[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1554-H1559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4545, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 
  EXAMINATION FAIRNESS AND REFORM ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 H.R. 1116, TAKING ACCOUNT OF INSTITUTIONS WITH LOW OPERATION RISK ACT 
 OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4263, REGULATION AT 
                        IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 773 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 773

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4545) to 
     amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 
     Act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository 
     institutions, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     printed in part A 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 
     B 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 (3) 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

[[Page H1555]]

     bill (H.R. 1116) to require the Federal financial 
     institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and 
     business models of institutions into account when taking 
     regulatory actions, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part C 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; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4263) to amend 
     the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company 
     capital formation, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part D 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; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. The rule makes in order three bills reported favorably by 
the Committee on Financial Services. All three bills were the subject 
of multiple hearings before the Committee on Financial Services. All 
three bills were reported favorably by a bipartisan majority without 
amendment. The rule ensures that each of these provisions are fully 
paid for and makes in order an amendment offered by the Democrat 
ranking member on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with Chairman Hensarling 
to bring many Financial Services Committee bills to the floor for 
debate. I will be here again tomorrow doing the same thing. I am always 
amazed at how bipartisan these votes are in the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Once again, we have before us today components of the Financial 
CHOICE Act. As I have already noted, each of these bills received 
bipartisan support in the committee. I anticipate that these bills will 
receive a bipartisan vote on the House floor as well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the Senate is working 
hard toward their own bill overhauling Dodd-Frank. It is about time. 
The House has already done its work under the leadership of Chairman 
Hensarling. We passed the Financial CHOICE Act nearly a year ago. But I 
certainly understand that the Senate has its own ideas about financial 
reform.
  I would encourage the Senate to look at the roster of bills that we 
have passed unpacking the CHOICE Act, as they demonstrate a clear 
bipartisan roadmap to overhauling our financial regulatory reform 
effort. We continue to provide that roadmap today.
  The first bill made in order by this rule is sponsored by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. H.R. 1116, the TAILOR 
Act, is commonsense legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor.
  One of the biggest complaints I hear as I travel the Fourth 
Congressional District of Colorado is how the Federal Government stamps 
out cookie-cutter regulations without a thought as to how much 
variation occurs in industries from State to State. For example, how do 
Washington regulators take into consideration the unique business model 
of AMG National Trust headquartered in Colorado? Do they know better 
than my good friend Earl Wright, who cofounded the bank in 1972, about 
the banking needs of his customers? Are they able to differentiate 
between AMG's needs and the needs of a bank in another State or on Wall 
Street? Typically, the answer is no.
  They do not model banking regulations to the particular differences 
from State to State. But even inside a State there is diversity within 
industries. The needs of AMG National Trust's customers vary from the 
needs of other community banks in my district; such as, the Bank of 
Burlington or Community State Bank, both of which are on the Eastern 
Plains.
  The TAILOR Act solves this problem. It requires regulatory actions to 
take into account each particular institution's business model and risk 
profile. Mr. Speaker, this change would be an innovative regulatory 
reform. It would ensure that overarching goals of accountability to 
investors and depositors are maintained while providing flexibility in 
the application of the regulations to each institution.
  Independent community banks and credit unions have been hit hard by 
Dodd-Frank's wrong-headed approach to financial services regulation. In 
2016, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said: `` . . . when it 
comes to bank regulation and supervision, one size does not fit all''--
and--``rules and supervisory approaches should be tailored to different 
types of institutions such as community banks.''
  The TAILOR Act will do just that. It will reorient our regulatory 
structure and free up our community lending institutions to increase 
their investments in our communities, creating jobs and opportunities 
for Americans.
  This rule also makes in order H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ 
Improvement Act. This regulation was the result of the JOBS Act passed 
by Congress in 2012. While Regulation A had been around for many years, 
it caused startups to enter into a cumbersome process for raising money 
from certain types of investors. The process is so inefficient that 
most startups avoided it altogether.

  Regulation A+ revamped the regulation and raised the amount of money 
that entrepreneurs could raise in their startup fundraising round. 
Crucially, it also changed the type of investor who could invest in a 
startup. Prior to the JOBS Act, essentially only accredited investors 
could participate in the first fundraising round.
  The problem is that, according to research done by Forbes magazine, 
accredited investors only made up 1 percent of the population, thereby 
excluding 99 percent of Americans. The JOBS Act changed the regulation 
to allow nonaccredited investors to participate in a startup's initial 
fundraising round. Expanding the pool of investors has proven to be a 
success, and the Regulation A+ Improvement Act continues reforming this 
area of investment regulation by further increasing the threshold 
investment amount. This bill will ensure greater access to capital for 
entrepreneurs seeking investors in their startup.
  Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 4545, the Financial 
Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act. This bill establishes 
deadlines by which certain regulatory decisions must be made and 
provides for a more transparent appeals process. Under current law, 
financial institutions may appeal regulatory determinations to an 
intra-agency appellate process. The Financial Services Committee found 
during hearings that the appeals process was not as impartial as it was 
intended to be.
  This bill removes the appeals process from the original examining 
agency and creates an independent examination review director who is 
able to review regulatory determinations. To ensure timeliness of 
regulatory reviews, the bill requires the final reports from agencies 
are completed within 60 days.
  The combination of a better appeals process and deadline for agency 
action gives community financial institutions certainty as a regulator 
evaluates their practices.

[[Page H1556]]

  


                              {time}  1230

  Certainty in the regulatory arena will ensure that lending 
institutions do not needlessly restrict capital investments due to the 
unpredictability of a regulatory agency's decisionmaking process.
  These three bills continue to advance smart financial regulatory 
reforms that the Committee on Financial Services has been known for 
under Chairman Hensarling. Washington's cookie-cutter approach to 
regulation hinders investments in Colorado and across the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I support these measures, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule provides 
for the consideration of three bills out of the Financial Services 
Committee. Before I turn to the bills, I want to talk about the urgent 
issues that are not scheduled for floor time this week.
  Why aren't we debating appropriations bills to keep the government 
funded through the end of this fiscal year?
  Just 2 weeks away from another government shutdown, yet, instead of 
discussing how we can keep government open through the end of the year, 
we are debating unrelated bills.
  We are halfway through the current fiscal year and we are forcing a 
month-after-month crisis of government funding. This is no way to run a 
government or a business. Agencies need certainty. Our constituents 
need to know that they can rely on government services and the security 
of our Nation. We should be discussing appropriation bills now.
  In addition, there are over 800,000 DACA recipients, or Dreamers, 
that don't have any certainty, whose ability to work legally hinges 
upon a court decision that is on appeal.
  In my home State of Colorado, there are over 15,000 Dreamers from 
countries far and wide, young, aspiring Americans who grew up in our 
country and know no other country, who are able to work legally today, 
but who risk the expiration at any moment by the whim of a court.
  Every day, over 100 DACA recipients lose their protected status or it 
expires. We need to take up, in this body, a permanent solution for 
Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to rely on 
the whims of the court system to protect them.
  Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have demanded that 
Speaker Ryan bring an immigration bill to the floor. In fact, in the 
past, he said he would do so--last week, the week before. Yet we still 
haven't brought forward the Dream Act, or the Hope Act, or any of the 
bills that I am proud to cosponsor, that are bipartisan, that would 
address the urgent issue of how we can ensure that Dreamers are able to 
work legally.
  Even as we speak now, there are students on the Capitol lawn 
participating in an organized walkout in support of ending school gun 
violence. Students in Colorado are joining as well. I sent a letter to 
be read to the students who are doing that because I hope that we agree 
that no young person should have to fear going to school, nor should 
any parent have to fear sending their child to school.
  I strongly support sending more resources to schools that create 
supportive environments, that foster emotional and mental health. And, 
yes, we need to do more on gun violence, including universal background 
checks.
  So why aren't we discussing those bills here today?
  In addition, the administration's budget eliminated title IV-A of the 
Every Student Succeeds Act, which is the very kind of support and 
enrichment grant that helps schools support health and mental health 
services and counseling. So in the administration's own budget, it 
would undermine our ability to keep schools safe.
  School safety funding is not a replacement for gun safety measures, 
but it can help reduce violence by supporting our children in school 
and creating a safe learning environment.
  Those are some of the pressing issues that we could be considering; I 
dare say that our constituents are demanding that we consider. I dare 
say our continued ignoring of these issues is one of the reasons that 
the congressional approval rating is so low. Nobody is calling my 
office asking for these obscure bills today on regulations of big 
banks.
  I am getting calls from constituents about reducing gun violence in 
schools; finding a permanent solution for DACA recipients; keeping 
government open, and protecting the integrity of our elections from 
foreign interference.
  My colleagues must have short memories because we just forget how 
hard the financial meltdown of 2008 was on the country's middle class. 
While Wall Street banks were getting taxpayer bailouts, nearly 7 
million Americans lost their homes, workers lost thousands of dollars 
in retirement accounts, and our unemployment rate spiked to 10 percent.
  Since Dodd-Frank was signed into law, we have avoided another major 
meltdown. The banking system is strong again because of the Dodd-Frank 
reforms, yet my Republican colleagues continue to bring bills to the 
floor that are aimed at crippling financial regulators to put banks 
ahead of the safety of the financial system, consumers, and the 
economy.
  H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act, would require that Federal regulators 
tailor any action to limit the burdens on financial institutions. What 
this bill does is force Federal regulators, those in charge of 
protecting consumers and our system from risk, to conduct a time-
consuming re-analysis limiting what they look at to the burdens on 
financial institutions, the very protections that were put in place in 
Dodd-Frank and, instead, change those to financial institutions, not to 
ensure consumer protection, to reduce costs rather than ensure 
protection.
  It is almost like you are giving such authority to the tailors that 
they cut up your whole suit, and that is not what we want. If there are 
adjustments that need to be made, we should make them through statute, 
not give broad authority to government regulators to shred consumer 
protections.

  H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform 
Act, would establish a new Office of Independent Examination Review, 
yet more bureaucracy and paperwork, and have financial institutions 
appeal and postpone supervisory determinations, creating yet more 
Republican red tape, more big government committees that the 
Republicans seem so fond of at the cost to taxpayers.
  This is, again, one of those bills that could have been easily 
tailored to provide targeted improvements to the exam process, but, 
instead, the Republicans want to set up more government committees and 
more red tape.
  H.R. 4545 takes away the financial regulators' ability to supervise 
financial institutions, instead, creating new government panels that 
risk putting consumers at additional risk.
  The last bill being considered under this rule is H.R. 4263, the 
Regulation A+ Improvement Act. This bill would increase the annual 
exemption threshold under the SEC's Regulation A+ for companies to sell 
initial public offerings while being exempt from registration and 
disclosure requirements.
  The purpose of the JOBS Act, as my colleague from Colorado mentioned, 
is to help startups and small businesses access capital by easing some 
security regulations. Regulation A+, unlike these other two proposals, 
actually reduces regulations, so it is a good bill. I plan on 
supporting it. It would make it easier for smaller, nonpublic companies 
to access capital by allowing them to offer shares to the general 
public.
  So two bills setting up new bureaucracies and new Republican red tape 
commissions that tie up government, and one that actually reduces 
regulation, which I think will have more Democratic support.
  Currently, a company offering up to $50 million in securities is 
exempt from SEC registration requirements. This bill is very simple. It 
just raises the threshold from $50 million to $75 million. Compliance 
costs are very expensive. So for a company in that range, they are 
often prohibited from accessing capital markets.
  The SEC has the authority to raise the offering limit, something that 
Congress gave the SEC the authority to do. The JOBS Act requires the 
SEC to review the limit every 2 years, and if they decide not to 
increase it, the SEC has to report to Congress.

[[Page H1557]]

  According to the Kauffman Foundation, startup activity has increased 
steadily over the past 3 years. Startups are a major job creator in our 
communities. Reducing red tape and bureaucracy is a good idea. Startups 
create 3 million jobs annually, and we need to continue to find ways to 
support startups and entrepreneurs.
  So, again, the biggest problem with all of these bills is that they 
have nothing to do with what the American people are demanding Congress 
act on. Two of them create more Republican red tape, bureaucracy, give 
more power to the Federal Government. One of them helps small 
businesses raise capital by reducing regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have two other speakers. Neither of them are 
here at this point in time. I would be glad to listen to more of the 
things that the House should be doing, if Mr. Polis would like to 
engage in that discussion. But at this point, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  President Trump's March 5 deadline ending DACA has come and gone, and 
all we got out of the White House was tweet after tweet, a stifling of 
bipartisan proposals in the Senate, and a continued failure to lead.
  President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA by Dems. Where are 
you? A deal can be made.''
  Mr. Speaker, has the President forgotten that it was his decision to 
suddenly end the DACA program that has thrown the system into chaos?
  Well, to answer his question, the Democrats are right here. My 
colleague is right here with a motion to solve DACA right now. Let's do 
it. Let's rumble. This is actually the 25th time that we have attempted 
to bring the bipartisan bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor of 
the House, while it is Republican colleagues who have stood by ignoring 
the will of this House and the Nation and refusing to let us vote on a 
bill that would fix DACA.
  The Democrats have been and are making our position clear. We want 
immigration policies that make America safer and that reflect the fact 
that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. It is time 
that President Trump and my colleagues on the other side work with us 
to ensure that.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation would 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, I stand on this floor to speak about our 
Dreamers.
  Again, I must ask very simply: What happened?
  For months, Washington refused to pass a budget. We had many 
continuing resolutions. Again, one of the issues was Dreamers.
  After spending caps were raised for both military and nonmilitary 
expenditures, we got a budget and both Democrats and Republicans voted 
for that budget. Yet, still, no action for the Dreamers.
  Eighty percent of the public wants a fix. We recognize that Dreamers 
are soldiers, teachers, police officers. They are our friends. They are 
our neighbors. The President has said he wants also a fix to the 
Dreamer issue, yet here we are again, one more time, and, again, the 
Dreamers face a very uncertain future.

  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop using Dreamers as pawns in a bigger 
political chess game. At the State of the Union Address here on this 
floor, my guest was a Dreamer, a young lady studying chemistry at one 
of my local universities. She wants to be a scientist, and I know she 
is going to be a very good scientist. That is what chemistry majors do.
  You know, America is the land of immigrants, and we have many, many 
hardworking immigrants. That is what Dreamers are. They work hard. They 
study hard. They pay taxes. They follow the law. They have been fully 
vetted. Yet, today, again, we ask: What happened to the Dreamers?
  I ask my colleagues, let's give Dreamers the opportunity to earn the 
American Dream. Let's give them the opportunity to earn citizenship. 
And let's not live with regrets. Let's not look back 20, 30 years from 
now and say what we could have, should have, would have. Now is the 
time to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question so that we can immediately bring up the Dream Act to the floor 
and give relief to almost a million young people who want nothing but 
to earn the American Dream.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the sponsor of H.R. 4263.
  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here to debate a rule 
on the Regulation A+ Improvement Act. As much as I also want to do 
things regarding the Dreamers, the issue at hand is a bill that is 
meant to help those who are creating jobs.
  I want to thank my cosponsors, Representatives Sinema and Gottheimer, 
for cosponsoring the bill. Any time we can do a bill together on a 
bipartisan basis, I think it is a better bill.

                              {time}  1245

  The purpose of this bill is pretty simple. Seven out of ten jobs in 
this country, new jobs, come from the 28 million small businesses. I 
used to run one of those businesses and grew it to be a larger national 
business, and I know from experience that you have to have capital to 
grow businesses.
  If we help companies raise capital, then we help them create jobs. 
Biopharmaceutical companies in my State of New Jersey are perfect 
examples. These are growing companies. They are capital intensive. They 
need help. The government can't do everything, but the Federal 
Government can play a role in helping these companies access capital, 
and that is what this bill is about.
  Regulation A+ of the 1933 Securities Act, the very first securities 
law in this country, Federal law, allowed companies to offer shares on 
public exchanges. It required that any company that engaged in 
interstate commerce had to register with the SEC.
  They made two exceptions: Regulation A+, which was for Main Street 
investors, but it put a cap on the amount that could be offered; and 
Regulation D, which allowed an unlimited offering to companies that 
were only selling to accredited investors. It has been really helpful 
in creating jobs and giving companies access to capital.
  This bill is a modest improvement. Over time, Regulation A+ has gone 
from a small limit to, most recently, a $50 million limit under the 
JOBS Act of a few years ago, and it is time to raise that limit again.
  There is good precedent for this. The JOBS Act actually required that 
the SEC raise it within 2 years of 2015, when the JOBS Act took effect, 
or they had to explain to Congress why they didn't. Well, they haven't. 
They haven't raised it.
  We have an interest in making sure that we help our companies in this 
country create new jobs, and so this bill would raise that limit from 
$50 million to $75 million and allow companies to make offerings to 
Main Street investors, everyday people trying to find good companies so 
they can build a future for their families.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has been through committee markup. It was open 
to amendments. It is a bipartisan bill. It has gone through the Rules 
Committee. It is in order for this bill to move to the floor, and I 
urge that the rule be passed.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any remaining 
speakers?
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for our all-
Colorado lineup.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of H.R. 1116 and H.R. 4545.

[[Page H1558]]

  

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Buck) for the time, and I appreciate consideration of the 
rule here today.
  Mr. Speaker, both of the bills being considered under this rule 
amount to real relief for our Nation's community banks and credit 
unions.
  H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act, which passed out of committee with 
bipartisan support, will direct Federal financial regulators to tailor 
their regulations to the risk profile and business model of our 
institutions, meaning that regulation intended for the largest 
financial institutions will no longer burden the smallest of our 
institutions.
  Our community banks and credit unions have long suffered the 
consequences and costs of complying with extensive heavyhanded and 
onerous regulations. They were created after the 2008 financial crisis. 
While many of these regulations are necessary for financial 
institutions of all sizes, many are not.
  Complying with manifold regulations has significantly hampered the 
ability of our community institutions to offer credit to small 
businesses, help families get a mortgage, and extend loans to retirees 
and the recently employed. As one community banker wrote to me: ``We 
have seen time and again the impact of this regulatory environment 
consume many hours and resources of our compliance, credit, and audit 
teams despite the relatively simple business model we follow.''
  By requiring financial regulators to consider the cost of compliance 
on smaller institutions as well as whether or not a regulation is 
necessary for an institution based on the size and risk profile of that 
institution, the TAILOR Act will go a long way to alleviate the burden 
of heavy regulation on our community banks. In turn, this will lead to 
renewed economic growth for our local communities that rely heavily on 
the presence of community banks and credit unions in their own 
hometowns.
  The other bill being considered under this rule, H.R. 4545, which 
also came out of committee with bipartisan support, the Financial 
Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, will provide 
certainty for community banks and credit unions that they will have 
independent recourse should a bank examination result in a 
determination that they disagree with.
  If a bank or a credit union receives an examination decision that it 
finds unfavorable, the only recourse it has under the current structure 
is to appeal that decision directly to the same regulator that arrived 
at that decision in the first place. The Exam Fairness bill included in 
this rule will change that reality by creating a new Office of 
Independent Examination Review that will serve as an independent 
appeals office, providing banks and credit unions with uniform and 
predictable avenues to appeal examination determinations of significant 
consequence.
  At this independent office, sober review of the agency's 
determination, transparency, and timeliness will be paramount, meaning 
that financial institutions will no longer have to wade through long 
delays in their appeals process and will no longer have to fear 
retaliation from a financial regulator because they appealed the 
examination results. Mr. Speaker, this amounts to new assurances to 
community banks and credit unions that they will have fair recourse in 
the examination process should they disagree with an examiner's 
findings.

  I would like to thank the Speaker for advancing this rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that our community banks 
and credit unions can realize real relief.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Once again, Congress is spending our limited time here on the floor 
debating issues that are not being asked for by our constituents, 
creating new government commissions and Washington red tape that gets 
in the way of our economic growth and success.
  We have spent countless hours debating bills that the Senate probably 
won't even take up instead of the items we need to do like 
appropriations bills, where we are 2 weeks from the expiration of 
government funding.
  Apparently, these bills are rushed to the floor to score political 
points for special interests instead of dealing with the over 800,000 
Dreamers whose ability to work legally hangs in the balance of a court 
decision.
  We are considering legislation that creates new commissions and red 
tape instead of focusing on how to put more money in the pockets of the 
middle class.
  I strongly urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the rule and the 
previous question so we can bring the bipartisan Dream Act forward and 
finally show that, yes, the House of Representatives can do its job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It really is fairly simple. Washington's regulations tend to strangle 
economic growth. What usually starts as a do-good effort quickly 
devolves into a ``Washington knows best'' regulatory regime. Instead of 
recognizing the unique needs of businesses around this country, the 
Federal Government usually stamps out a cookie-cutter regulation that 
purports to be the solution to a problem but, in reality, almost always 
has unintended consequences that reduce the freedom of Americans and 
reduces economic activity in our communities.
  The bills before us today take a balanced approach to regulation, 
maintaining overarching safeguards while making commonsense reforms 
that free our community banks and credit unions to increase investment 
in our communities.
  I promised Coloradans that I would work to reduce the role of Federal 
Government in their lives. These three bills today do just that.
  I thank my fellow Coloradan, Mr. Tipton, for introducing two of these 
measures. I thank Chairman Hensarling for bringing these bills to the 
floor.
  I urge passage for the rule and the underlying rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 773 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. 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. 5. 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,

[[Page H1559]]

     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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  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 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________