[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1382-H1389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4607) to amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to ensure that Federal financial 
regulators perform a comprehensive review of regulations to identify 
outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on 
covered persons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Arrington). Pursuant to House Resolution 
747, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of Rules Committee Print 115-61, modified by the amendment printed in 
part B of House Report 115-582, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4607

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Regulatory 
     Review Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 
                   REGULATORY PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT.

       Section 2001(c) of the Economic Growth and Regulatory 
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 252 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

[[Page H1383]]

       ``(8) Covered person.--The term `covered person' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1002 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481).
       ``(9) Federal financial regulator.--The term `Federal 
     financial regulator' means the Office of the Comptroller of 
     the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Bureau 
     of Consumer Financial Protection, and the National Credit 
     Union Administration Board.''.

     SEC. 3. ENSURING A COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2222 of the 
     Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 
     1996 (12 U.S.C. 3311(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``7 years'';
       (2) by striking ``each appropriate'' and all that follows 
     through ``review'' and inserting ``the Federal financial 
     regulators shall each conduct a comprehensive review'';
       (3) by striking ``such appropriate Federal banking agency'' 
     and inserting ``such Federal financial regulator, jointly or 
     otherwise,''; and
       (4) by inserting ``or covered persons'' after ``insured 
     depository institutions''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is amended--
       (1) in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), by striking 
     ``the appropriate Federal banking agency'' each place that 
     term appears and inserting ``the appropriate Federal 
     financial regulator''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``the appropriate 
     Federal banking agencies'' and inserting ``the appropriate 
     Federal financial regulator''.

     SEC. 4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REVIEW.

       Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory 
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 3311), as amended 
     by section 3, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``7 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) tailor other regulations related to covered persons 
     in a manner that limits the regulatory compliance impact, 
     cost, liability risk, and other burdens, unless otherwise 
     determined by the Council or the appropriate Federal 
     financial regulator.''.

     SEC. 5. REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE BUREAU.

       Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory 
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 3311), as amended 
     by section 4, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Reviews Conducted by the Bureau.--The Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection shall--
       ``(1) use any relevant information from an assessment 
     conducted under section 1022(d) of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512(d)) in conducting the 
     review required under subsection (a); and
       ``(2) conduct such review in accordance with the purposes 
     and objectives described in subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 1021 of such Act (12 U.S.C. 5511).''.

     SEC. 6. REDUCTION OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``$7,500,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,495,714,285''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on 
     May 1, 2018.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the bill before us in the House, 
not unlike yourself, I am a proud Texan--in my case, a fifth-generation 
Texan.
  In listening very carefully to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, I 
do wish to remind all my colleagues that it was this day in 1836 that 
brave men in Texas took on the minions of tyranny at the Alamo. And 
although they lost that battle, they inspired their nation at the time, 
Texas, that would later become part of our Nation. So, on this day that 
is special to all Texans, it should be special to all Americans.
  We remember the cradle of liberty. Remember the Alamo. God bless 
Texas.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, otherwise, I rise also, today, in support of H.R. 4607, 
which is a very important piece of legislation brought to us by a very 
hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  It is a bill that helps address the burden of unnecessary, 
duplicative, and outdated regulations that too often have imposed cost 
on our community financial institutions that ultimately make credit 
more expensive and less available to our constituents. It passed out of 
our committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 38-17, and I 
congratulate him for his bill.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that all of the 
prudential financial regulators that now include the CFPB and the NCUA, 
the National Credit Union Administration--it ensures that all of our 
financial regulators, not just some, but all, will participate in the 
Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, known as 
EGRPRA, a law that dates back to the Clinton era, and this ensures that 
our agencies review all rules that are prescribed by themselves that 
impact our insured financial institutions.
  The purpose of this review, again, is to reduce regulation that is 
proven overly burdensome, duplicative, or outdated, while maintaining 
our safety and soundness standards. And, again, Mr. Speaker, all this 
is is a review. It ensures a review.
  Additionally, H.R. 4607 will require that these agencies meet every 7 
years for a comprehensive regulatory evaluation, as opposed to the 
current 10-year standard. This is especially important. I salute the 
gentleman from Georgia for his leadership, because we have seen our 
financial sector of the economy suffer under the weight, the load, the 
burden of regulation, particularly because six of the seven heaviest 
regulatory years occurred under the last administration; so we need a 
more thorough review of these regulations. And requiring our Federal 
agencies to simply review their actions in a transparent manner on a 
more frequent basis, it is simple; it is fair; it is straightforward; 
it is wise.
  Mr. Speaker, a healthy financial system that provides equal 
opportunity to all Americans to achieve financial independence can only 
exist if we have smart regulation. And the explosive growth of 
regulation, following the enactment of Dodd-Frank, has made it 
significantly harder for our community banks and credit unions to serve 
their customers and members.
  And, in fact, the complexity and cost of this regulatory burden has 
forced many of them out of business or has forced them to cut back 
services to their customers and members, and it is one of the reasons 
why, on average, we continue to lose one community bank or credit union 
a day, or every other day, in America. This should not be happening.
  Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it is not the banks and credit unions we are 
so concerned about. It is their customers. It is customers like 
Missouri mom, Michele, who explained to us how frustrating it has been 
for her 20-year-old daughter, with a full-time job, to get a loan to 
buy her first car. And, again, her daughter has a first-time job. And 
as Michele explained to us: ``It's a catch-22. You need credit to get 
credit, but no one will give you the credit to begin with. I would like 
to see our young adults be able to build the credit they need so they 
can have a decent future.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is for people like Michele and her daughter that we 
need this regulatory review. It is why we need the bill from the 
gentleman from Georgia. These are the people we are trying to help.
  Like Anne in Wisconsin, who was trying to get a loan to remodel her 
attached garage when her son was born, and she said: ``My husband and I 
have very high credit scores, and we have equity in our home, but 
because my husband has a seasonal job and finds other employment in the 
winter, the many banks we contacted rejected our loan request. They 
base that on our annual income only on the job he was currently in and 
said it was part of the new regulation.''

[[Page H1384]]

  Well, of course it is, Mr. Speaker. That is why they need to be 
reviewed. It is people like Anne in Wisconsin we need to help.
  Or Dan, a Navy veteran from Illinois, who actually had to close 
down--close down the small auto finance company he started with his 
wife 25 years ago, and he had to close it down because of new Federal 
regulation. He explains: ``Large companies can afford a separate legal 
department to deal with these issues and the myriad of new regulations. 
A small business like ours cannot. We had to make a decision. It was 
just not worth the risk to continue operations in this antibusiness 
environment.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is people like Michele, it is people like Anne, 
it is people like Dan who deserve the opportunity to have credit for 
their homes, their autos, their small businesses, and so we must ensure 
that all of our Federal regulators--all of our Federal financial 
regulators take a thorough comprehensive review of their regulatory 
burden so that we can continue to support the people who need credit.
  H.R. 4607, again, has garnered strong bipartisan support. It is 
practical; it is common sense; and I urge all of my colleagues to adopt 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4607, the so-called 
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. So instead of advancing 
legislation that improves our financial regulatory framework, the 
Republican majority is pushing yet another bill that is a giveaway to 
Wall Street and predatory lenders.
  Let's be clear. This bill is intended to dismantle rules considered 
inconvenient by the financial services industry. If this bill were 
enacted, financial services regulators would be forced to spend more 
time and resources on backward-looking reviews and deregulating the 
financial services industry rather than strengthening protections for 
consumers and the economy.
  Allow me to explain. The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork 
Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, currently requires the Federal Reserve, the 
FDIC, and the OCC to conduct a review of the regulations that they have 
issued in order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary 
regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.

  The banking regulators conduct this review every 10 years, but until 
now, this review has been a relatively balanced, careful assessment 
that the banking regulators have done twice in the last two decades, 
and the regulators have taken this process seriously.
  The last review took about 3 years to complete. It involved field 
hearings and public engagement. The final review included many balanced 
and thoughtful recommendations to improve rules. Many of these would 
provide relief for community banks and credit unions but in a way that 
also maintains safeguards for consumers and protects the interests of 
the public and the broader economy.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4607, this bill, would make three major mistakes 
in changing the current review process. First, this bill actually 
requires regulators to change regulations so that they are less costly 
and burdensome for ``covered persons.''
  Well, who are these covered persons? Are they the millions of 
consumers who were harmed by Wells Fargo's scheme to open fraudulent 
accounts without their knowledge? Were they? No.
  Are they the many consumers who learned just a few days ago that 
Citigroup violated the law by charging them too much interest on their 
credit cards? No, no.
  Are these covered persons in this bill the Latino or African-American 
families who were discriminated against by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of 
America, and so many other banks steering them into more costly 
mortgages when they qualified for more affordable loans? No, not at 
all.
  Are they--the ones who are being protected--are they seniors or 
servicemembers who fall prey to payday lenders that trap them in a 
cycle of debt? No.
  Are they college graduates who are harassed by debt collectors for 
their student loan debt? No.
  Under this bill, Mr. Speaker, covered persons are defined as ``any 
person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial 
product or service; and any affiliate of''--such--``person . . . if 
such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.'' You know 
what that means? You know who these so-called covered persons in this 
bill are who they are talking about? That means Wells Fargo, JPMorgan 
Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, payday lenders, mortgage brokers, 
debt collectors, and thousands of other financial companies.
  All of these companies would get easier rules that limit their costs 
and burdens without appropriately considering the impact they are going 
to have on their customers. And this bill does nothing, absolutely 
nothing, to strengthen protections for consumers where there might be 
deficiencies or gaps in our regulatory framework.
  Second, unlike the other banking regulators, which are tasked with 
ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial services sector, the 
Consumer Bureau's unique mission is the protection of consumers and of 
ensuring that the consumer marketplace operates in a fair, transparent, 
and competitive manner.
  Although it may make sense for the banking agencies to periodically 
review their prudential rules, with a focus on their regulated 
entities, the Consumer Bureau should be making sure that its rules are 
appropriately protecting consumers and the interests of the public, not 
the big financial corporations.
  In addition, the Consumer Bureau is already subject to unique 
accountability and oversight measures that the other financial 
regulators are not. These special checks and balances include the 
requirement that the Consumer Bureau have small business review panels 
as a part of its rulemaking process and the ability of the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council, that is, FSOC, to repeal any of its final 
rules. And the Consumer Bureau is already required to review all of the 
significant rules within 5 years of the time they go into effect, but 
in a balanced--balanced--manner.
  The third problem with H.R. 4607 is that it would make it harder for 
the regulators to do their jobs. The bill would require a comprehensive 
review of all banking and consumer protection regulations once every 7 
years instead of every decade. If regulators take these reviews as 
seriously as their previous reviews, as I believe they would, then that 
would mean they would be tied up spending nearly half of each 7-year 
cycle doing regulatory reviews instead of supervising their regulated 
entities and enforcing the law.
  This bill would impose an unbalanced review process on regulators 
that favors industries' wishes--favors industries' wishes over 
consumers and the economy. The methodology in this bill promotes 
deregulation. That is what this is all about. This is a bill about 
deregulation instead of creating a robust process to identify gaps or 
deficiencies in oversight that harm consumers, undermine the safety and 
soundness of our financial system, or jeopardize the country's 
financial stability.
  So I cannot support a bill that forces the Consumer Bureau to weaken 
rules for Wall Street and payday lenders. I am talking about the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
H.R. 4607.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a very hardworking member of the Financial 
Services Committee and the author of H.R. 4607.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the 
Republic of Texas, Chairman Hensarling, for giving me this time to move 
away some of the hyperbole that you may hear today and speak about the 
truth of what this really simple and commonsense measure really does.
  Mr. Speaker, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act is a bill that I 
introduced simply to reduce the burden that outdated and unnecessary 
Federal regulations place on our small banks and lending institutions 
across the landscape of America.

[[Page H1385]]

  I would like to start by thanking some of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle who have worked tirelessly to make this a strong, 
bipartisan piece of legislation. I appreciate the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for negotiating reasonable changes to this bill 
and for being an original cosponsor. I also appreciate Mr. Duffy and 
Ms. Sinema and the others who have reached across the aisle to 
cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
  To fully understand this bill, Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to 
1996, when Congress gave the financial regulatory agencies a useful 
tool by passing the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction 
Act, or, as you have heard today, more commonly known as EGRPRA. This 
law directed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal 
Reserve, and the FDIC to review their regulations once every 10 years 
to identify those regulations that may be outdated, unnecessary, or 
overly burdensome. After that, the regulators were to send a report to 
Congress and eliminate any regulations they determined were 
unnecessary.
  This law has been somewhat useful, and it was a good idea back in 
1996 because, after all, who would be opposed to eliminating rules that 
even regulators thought were unnecessary? But too often, EGRPRA has 
been viewed as merely a check-the-box exercise by the agencies and the 
financial sector.
  Now that we have two EGRPRA reports, a 2007 and a 2017, it is obvious 
that EGRPRA could have been more effective and produced more useful 
recommendations to policymakers. In retrospect, we also realize we need 
more direct action from the regulators to clean up outdated and 
unnecessary rules. That is why it is important for Congress to revisit 
EGRPRA, as this bill does.
  My bill contains several reforms to the EGRPRA review process that 
will breathe new life into this law, this tool for the regulators, and 
make sure it is not simply a check-the-box exercise.
  This bill will require more frequent regulatory reviews by moving the 
review cycle from once a decade to once every 7 years. It will expand 
EGRPRA to include all regulated financial institutions instead of only 
depository-insured institutions. It will codify the National Credit 
Union Administration into EGRPRA, since the agency participated in the 
latest review voluntarily.
  The bill will also add the controversial Consumer Finance Protection 
Bureau, CFPB, to the EGRPRA review process. This provision is 
especially important because, before Dodd-Frank, consumer financial 
laws were implemented by the three banking agencies; but when Dodd-
Frank was enacted, the CFPB was given the responsibility for enforcing 
consumer financial laws. Since the CFPB is exempt from EGRPRA, these 
laws and regulations are no longer being comprehensively reviewed.
  Dodd-Frank requires the CFPB to review its regulations every 5 years 
after they are enacted, but this leaves out rules which are considered 
nonsignificant. It also excludes rules that were adopted before the 
CFPB was created. Also, the CFBP's regulatory reviews are under a 
single, 5-year look-back period.
  We must ensure that each regulatory agency is comprehensively 
reviewing its rules, and on a regular basis.
  This bill is not duplicative because it requires CFPB to use its 
findings from its existing regulatory reviews in its EGRPRA reports so 
the CFPB does not waste time on rules it has already reviewed. And, 
most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill will require the agencies to 
tailor rules that they find to be unnecessary based on the size and 
risk profile of the bank or the credit union.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that last point because it is so 
important. This bill does not require the agencies to cut regulations 
with a broad brush, as it has been presented so far, nor does it cut 
regulations on the payday lending industry, as some have argued. It 
simply states the rules will be adjusted based on a company's risk if 
the regulators determine that to be appropriate.
  The bill ensures that if the financial regulators--the regulators--
determine that a regulation is important to consumer protection for 
safety and soundness, the agency will still have every right to leave 
that regulation completely intact.
  This bill is not just about eliminating unnecessary regulations; it 
is about good government and cleaning up unnecessary red tape that 
inevitably hurts the consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Secretary came to our committee for a 
hearing last month, and I asked him about this very issue. He simply 
said:

       Rules and regulations need to be constantly looked at as 
     markets continually change.

  He also said:

       I'm not sure why the CFPB was exempted from EGRPRA, so I 
     agree with the change.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill passed out of committee with a strong 
bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds of the committee members, and I 
urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I knew that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle 
would basically refer to small banks.
  This is what is normally done when we see deregulatory efforts being 
made. They talk about how they are trying to help small and community 
banks, and they fail to talk about the major financial institutions 
that I have talked about in my presentation that are the beneficiaries, 
also, of this deregulatory effort that is being put forth.
  When I take a look at the existing law now and the Economic Growth 
and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, I see that their mission is to 
conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise 
unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository 
institutions.
  This deregulatory bill that we have before us goes a lot further. As 
I said, it is about deregulation, and it is about reducing cost and 
liability risk. This does not benefit our consumers at all.
  Again, what we would do in the passage of this bill is simply open up 
opportunities for the big banks and financial institutions to get rid 
of the kind of oversight, the kind of laws that we have worked so hard 
for because it is inconvenient for them or it interferes with their 
bottom line in some way.
  So I do not want our Members to be tricked or fooled to think, number 
one, this is simply about further getting rid of paperwork or that this 
is about supporting the small banks. This is about new ways by which to 
deregulate so that the big banks that are now found to be defrauding, 
found to be discriminating, found to be doing things like Wells Fargo 
has done, this is about deregulation that will further enhance their 
ability to do the kinds of things that we claim to be so opposed to and 
that harm our consumers.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they are now including 
by way of H.R. 4607 should be looked at very carefully.
  First of all, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle hate the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They want to get rid of it. They 
have tried, time and time again, to undermine it in so many ways. The 
President has sent Mr. Mulvaney over there, who is supposed to be over 
at the Office of Management and Budget, to basically destroy it.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the Members of Congress to be tricked or 
fooled that somehow this is helpful that they are bringing in the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What they want to do is tie the 
hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and basically change 
their mission from protection for consumers to deregulation for the 
biggest banks in America.
  Why do we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? That is the 
centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation that we worked so hard 
on.
  Are we forgetting about what happened in 2008?
  Are with forgetting about the recession that was caused by the big 
banks who had been involved with all of these exotic products and ways 
by which they were enticing would-be homeowners to try and get 
mortgages?
  We can't forget about all of that. We have to know that not only did 
we have a recession, we were headed for a depression. Dodd-Frank reform 
has gone a long way toward eliminating some of the bad practices that 
were in place that got us into that situation in the first place.

[[Page H1386]]

  Now, little by little, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle 
keep trying to creep in with new ways that they can support these big 
banks and financial institutions and deregulate and let them get in the 
position again where they are tricking our consumers, where they are 
coming up with these exotic products that caused our consumers to 
eventually get into foreclosure, and that would allow the big banks 
again, like Wells Fargo, to come up with all of these tricks that they 
use in order to enhance their bottom line. I think we are smarter than 
this, and I don't think that we are going to go for this legislation 
that is just another way to open the doors to deregulate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4607, the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act.
  I want to thank Chairman Hensarling and the entire Financial Services 
Committee for their continued critical work on financial regulations.
  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I consistently 
hear from Main Street businesses, small businesses from all over the 
country, that overregulation is preventing business expansion and job 
growth.
  Just last week, I chaired a hearing on a recent report by the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that explored whether 
financial regulations were adversely impacting community banks and 
credit unions. One of the major takeaways from that report was that we 
need to improve the tools available to financial regulators to reduce 
those burdens.
  Because small businesses most often rely on conventional bank 
borrowing to finance their development, any additional red tape that 
reduces access to capital can be a monumental problem for the Nation's 
smallest firms. The bill that we have before us today, which would 
reform the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1996, is a move in the right direction.
  Making sure all financial regulators have a comprehensive process in 
place to review regulations will strengthen our financial sector and 
make it more possible for America's small businesses to have access to 
the capital that they need to grow and expand and create more jobs for 
more Americans. Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to support 
the commonsense reforms that are in H.R. 4607, and I urge them to 
support this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is vice chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this time to be 
able to speak to an important piece of legislation.
  In my home State of Colorado, we have a tale of two economies. The 
urban areas have realized economic recovery since 2008, while the more 
rural communities have been slower to find sustained economic growth. 
Essential to these areas and their ability to be able to recover, a 
topic that I speak frequently on, is access to credit.
  As Treasury's report to the President in June of 2017 notes: 
Regulations on capital, liquidity, and leverage requirements, as well 
as regulatory parameters that guide loan underwriting, have undermined 
the ability of financial institutions to deliver attractively priced 
credit in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the economy.

                              {time}  1300

  In other words, our community financial institutions have lost access 
to the tools that they need to be able to help their communities 
recover as they have struggled to comply with regulations intended for 
the largest institutions. Mr. Speaker, it is our local communities, our 
small businesses, our first-time home buyers, and our working families 
who suffer the consequences from these regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you one example of what unbridled regulation 
does and how it impacts families trying to be able to live that 
American Dream.
  I have an example of a credit union in my home State of Colorado that 
had to stop offering home equity lines of credit to its members because 
the cost of keeping the forms in compliance with Federal regulation 
exceeded the income generated by the program. In other words, 
regulation priced this credit union out of a critical market and at a 
time when the rural environment the credit union serves needed access 
to credit most.
  Fortunately, Mr. Loudermilk's legislation being considered here today 
will take important steps to require regulators to consider the 
institution's size and risk profile as they evaluate the necessity and 
effectiveness of regulatory rulemaking under the self-review mandated 
to them by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Importantly, Mr. Loudermilk's legislation will also expand the EGRPRA 
process to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National 
Credit Union Administration, encouraging the tailoring of regulations 
across the regulatory spectrum.
  This legislation takes steps to encourage regulators to allow small 
institutions adequate leeway to exercise reasonably constructed 
consumer lending regimes to make sure consumers have the broadest array 
of choices and that institutions can appropriately navigate the 
compliance landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, by requiring regulators to more frequently review and 
tailor regulations, this bill will help put Main Street back on the 
path to prosperity and help to end the tale of two economies in 
Colorado and throughout the Nation. Making these adjustments will help 
community banks and credit unions once again be able to meet the needs 
of their neighbors and encourage our businesses to be able to grow.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is yet another hardworking member of the 
House Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, the House Financial Services Committee has 
been working hard for consumers, local banks, credit unions, and 
American entrepreneurs during the 115th Congress. Today, we continue 
our work with H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act.
  Introduced by my colleague from Georgia, Representative Barry 
Loudermilk, this bill brings accountability and modernization to the 
current regulatory review process for banks, credit unions, and 
financial institutions across the country.
  Currently, the regulatory audit conducted by our Federal financial 
regulators happens just once every decade, and the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and the National Credit Union Administration are not 
technically a part of that review.
  It has been 21 years since we evaluated possible changes to this 
antiquated and inefficient system. That is why we need Representative 
Loudermilk's Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act to ensure the 
regulations we have in place are working to do what they are supposed 
to do: protect consumers.
  This legislation is made even more urgent given that unchecked and 
inefficient regulations are working against the very consumers our 
regulatory regime was designed to help. Take, for example, the fact 
that the United States lost nearly 12,000 of its federally insured 
banks between 1984 and 2016, making it harder for small business 
entrepreneurs and families to access the credit and capital they need 
to create new opportunities and grow.
  These banks struggled under the weight of new regulations, either to 
disappear completely or to be swallowed up by the big banks that are 
able to absorb the heavy cost of compliance. For those banks that are 
able to survive, significant tradeoffs are required.
  In Rockford, Minnesota, for instance, instead of adding another 
lender to their team, one small community bank needed to hire a full-
time compliance officer simply to keep up with the regulatory onslaught 
from Washington.

[[Page H1387]]

That same bank is spending over $100,000 each year on compliance costs 
instead of using that money in ways that would benefit the local 
community.
  Minnesota's credit unions have also been hit hard by unchecked and 
outdated regulation. One study found that credit unions in my State of 
Minnesota have incurred $102 million in costs directly related to the 
increased regulations created by the Dodd-Frank Act. Worse still, one 
in every four Minnesota credit union employees spends their time solely 
on regulatory compliance.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to stand up for these struggling 
financial institutions and, more importantly, the consumers whose 
communities are hurting without them. We can do that today.
  Representative Loudermilk's legislation sailed through committee in 
January receiving support from both sides of the aisle because 
Republicans and Democrats know that H.R. 4607 takes necessary and 
important steps to ease the regulatory burdens which challenge 
community financial institutions in each and every congressional 
district.
  I appreciate the hard work of the bill's sponsor and the chairman of 
the committee to bring this legislation to the floor today, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Comprehensive Regulatory Review 
Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is a Democratic member of the 
Financial Services Committee.

  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Congressman 
Loudermilk for working together on the Comprehensive Regulatory Review 
Act. Congressman Loudermilk has been a true partner who has been 
tireless in pursuing smart regulatory reform policies and in finding 
solutions for the people he serves. We both want to get something done 
for the people we represent.
  I also want to thank Congresswoman Sinema for her help and support in 
leading this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
bipartisan Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act.
  America's economic engine has been under pressure for some time now 
from unnecessarily burdensome and outdated regulations building up on 
the books of our regulators. It costs us in economic growth. And while 
there are clear times where smart guardrails are necessary, there are 
others when it actually holds back smart growth for our country and for 
our families.
  We need a smarter, more efficient government. It is time to relieve 
these unnecessary burdens and spur business job growth and access to 
credit in New Jersey's Fifth District and across the country while 
protecting consumers and our economy. This bipartisan regulatory relief 
bill does just that. It updates and expands regulators' mandatory 
review of financial institutions while protecting consumers. It also 
requires the review be performed every 7 years rather than every 10.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER: It requires regulators to consider tailoring 
regulations when appropriate. In short, the Comprehensive Regulatory 
Review Act will cut bureaucratic red tape and help our economy thrive 
without putting consumers at risk.
  There should be nothing partisan about helping entrepreneurs and 
businesses of all sizes grow, create jobs, and expand the economy. With 
this measure, Democrats and Republicans join together to ensure 
outdated, unnecessary, and burdensome regulations are eliminated or 
reformed to better fit the needs of individual financial institutions, 
which ultimately saves Americans money, helps consumers and families 
grow--and businesses, too--and it protects, always, American consumers.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for leading on 
this issue.
  I rise today in strong support of his bipartisan bill, the 
Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act.
  It strikes me as common sense that Federal regulators should review 
their regulations and rules on a consistent basis. They should also 
seek comment from the people whom these rules actually affect. Mr. 
Loudermilk's bill helps accomplish this goal by requiring the CFPB and 
National Credit Union Administration do so every 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, since the implementation of Dodd-Frank, community banks 
and credit unions have had a more difficult time serving their 
customers. The red tape and additional burden brought on by Dodd-Frank 
has increased costs for the consumer and reduced their choices in the 
market for financial products.
  One agency in particular that is guilty for this additional burden is 
the CFPB, which has finalized over 60 rules since their creation. Many 
of their rules are duplicative and unnecessary. I think, at the very 
least, they should review and study how their regulations are affecting 
real folks in the real world.
  I hear from financial institutions back home how the CFPB has done 
nothing but harm their community bank or their credit union. They are 
being overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of regulations, and that 
is just not okay.
  Harmonization is the goal of this bill, and that should not be 
partisan or even controversial. We simply want less people buried in 
paperwork and more people starting businesses through their local 
financial institution.
  This bill is supported by folks across the political spectrum, and I 
am excited about the good it will do for our financial institutions 
back home and consumers in my district.
  I want to again thank Mr. Loudermilk for introducing this important 
piece of legislation that will ensure our financial system is 
functioning efficiently for hardworking Americans.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is a real leader on our committee for 
commonsense regulation and the chairman of our Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for all his 
great work and leadership on our Financial Services Committee and also 
thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) for crafting a 
commonsense, bipartisan bill that requires the Federal financial 
regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to conduct a 
comprehensive review of all the regulations promulgated with the intent 
of identifying those that are outdated or duplicative.
  Across the Nation, financial companies continue to suffer as a result 
of the burdensome regulations. What my friends on the other side of the 
aisle don't always recognize is the impact that has on the ability of 
those companies to serve their customers.
  Take cybersecurity as an example. Financial firms of all sizes are 
forced to adhere to an overlapping regulatory regime that is focused on 
fighting yesterday's war.
  I spoke with a major bank just last week that has cybersecurity 
examinations from the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, 
the FDIC, the Treasury Department, and multiple State banking agencies; 
and that doesn't include the foreign entities that regulate the 
international businesses of this bank. Each agency has a slightly 
different exam process and requires slightly different information.

  This type of regime doesn't protect companies from cybersecurity 
threats. The lack of coordination means this institution spends more 
time reacting to the regulators than it does protecting its customers.
  Or look at the antiquated regime surrounding examination and 
enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws. 
What was originally intended to be a reasonable process that fostered 
collaboration between financial institutions and law enforcement to 
root out bad actors and

[[Page H1388]]

illicit financing has become so onerous that banks are choosing to drop 
customers or close entire books of businesses just to avoid compliance 
burdens. Processes like these do very little to help consumers or the 
integrity of the financial system.
  Every time I speak to a bank or credit union in Missouri, I ask what 
one rule or regulation they find to be the most burdensome or they 
would like to see changed. The answer is always the same: It isn't just 
one. It is the weight of all the rules combined that is restricting 
credit and the availability of financial services in our communities.
  We have to make a change, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Loudermilk's legislation 
would institute a more thoughtful approach to regulations that will not 
only offer regulatory relief, but also foster a more responsible and 
stable financial marketplace.
  As the gentleman from Georgia has said in the past, this bill isn't 
just about regulatory relief; it is about good government. This should 
not be a partisan exercise. I hope every Member of this body stands for 
responsible government and joins me in supporting H.R. 4607 today.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my closing, I would just like to 
make a few comments about some of the information that was shared with 
us by Members on the opposite side of the aisle. I want to remind them 
that these poor little banks that you are talking about, which include 
all of the big banks in America, made record profits in 2016--more than 
$170 billion--and they are going to make billions more from that tax 
bill, that tax scam giveaway to Wall Street. Lending is up 75 percent 
since 2010.
  So when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle continue to talk 
about how the banks are suffering, I don't know who they are talking 
about. As a matter of fact, the real bipartisanship of this committee 
is about community banks, and Democrats have led and will continue to 
lead on every way and everything that we can do for community banks.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I notice that when my friends on the opposite side of 
the aisle come in with deregulation, they frame it in such a way that 
you would think that it is all about community banks, when, in fact, 
they always attach anything they do for community banks to the biggest 
banks in America.
  So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4607 demonstrates just how much my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle value the interests of Wall Street over 
families and consumers on Main Street.
  This bill would direct the banking, credit union, and consumer 
protection regulators to loosen their rules to benefit bad actors on 
Wall Street. The bill doesn't even allow regulators to consider how to 
improve safeguards to better protect consumers.
  It is absurd that we are here today discussing yet another bill that 
leads to massive deregulation and seeks to tip the scales in favor of 
the financial industry. The interests of the public are what we should 
be focused on.
  This bill is yet another piece of the harmful and reckless Republican 
agenda. Only a few months ago, Republicans jammed their tax scam 
legislation through this Chamber. They added $1.8 trillion to the 
Federal debt in order to line the pockets of Wall Street and other 
megacorporations with billions in tax cuts, leaving families on Main 
Street and generations of their children just to pick up the tab. 
Democrats rejected that terrible piece of legislation and should now 
reject H.R. 4607 as well.
  Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 200 consumer 
civil rights, investor, retiree, community, labor, faith-based, and 
business groups said that H.R. 4607, ``contains no consideration of the 
public benefits that are the justification for creating the regulations 
in the first place, and which regulators should be seeking to preserve. 
Any mandate to tailor regulations must include consideration of public 
benefits, rather than being a one-sided directive to reduce business 
costs.'' I agree.
  For Members who are concerned with maintaining strong protections, I 
would highlight that Trump's OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, has been 
illegally installed as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and is working every day to dial back the important 
work of the Consumer Bureau from within.
  Congress should not be giving Mr. Mulvaney, or anyone the President 
eventually appoints and is confirmed to serve as the next Director of 
the Consumer Bureau, a green light to gut consumer protections and 
reduce the Consumer Bureau's ability to hold bad actors accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4607, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend on the other side 
of the aisle. Again, her comments were very heavy on thematics, very 
heavy on extraneous material. Unfortunately, it was a little light on 
the facts of H.R. 4607.
  The text of the bill is 3\1/2\ pages long; so it doesn't take very 
long to read. But I remind all of my colleagues that this is common 
sense. In and of itself, this bill changes no rules. All it does is 
tell our regulators that every 7 years, why don't you look at what you 
have done and publish a report.
  If you want to change any rule, you have to go through the formal 
rulemaking process to repropose a rule, to get public comment. So, 
again, in and of itself, it changes no rules. I almost want to ask my 
friend on the other side of the aisle: What is she scared of? What is 
so wrong with simply looking at the rules that have been promulgated to 
see if they are actually working? Are they helping our constituents? 
Are they making economic opportunity more available for all?
  What is so odd is, the original EGRPRA legislation that dates back to 
the Clinton era was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the 
aisle.
  So what the gentleman from Georgia is doing in H.R. 4607 is simply 
saying all financial regulators, including the National Credit Union 
Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which 
really didn't even exist in the Clinton era, ought to do the same 
thing. They are saying, instead of doing it every 10 years, let's do it 
every 7 years. Just take a look and report. That is all it is.
  It is a self-reporting requirement, which I think, Mr. Speaker, is 
why this has already been supported overwhelmingly on a bipartisan 
basis in the House Financial Services Committee.
  So with all of the various scare tactics and horror stories that we 
have heard from the other side of the aisle on a mere reporting 
requirement, again, I ask, Mr. Speaker: What are they scared of?
  What we are ultimately trying to do here is make sure that the 
regulatory burden is not such that it harms the very people I spoke 
about earlier in my opening comments: that it doesn't hurt Dan, a Navy 
veteran from Illinois who, because of the regulatory burden, was forced 
to shut down his small business; that it doesn't hurt Anne in 
Wisconsin, who is just trying to get a loan to remodel her garage; that 
it doesn't hurt Michele and her daughter in Missouri. Her daughter was 
just simply seeking a car loan to buy her first car.
  These are the people whom we are trying to help.
  And by the way, all banks--small, medium, and large--are lending to 
businesses and to consumers, and we want them to do that in a robust 
but responsible way.
  So, from time to time, let's look at the regulations and ensure that 
they are still helping us achieve equal financial opportunity for all 
so that our constituents can achieve their share of the American Dream, 
that they can achieve financial independence.
  This received strong, bipartisan support, Madam Speaker, in the House 
Financial Services Committee. It ought to receive strong, bipartisan 
support on the House floor.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for and adopt H.R. 4607, 
and I yield back the balance of my time
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.

[[Page H1389]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     4607 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 3, line 21, strike ``otherwise determined'' and insert 
     ``such action is at the request of and for the personal gain 
     of the President, his or her immediate family members, or 
     senior Executive Branch officials who are required to file 
     annual financial disclosure forms, or is otherwise determined 
     inappropriate''.

  Mr. LEUTKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this is the final 
amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  My amendment is a commonsense measure that protects the American 
people from corruption and conflicts of interest.
  My amendment simply states that before taking any action to eliminate 
or change a regulation, regulators must disclose any communications 
from the White House or the President's family advocating for the 
action and whether the President, his family, or any senior 
administration officials would benefit financially from such action.
  The American people need to have confidence that their government is 
working in the best interest of the people and not to enrich a 
President and his family and wealthy friends.
  Every day, the news is filled with stories that raise this very 
question. Does the Trump family benefit when the EPA loosens 
environmental safeguards on construction projects?
  Does Jared Kushner's deeply indebted family business receive 
favorable treatment when he advocates for certain policies?
  Do the President's sons get special permits from foreign governments 
when the President changes policies towards those countries?
  Who in the administration gets richer when our coasts are opened up 
to oil drilling, when tariffs are levied on steel, or when predatory 
lenders are allowed to prey on college students?
  President Trump has rejected the norm that all modern-day Presidents 
have followed. His refusal to release his tax returns or to remove 
himself from his family business necessitates codifying the norms and 
practices of previous Presidents into law in this disclosure.
  Congress must do its job and provide a necessary check on a President 
who has shown contempt for his basic duty to put Americans first. All 
of these policies affect American families. They affect the taxes we 
pay, the air we breathe, and whether our kids can afford to go to 
college.
  We deserve to know if these decisions are being made to enrich a 
President and if they are being made at the taxpayers' expense. This 
simple act of disclosure will allow the American people to judge for 
themselves who this administration is really looking out for.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point 
of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss this matter today.
  It is kind of interesting that we have before us an amendment that 
basically is something that deals with a financial services bill, 
something that deals with a financial services issue, yet we had the 
EPA and a whole bunch of other agencies brought into the discussion 
here, which has nothing to do with what we are trying to talk about 
here today.
  The amendment talks about the President or his immediate family 
members. How is it possible that, unless those family members have the 
authority to make the request, they even should be considered?
  This is sort of pulling things out of the air here that make no sense 
to me. This is a very simple bill that we have where all we are looking 
at trying to do is take the EGRPRA law that says that, every 10 years, 
all the rules and regulations are reviewed.
  All we are doing is putting two agencies back into this group of 
agencies that are under review, one that was not even in existence at 
the time of the bill's passage back in the nineties, the CFPB; and the 
other one that needs to be included is the National Credit Union. All 
we are doing is taking that 10-year review down to 7.
  Why is this controversial? We are taking an agency that was not even 
included in this originally and putting it under the purview of this 
bill so that there can be a review of the rules and regulations.
  Is there lack of transparency on the other side?
  Do we no longer want to be concerned about what is going on?
  Do we no longer want to know that the rules and regulations are 
appropriately adjudicated here by these agencies?
  I think that is the wrong way to go. I think that we need to have 
more transparency. Reducing from 10 years down to 7 gives us an 
opportunity to have a more constant review of these things to make sure 
that the bureaucratic folks in the executive branch of the government 
don't run away with what should be, in my view, the authority of the 
Congress.

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Speaker, I think that the motion to recommit is way out of line 
here, and I don't think we need to waste any more time on it.
  Madam Speaker, I ask folks to decline the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________