with respect to 
     payday and vehicle title loans. Payday lending, as the CFPB's 
     own extensive research has documented, has adversely affected 
     the lives of millions of financially vulnerable consumers 
     across the country. The CFPB has been at the forefront of 
     curbing abuses in the payday lending industry and has 
     supplemented state enforcement by taking enforcement actions 
     against payday and other lenders that are attempting to 
     collect on loans that are void under state law. The CFPB has 
     been similarly aggressive in uncovering and confronting 
     abuses in the vehicle title loan industry, where consumers, 
     risk the loss of their vehicle (with the corresponding loss 
     in mobility) if they find themselves unable to repay their 
     loans. The Act will strip the CFPB of all authority in these 
     areas, including its enforcement authority and the ability to 
     adopt sensible and common sense rules to prevent consumers 
     from falling into debt traps that are often the result of 
     payday and vehicle title loans.


D. The Act Would Permit Third Party Debt Collectors to Charge Usurious 
                             Interest Rates

       Section 581 of the Act would restrict states' abilities to 
     enforce interest rate caps. Currently, there are no federal 
     interest rate caps that cover financial products and services 
     offered by national banks. Rather, national banks are 
     permitted to export the interest rate of their home state and 
     disregard the more stringent interest rates of other states 
     in which they do business. Section 581 of the Act would add 
     language to four federal statutes to provide that, when a 
     national bank sells or assigns debt covered by the National 
     Bank Act, the buyer or assignee has the right to collect that 
     same interest rate, regardless of the law of the state where 
     the buyer or assignee is located. This would make it more 
     difficult to ensure that debt buyers, online lenders, fintech 
     companies, and rent-a-bank schemes comply with state interest 
     rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of 
     individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and 
     oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt 
     state usury caps.


  E. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB Rulemaking Authority Regarding 
                         Mandatory Arbitration

       Section 738 of the Act would repeal the provision of Dodd-
     Frank that granted the CFPB authority to study and issue 
     rules regarding arbitration in financial services contracts. 
     Dodd-Frank expressly authorized the CFPB to study arbitration 
     provisions in financial services contracts, and to issue 
     regulations prohibiting or restricting such provisions if the 
     CFPB concluded that doing so would be ``in the public 
     interest and for the protection of consumers.'' After a 
     thorough review, the CFPB concluded that tens of millions of 
     Americans use financial products or services subject to 
     mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit proceeding on a 
     class basis and that the effect of such provisions is to 
     prevent consumers from seeking redress, particularly for 
     small dollar claims. Elimination of the CFPB's authority in 
     this area can only operate to the detriment of consumers.


    F. The Act Would Reduce Transparency and Deprive Consumers of a 
                     Valuable Source of Information

       Finally, the Act would end the CFPB's current practice of 
     publicly posting information concerning individual consumer 
     complaints in a searchable database. This information helps 
     consumers make informed decisions about the companies with 
     which they choose to do business, and increases transparency 
     in the marketplace. Eliminating the release of this 
     information provides no benefit to consumers, but only to 
     companies whose practices generate repeated complaints.

                            III. Conclusion

       For these and other reasons, the undersigned States urge 
     you to support robust and engaged consumer protection in the 
     financial services industry by voting against the Act. A 
     rollback of these significant post-financial crisis rules and 
     regulations would substantially harm consumers and the public 
     in general. If we can provide any further information or 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Respectfully submitted,
         Eric T. Schneiderman, New York Attorney General;
         Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General;
         George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General;
         Matthew Denn, Delaware Attorney General;
         Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of 
           Columbia;
         Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii Attorney General;
         Stephen H. Levins, Executive Director, Hawaii Office of 
           Consumer Protection;
         Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General;
         Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General;
         Janet T. Mills, Maine Attorney General;
         Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General;
         Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General;
         Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General;
         Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General;
         Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General;
         Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General;
         Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General;
         Peter F. Kilmartin, Rhode Island Attorney General;
         T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General;
         Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General;
         Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, States can, and do, like my own State of 
Colorado, put limitations on the interest rates of installment loans 
issued by nonbanks. Banks, on the other hand, have the preemption of 
State interest rate caps through the National Bank Act.
  So in order to get around State interest rate caps, payday lenders 
often use a bank to originate a loan at a higher interest rate, but the 
nonbank designs the loan, provides the funding for the loan, services 
the loan, and guarantees any losses the bank incurs. In all but in 
name, it is the nonbank entity that is the loaning entity. Essentially, 
the payday lender is the de facto lender and the bank is simply a 
nominal participant to evade regulations. These are referred to as 
``rent-a-charter'' schemes, and they are not new.
  In the early 2000s, Federal banking regulators shut down several of 
these arrangements between national banks and nonbank lenders. In 2014, 
the OCC made it clear that banks may not rent out their charters to 
third parties. Right now, our Federal banking regulations are able to 
contain these schemes, but this legislation would undermine our ability 
to stop abusive and predatory practices.
  States are leading the effort to stop abusive lending practices. In 
my home State of Colorado, there is actually a lawsuit challenging this 
very scheme.
  And now that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau has delayed a final rule that would have helped protect 
borrowers, it is actually up to the States to help protect

[[Page H1141]]

consumers, and this bill would make it harder. This bill would cripple 
States', like Colorado's, efforts to stop predatory lending from 
preying on their citizens.
  The Republican assault on States' rights has gone from bad to worse. 
This is yet another part of the big government Republican war on 
consumers across the country preempting States' rights for Washington, 
D.C., control.
  It seems the Republicans want to control everything from Washington. 
That is why we need to make sure that our States are empowered to have 
the ability they need to protect consumers and protect our law.
  Lately, there has been an increased focus on fintech companies and 
how they can help serve the unbanked or underbanked. And I agree. I am 
a big supporter of financial innovation and promote financial 
inclusion, but we can't do that at the expense of consumers or at the 
very high cost of putting consumers into cycles of debt, which ends 
badly.
  Why are we considering legislation that would put all of the power in 
Washington, D.C., and take away State-level protections for consumers?
  Instead, we should be finding ways to increase access to affordable 
credit, make it easier for consumers to access the financial services 
that meet their needs, rather than trying to force a Republican 
Washington solution on all of the States across our country.
  We are considering this bill under a closed rule. There is only one 
amendment filed to this bill, and it is not even allowed to be debated 
about, no less voted on.
  Now, I want to talk about the other bill under this rule. H.R. 3978, 
the TRID Improvement Act, is actually a package of several bills that 
came out of the House Financial Services Committee, some which are more 
controversial than others. Title I of the package, the TRID Improvement 
Act, was reported out by a 53-5 vote, and all the Republicans and 
Democrats supported Title V of the package, Eliminating Barriers to 
Jobs for Loan Originators.
  I support Title II, the Protection of Source Code Act, that is being 
included in this package. I also support Representative Foster's 
amendment to that title, which would provide additional clarification 
to the subpoena requirement and would only apply to the source for 
algorithmic trading.
  The problem is that it takes several bills that have broad bipartisan 
support and combines them with other bills that should be considered 
separately, which is forcing Democrats and Republicans to weigh the 
package as a whole. We simply can't know the ramifications of 
considering all these bills at the same time, especially when they 
haven't had hearings on the individual components.
  Finally, H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, is, in many 
ways, the most damaging bill that is discussed under this rule.
  We are celebrating the Americans with Disabilities Act that was 
signed into law 28 years ago to really allow Americans with 
disabilities to have every kind of opportunity that everybody else 
does, free from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and 
transportation. It was a landmark bipartisan effort.
  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits places of 
public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with 
disabilities and sets a minimum reasonable standard for accessibility, 
which has been the law of our land for three decades.
  H.R. 620 would make it more difficult for people with disabilities to 
have their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Under this bill, instead of requiring the public establishment to 
comply with the ADA, the burden should shift to the victim of the 
discrimination to prove a violation has occurred. You are forcing 
disabled Americans to go around with clipboards and inspector goggles, 
rather than forcing businesses to comply. It is simply not fair.
  It has been nearly three decades since the Americans with 
Disabilities Act was signed into law. All title III of the ADA requires 
is that businesses make their facilities accessible to the extent that 
it is readily achievable--a very reasonable burden under the law. 
Businesses have flourished over the last three decades and we have had 
continued economic growth.
  I have heard from so many of my constituents about this bill, 
including Cari Brown, a systems advocacy specialist with the Arc of 
Larimer County, serving disabled residents. She said: ``The standards 
set forth in the ADA are designed to ensure that people with 
disabilities can access basic public accommodations. Requiring people 
with disabilities to file a complaint to enforce compliance of a 28-
year-old law is a step backwards.''

  I think this is a Republican plan to turn everybody with disabilities 
into an attorney, because that is what they are going to need to be to 
be able to assert the rights that they already have under the law.
  There is significant, if not universal, opposition to H.R. 620 from 
health and disabilities advocacy groups, including, but not limited to: 
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation, The 
Bazelon Center, the National Council on Disabilities, the American 
Association of People with Disabilities, and the Consortium for 
Citizens with Disabilities.
  We knew, Mr. Speaker, that this President has mocked and taken on 
Americans with disabilities, but I frankly thought it was above the 
Republicans in Congress to join President Trump in assaulting the 
rights of those with disabilities.
  H.R. 620 will not allow people with disabilities to immediately file 
ADA violations, essentially denying access to buildings due to a 
lengthy legal process.
  Who has time to wait several years to access a building that you need 
to be in because of your job?
  It simply doesn't make sense. That means that people with 
disabilities will wait weeks, months, or years just to gain the access 
that is required under law.
  For businesses, there is simply no incentive to adhere to ADA 
guidelines. All of this combined harms disabled Americans and weakens 
the legal protections that, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have 
been proud of in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Members are 
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the 
President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that 
we can agree or disagree on here, but one of the things, from my 
position, especially with a daughter who has a handicap--this is not an 
insult to disabilities. It is actually keeping them from being abused 
and used by folks who don't even have a disability suing and asking for 
money and not really caring if the issue gets fixed or not.
  At the end of the day, which would somebody rather have: a person in 
a wheelchair have something fixed, or have someone pay an attorney off 
so that they can make some money?
  Let's at least put this in context of what it truly is.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong support 
of the rule on the underlying bill.
  Included in this package of bills before us today is the National 
Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act. This is a bipartisan bill, 
and it is to ensure that future regulation can keep pace with--and not 
stifle--innovation in our equity markets.
  The SEC's interpretation of the current law has created a two-tiered 
playing field by giving unintended preferential treatment to three 
named exchanges. Now, one of those three no longer exists.
  Enactment of the National Securities Exchange Parity Act would strike 
references to particular stock exchanges in the 1933 Securities Act, 
and the bill would make it clear that the blue sky exemption from 
State-by-State registration is extended to all national securities 
exchanges registered with the SEC.
  So why is that particular exemption important? If you were to ask 
anyone from Massachusetts, for example, who tried to invest in Apple 
during its IPO, State regulators banned the stock for being ``too 
risky'' under rules ``aimed at weeding out highfliers that didn't have 
solid earnings foundations.''

[[Page H1142]]

Today, Apple is up 43,000 percent and is flirting with a $1 trillion 
market cap.
  The bill before us today increases the number of securities that will 
not be forced to register on a State-by-State basis, while maintaining 
important investor protections.
  The SEC is and will remain the primary enforcement agency of 
securities fraud. This bill in no way impacts the SEC's oversight or 
enforcement authority. The SEC must also still approve individual 
exchange listing standards; they simply won't be allowed to preset the 
standards.
  State-by-State securities registration not only potentially locks out 
investors from promising opportunities like Apple, but it can have 
significant negative economic consequences by chilling public offerings 
and, obviously, innovation.
  The National Securities Exchange Parity Act encourages new exchanges 
to become listing venues and a source of capital for companies looking 
to go public, to expand, and to hire more workers.
  The bill is identical to language included in the larger regulatory 
reform package already passed by the Senate Banking Committee, and I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense, technical fix. It is good for market competition. It is 
good for capital formation. I urge passage of the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as the first quadriplegic elected to 
Congress, I am here today not just as a Member of Congress, but as 
someone here with a disability--and, I hope, providing a voice for so 
many in our country who also have disabilities--to give my perspective 
on H.R. 620, the misnamed ADA Education and Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed nearly 30 
years ago as an enduring promise to an entire population of Americans 
that discrimination on the basis of disability, including access to 
public accommodations, will not be tolerated.
  Now there have been decades for people and organizations to 
understand and implement provisions of the ADA. And for those who are 
just learning about the ADA or who need a refresher on the law, there 
are many free resources that provide information and technical 
assistance.
  The ADA provides a lifeline to so many who need access to classrooms, 
restrooms, businesses, restaurants, transit, and so much more. I 
recognize that there are some individuals who are unfairly targeted in 
States that have failed to protect against things like these ``drive-by 
lawsuits.''
  But the root of the problem is not the ADA; it is the unscrupulous 
lawyers who take advantage of State laws that go beyond the Federal law 
to permit monetary damages. Now, the ADA does not allow people to sue 
for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief, meaning 
that they solve the problem.
  H.R. 620 does nothing to address the problem happening at the State 
level, nor does it target immoral lawyers. Instead, it sacrifices the 
rights of millions by reducing the impact and protections of the ADA 
which so many have come to depend on. It does so by creating a ``notice 
and cure'' regime, as it is called, that will create an obvious 
disincentive for ADA compliance.
  The idea that addressing architectural barriers with a written notice 
that gives 60 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint and then 120 
days to demonstrate ``substantial progress'' in the removal of an 
obstruction ignores the tenets of the ADA that support an indisputable 
right to inclusion and respect; and it tells people with disabilities 
that we are not worthy of inclusion until someone is caught, and even 
then, a remedy is not guaranteed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Rules Committee chose to make in 
order the bipartisan amendment that I will offer with my colleague and 
co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, Representative Gregg 
Harper; but, to be frank, this bill should never have been reported out 
of the Judiciary Committee in the first place, much less to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 620 is a blunt tool that wrongfully impedes the 
right of people with disabilities. If H.R. 620 passes with any kind of 
notice and cure period, we will return to the days when discrimination 
was commonplace, and it will be because elected officials voted to 
remove civil rights instead of protecting them.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before 
the House during this rules debate on this package of bipartisan bills 
that have been worked on for two Congresses now and that address a 
number of issues that I think Members on both sides of the aisle and 
our committee recognize would improve the capital market system, 
improve access to capital for business and consumers, and, also, reduce 
the red tape, the bureaucracy associated with trying to run a community 
bank and provide services to our consumers, both businesses and 
families, that has been made so challenging since the passage of the 
Dodd-Frank Act almost 8 years ago.

  You know, I was coming to Washington yesterday, and I was reading the 
weekend business section. There was a story there about Richard Griffin 
from Crossett, Arkansas, who has owned a community bank there for 
decades. It is about a $30 million, $35 million bank.
  He just said that, with his 13 employees, he just couldn't comply 
with the level of regulatory burden following Dodd-Frank that was so 
geared to our biggest financial institutions, our most complex 
financial institutions, companies like those headquartered up in New 
York. He just felt compelled to exit the business and leave that town, 
leave the local board of directors, the local management team, and turn 
it over to an out-of-State company.
  Crossett, Arkansas, is a fine town, and it deserves a good banking 
presence by a number of competitors, home to Georgia-Pacific and all of 
their activities there.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are, as I say, bipartisan, and they are 
needed across this country. Let me just touch on a few of them.
  The ones that I think provide the most benefit to community bankers 
and businesses and customers of those local banks are, first of all, 
Mr. Stivers' bill, which eliminates a barrier, a well-intended 
licensing provision if you wanted to make mortgage loans after the '08 
crisis.
  Congress thought it was a good idea to make sure that mortgage 
lenders were qualified, so they made them get a license. We can debate 
whether that was too much work or not or whether it was worthwhile or 
not. They made bankers get it and nonbanks.
  But in this bill, Mr. Stivers simply says, if you are going to try to 
change jobs and you hold a mortgage license, that you just have a 
transition period where you don't have to go requalify for that if you 
are going to work for a nonbank or you are going to work for somebody 
in another State. It only passed our committee 60-0, so it doesn't get 
much more bipartisan than that. That will help banks reduce red tape, 
recruit loan officers, and get them to work faster serving customers.
  Likewise, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017 is something that I worked 
on in a variety of ways, and it is included in this package. It allows 
States where you can buy both a personal policy for your title 
insurance as well as the title coverage for a closing to show you the 
real discount.
  Mr. Speaker, the real irony here is that, when Elizabeth Warren was a 
staffer and a college professor, one of her goals for the CFPB was 
simplification, that we take all these complicated forms and we would 
make them easier to use.
  Well, here is an example of the exact opposite. The new Truth in 
Lending forms for real estate settlements were made more complicated. 
After 8 years of dealing with it, this was a classic example of trying 
to make it simpler.
  Let's actually show the consumer what the real closing costs are for 
their title insurance. This will speed mortgage closings. This will 
reduce errors in mortgage closings. This will reduce consumer confusion 
about the so-called Know Before You Owe rule. I would argue this rule 
has made it much more difficult to know what you owe before you borrow 
it, and this is a small step in improving that.
  Mr. Speaker, these things help our community banks.

[[Page H1143]]

  There is one other in this package we are considering today, Mr. 
McHenry's bill, which allows community banks that originate loans, 
consumer loans, commercial loans, that are selling those loans to a 
nonbank, a nonbank servicer or a nonbank packager, to be able to pass 
through the rate that they originated the loan for. There was a Supreme 
Court case that has made that more complicated, that said you can't 
pass through the rate and that State banking laws don't preempt our 
State usury laws for this kind of work.
  So I commend Mr. McHenry for this, because this improves liquidity to 
our community banking system and, again, lowers rates for consumers, 
makes products more accessible, and makes our small community banks 
more competitive.
  I will close by just touching on a couple of other measures that I 
think help businesses, help capital markets, help capital flow.
  One, you just heard my friend from California (Mr. Royce) talk about 
his bill. That will help capital markets flow. That will create parity 
among our exchanges, lowering costs for companies that want to go 
public and have their action there, raise capital on the public 
markets.
  Mr. Duffy has a bill that requires the SEC to actually get a subpoena 
if they want to get source code from a capital markets provider, 
someone who is managing money, someone who is offering to manage 
portfolios or offer a mutual fund company, and this is very, very 
helpful. I think, when you want to get your secret sauce for your 
business and the government wants it, they ought to have a subpoena.
  That is all that this bill does. It doesn't change the rules about 
that. It doesn't change anything other than saying, if you want this 
information, you ought to go and get a subpoena, and I believe that 
will improve capital formation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. These are bipartisan bills. 
These are bills that we have worked on for two Congresses that will 
help consumers, increase access to credit, lower the cost of that 
credit, and increase capital flows to the business sector to support 
the growth that the American people want.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee allowing me to speak on these bills. 
I appreciate Chairman Hensarling putting them together.
  And to my friends on the other side, these are bills that went 
through regular order.

                              {time}  1300

  These are bills that are bipartisan. These are bills that have the 
support of the opposition. We have put them together in a bipartisan 
package today under this rule because our friends down the hall in the 
United States Senate are rapidly moving a bipartisan package of 
improvements for our capital markets and our banks, something that we 
want, something that we have waited some 8 years for. So this allows us 
to work better with our colleagues over in the Senate, where 14 
Democrats have partnered with Senator Crapo on the Banking Committee to 
move bipartisan legislation that will help us grow our economy.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  President Trump continues to, frankly, offend our sensibilities and 
values by insisting that somehow Democrats don't care about fixing 
DACA. Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 22nd time we have tried 
to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, to the House 
floor for a vote.
  We have made our position clear. We want immigration policies that 
reflect our values, that make America safer, while realizing, of 
course, that we are a nation both of laws and of immigrants.
  Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again urged Congress to pass 
legislation that provides permanent relief for Dreamers. Even the 
conservative Cato Institute estimates that deporting Dreamers would 
result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next 
decade.
  Mr. Speaker, if we don't care about the families, about the young 
people affected, surely you care about $280 billion that will be lost 
if Republicans fail to act. Protecting these aspiring Americans is not 
only the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for our 
country and for our economy.
  If we defeat the previous question today, for the 23rd time, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. 
This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would finally help hundreds of 
thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on 
paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, again, I stand on this floor to speak about 
the Dreamers, and this time I ask a simple question: What happened?
  For months here in Washington, we couldn't pass a budget; we refused 
to pass a budget. Numerous continuing resolutions were brought up. We 
even shut down government, and the press talked about the Dreamers. It 
was all about the Dreamers.
  Yet, last week, after the budget spending caps were raised for both 
military and nonmilitary expenditures, we got a budget, and that was a 
budget that was voted on by both Democrats and Republicans. So, I 
guess, ladies and gentlemen, this was not about the Dreamers because we 
still don't have a fix for the Dreamers.
  Yet 80 percent of our public supports a fix for the Dreamers; 80 
percent of our public supports a pathway to citizenship for our 
Dreamers; and even our President wants a fix for the Dreamers.
  Why? Because all of us recognize that Dreamers are soldiers, 
teachers, police officers. They are, effectively, our friends and our 
neighbors. Yet here we are again today, not sure of the future for 
Dreamers in this country.
  Folks, it is time to stop using Dreamers as political pawns in a 
bigger political chess game.
  Last week, at the State of the Union, my guest was a Dreamer from my 
district. She is a college student majoring in chemistry, and I say to 
all of you, she is going to make a tremendous scientist. We need 
scientists in this country.
  As you know, America is a land of immigrants, and all of us here are 
immigrants, and, as you know, 75 of our Fortune 500 companies are led 
by immigrants. We need more hardworking immigrants.
  That is what Dreamers are. They are hardworking. They study hard, pay 
their taxes, follow the law, and, yes, ladies and gentlemen, Dreamers 
have been vetted. Let me repeat: Dreamers are immigrants who have been 
vetted. And yet today we still ask: What is going to happen to 
Dreamers?
  Mr. Speaker, let's not live with any regrets. Let's not look back 
tomorrow, next year, 10, 20 years from now and say what we could have, 
should have, would have. Let's do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. Now is 
the time to act. Let's vote for our Dreamers. Let's vote on H.R. 3440, 
and let's do the right thing.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is worse, the fact that we are taking 
up legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to gain 
access to buildings in their community, including buildings that they 
work in, or that we are considering legislation that makes it easier 
for payday lenders to prey on vulnerable consumers by forcing in 
Washington, D.C., Big Government Republican values on our States' 
rights; or is it worse that we are not taking up legislation to protect 
the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation in the 
beginning of March unless we act?
  My Republican colleagues are working hard to put Washington, D.C., 
Big Government ahead of people, to force people with disabilities to 
get law degrees and wander around with notepads to document when they 
are unable to get into a building, and putting payday lenders ahead of 
hardworking Americans.
  Instead, we should be focused on finding bipartisan solutions to 
protect aspiring Americans from being forcibly deported from the only 
country that they know as home.

[[Page H1144]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 620, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the interesting thing is, as has been expressed 
by a couple of our speakers, especially on the Financial Services 
bills, these are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have come back. 
They have been vetted. They came before not only this body, many of 
them through the CHOICE Act, previously, but also have been coming 
back. And something that is really interesting is the bicameral, 
bipartisan process of making sure that capital and these Financial 
Services bills are actually something that we can move and can improve.
  But I do, again, take a little bit of exception. And look, rhetoric 
is rhetoric, but deceit is also deceit in the sense that we don't talk 
about, especially in this ADA--I am not sure how opposing a bill that 
is designed to make improvements for folks and in protecting trial 
lawyers who can get people who do not even have disabilities to sue or 
to send a demand letter to get money without ever requiring that the 
business actually solve the problem. That is what has been missing in 
this debate today.
  They can actually send a letter, say: Here is where our problem is. 
We are going to sue you, but if you send us X amount of dollars, that 
will do away with it--never concerned at all if the decision is 
actually making a difference in the business or the location. They 
don't care.
  And, in fact, if you want to oppose this, then you are just actually, 
frankly, saying: That is a good idea. I like that. Let's just pick on 
businesses, and at the end of the day, you know those folks with 
disabilities, they are just our key to making more money.
  That is wrong. My daughter is not a money-making proposition. That 
has got to cease.
  We can disagree on ways about this. My friend from Rhode Island and I 
have talked about this a great deal. We are of the same mind and same 
agreement. We may disagree on somehow this is it and how to get there, 
but at the end of the day, the ADA is still there. The ADA is not going 
away. The ADA is not being gutted, and nobody is asking folks with 
disabilities to get law degrees. A lot of them have, and they are 
making a difference.
  But one of the greatest emphases to a business that may have an 
impediment, they may have put something in the way, is for somebody 
with a disability to say: By the way, I can't get in here.
  And most every business on Earth does not want to stand at the door 
and say: I don't want disability folks in my business.
  No. They want to fix it because they want to do business. To say 
anything else is simply, unfortunately at times, tending to scare 
people for the wrong reasons.
  If you want to defend trial lawyers and others who are willing to sue 
with nondisabled people, to sue businesses taking Google photographs of 
Google Maps and saying, ``This is a business that we are going to 
extort something from,'' then vote against this bill, but then explain 
to somebody in a wheelchair why you are using them and allowing these 
folks to use them for their profit motive. That is wrong.
  We can find a lot of ways to find agreement here, but let's at least 
look at the situation on how it is.
  So, with these Financial Services bills, they provide regulatory 
relief. They reduce unnecessary burdens. They are bipartisan. I am 
urging my friends and colleagues to take a look at the amendments 
because there are a lot of amendments that are going to come forward on 
these, especially the ADA bill and others.
  Look at that. Listen to it. Talk about it. But at the end of the day, 
never forget what is actually happening here, and what we are actually 
seeing is something that we can make a difference in and we are looking 
to make a difference in.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 736 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page H1145]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
  Motions to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 3542 and H. Res. 
129.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 187, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               YEAS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barr
     Bass
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Byrne
     Costa
     Cummings
     Denham
     Duncan (SC)
     Gutierrez
     Pearce
     Perry
     Posey
     Rogers (KY)
     Stivers
     Watson Coleman

                              {time}  1338

  Messrs. PALLONE and DeSAULNIER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 72.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 187, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

[[Page H1146]]


     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Byrne
     Carter (TX)
     Costa
     Cummings
     Denham
     Duncan (SC)
     Gutierrez
     LoBiondo
     Pearce
     Posey
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Stivers
     Watson Coleman

                              {time}  1350

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________