[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1576-H1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1600
   TAKING ACCOUNT OF INSTITUTIONS WITH LOW OPERATION RISK ACT OF 2017

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 773, I call 
up the 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the 
amendment printed in part C of House Report 115-595 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1116

       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 ``Taking Account of 
     Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017'' or the 
     ``TAILOR Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS APPROPRIATE TO BUSINESS MODELS.

       (a) In General.--For any regulatory action occurring after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, each Federal financial 
     institutions regulatory agency shall--
       (1) take into consideration the risk profile and business 
     models of each type of institution or class of institutions 
     subject to the regulatory action;
       (2) determine the necessity, appropriateness, and impact of 
     applying such regulatory action to such institutions or 
     classes of institutions; and
       (3) tailor such regulatory action in a manner that limits 
     the regulatory compliance impact, cost, liability risk, and 
     other burdens, as appropriate, for the risk profile and 
     business model of the institution or class of institutions 
     involved.
       (b) Other Considerations.--In carrying out the requirements 
     of subsection (a), each Federal financial institutions 
     regulatory agency shall consider--
       (1) the impact that such regulatory action, both by itself 
     and in conjunction with the aggregate effect of other 
     regulations, has on the ability of the applicable institution 
     or class of institutions to serve evolving and diverse 
     customer needs;
       (2) the potential impact of examination manuals, regulatory 
     actions taken with respect to third-party service providers, 
     or other regulatory directives that may be in conflict or 
     inconsistent with the tailoring of such regulatory action 
     described in subsection (a)(3); and
       (3) the underlying policy objectives of the regulatory 
     action and statutory scheme involved.
       (c) Notice of Proposed and Final Rulemaking.--Each Federal 
     financial institutions regulatory agency shall disclose in 
     every notice of proposed rulemaking and in any final 
     rulemaking for a regulatory action how the agency has applied 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       (d) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Individual agency reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, each 
     Federal financial institutions regulatory agency shall report 
     to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate on the specific actions taken to 
     tailor the regulatory actions of the agency pursuant to the 
     requirements of this Act.
       (B) Appearance before the committees.--The head of each 
     Federal financial institution regulatory agency shall appear 
     before the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate after each report is made 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) to testify on the contents of 
     such report.
       (2) FIEC reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 3 months after each report 
     is submitted under paragraph (1), the Financial Institutions 
     Examination Council shall report to the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate on--
       (i) the extent to which regulatory actions tailored 
     pursuant to this Act result in different treatment of 
     similarly situated institutions of diverse charter types; and
       (ii) the reasons for such differential treatment.
       (B) Appearance before the committees.--The Chairman of the 
     Financial Institutions Examination Council shall appear 
     before the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate after each report is made 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) to testify on the contents of 
     such report.
       (e) Limited Look-Back Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each Federal financial institutions 
     regulatory agency shall conduct a review of all regulations 
     adopted during the period beginning on the date that is seven 
     years before the date of the introduction of this Act in the 
     House of Representatives and ending on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and apply the requirements of this Act 
     to such regulations.
       (2) Revision.--If the application of the requirements of 
     this Act to any such regulation requires such regulation to 
     be revised, the applicable Federal financial institutions 
     regulatory agency shall revise such regulation within 3 years 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (f) Definitions.--In this Act, the following definitions 
     shall apply:
       (1) Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies.--
     The term ``Federal financial institutions regulatory 
     agencies'' means the Office of the Comptroller of the 
     Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
     National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection.
       (2) Regulatory action.--The term ``regulatory action'' 
     means any proposed, interim, or final rule or regulation, 
     guidance, or published interpretation.

     SEC. 3. 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 ``$7,385,714,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on 
     June 1, 2018.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, 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 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 as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we were told many, many years ago that Dodd-Frank was 
passed to deal with the big Wall Street banks, that somehow our 
community banks and our credit unions would be held harmless because, 
Mr. Speaker, they didn't cause the crisis.
  Now, we can have the discussion of what did--that is a whole 
different discussion for a different day--but unfortunately, regardless 
of whatever good intentions there might have been at the time, and I 
don't offer an opinion as to those intentions, the facts are that, 
since Dodd-Frank was passed, the big banks are bigger and the small 
banks and credit unions are fewer. We are losing, on average, a 
community bank or credit union every other day in America.
  And as we lose them, Mr. Speaker, so do we lose the hopes and dreams 
and desires of our constituents, of so many

[[Page H1577]]

hardworking Americans who deserve to buy that car, who deserve to be 
able to own their own home, who deserve, after working so many years on 
the assembly line, to finally capitalize their own small business. But 
none of this is going to happen unless we actually tailor this 
regulatory burden to the size and complexity of the financial 
institution, something that, in many respects, was promised by Dodd-
Frank but not delivered by Dodd-Frank.
  So I am very, very happy that, today, we have yet another bipartisan 
bill from the Financial Services Committee that is aimed to promote 
economic growth, to help hardworking Americans, again, achieve their 
American Dream, because half of this country is living from paycheck to 
paycheck, and we need to ease that economic anxiety, and so we have got 
to make sure that the lifeblood of credit, that capital, is flowing 
through the system.
  It is our community banks in particular that fund our small 
businesses. Unfortunately, up until the advent of the new 
administration, Mr. Speaker, small business lending by banks was at a 
25-year low, entrepreneurship was at a generational low.
  Now, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we have turned that corner, 
but we have so much further to go. So a particularly hardworking member 
of the House Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tipton), has come to us today with H.R. 1116, the Taking Account 
of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act, yes, Mr. Speaker, the 
TAILOR Act.
  Simply put, what this bill does is simply directs the Federal 
financial regulators to, again, simply tailor their regulations to 
entities based upon their size, their risk profile, their complexity. 
It also demands that they have some transparency in this process by 
requiring that the regulators report to Congress, report to the 
representatives of ``we the people'' how they have actually tailored 
the regulations--again, something that was implied, something that was 
promised in Dodd-Frank but did not actually occur.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, every single day we hear from our community 
financial institutions. I heard from one in New Mexico that said:

       You know, we are a $300 million community bank in an area 
     with high unemployment. Thirty-seven percent of our employees 
     are active in community organizations, Little League, 
     charities, and many serve in leadership positions in these 
     organizations, and we also make tens of thousands of dollars 
     in charitable contributions every year; but if our bank can't 
     survive, you take away the local leadership, you take away 
     the economic engine of our community.

  This banker was clearly talking about the regulatory burden.
  I heard from one in Iowa:

       I am a mortgage consumer lender and also the compliance 
     officer of a small community bank in rural Iowa. I have been 
     in banking for over 30 years and always enjoyed my job until 
     the last 5 years. The new rules that will be implemented are 
     ridiculous, and at that time, we may discontinue to offer in-
     house mortgage loans.

  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my mailbox runneth over.
  As our small banks and credit unions go, so goes the American Dream.
  At a bare minimum, let's tailor the rules and regulations to the size 
and complexity of the institution so our credit unions, so our banks 
can thrive and, thus, our constituents can thrive and meet their 
economic goals and responsibilities.
  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. 1116, the so-called Taking 
Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017, or the 
TAILOR Act.
  This bill would weaken important safeguards established since the 
financial crisis by requiring agencies on the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council--composed of the Federal Reserve 
Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union 
Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency--to perform a biased analysis that favors 
lessening the costs for industry over protecting consumers and the 
economy.
  It was 10 years ago today that Bear Stearns collapsed and the Federal 
Reserve used taxpayer funding to arrange a shotgun wedding to J.P. 
Morgan to avoid a catastrophe. We now know that much, much worse was to 
come, when AIG, Lehman Brothers, the money market fund industry, and 
hundreds of banks, including all of the largest ones, would need a 
bailout. And this says nothing of the tremendous damage inflicted on 
the millions of Americans whose homes were lost to foreclosure, the 
millions who lost their jobs, and the trillions of dollars of wealth 
that evaporated.
  Congress took decisive action to ensure that we were never caught 
unaware again when it passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act.
  Although some claim that the measure that is now before us is aimed 
at helping community banks, that is not the case. If enacted, this bill 
would provide all financial institutions, including the largest banks, 
with opportunities to challenge any and every regulation in court if 
they felt it was not, so-called, uniquely tailored to their business 
needs.
  This bill would ignore the mandates and requirements of all other 
laws passed by Congress and override decades of well-established 
administrative law requirements by subjecting all new financial rules 
to a vague, if not impossible, standard to meet. This includes an 
undefined standard of appropriateness and a vague standard of the 
ability to serve evolving and diverse customer needs; and, importantly, 
the legislation includes no similar mandate that regulators consider 
the benefits of Federal regulations, including the promotion of our 
Nation's financial stability or the protection of our consumers.
  Let us not forget that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 
the centerpiece of this Dodd-Frank reform. Prior to Dodd-Frank, our 
consumers had nobody looking out for them. They were left and they were 
taken advantage of, and so that is why we have Dodd-Frank reform.
  But it seems that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have 
forgotten about all of this. This set of standards that they are 
promoting not only applies to all future guidance and rulemaking, but 
retroactively to all of the rulemakings in the past 7 years, which, 
conveniently for the industry, covers all rules under the Dodd-Frank 
Act.
  But financial regulators already have to go through extensive look-
back reviews to refine and improve rules that make sense. In fact, 
under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or 
EGRPRA, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were just 
last week calling the gold standard for how regulators should review 
regulations, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC are already required to 
review their rules once every 10 years.
  During this review, the regulators must identify whether regulations 
are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome and consider how to 
reduce regulatory burdens on insured depository institutions while, at 
the same time, ensuring safety and soundness.
  The Consumer Bureau engages in a similar look-back review 5 years 
after a significant rule takes effect.
  Make no mistake: I support tiered and tailored regulations for 
community banks and credit unions, but week after week, we have been on 
this House floor debating deregulatory gifts to Wall Street instead of 
moving legislation that actually benefits community banks and credit 
unions.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have 
differences about Dodd-Frank, but something we worked hard to do in 
crafting those critical reforms was to make sure that the law did not 
impose a one-size-fits-all approach on every financial institution. So, 
as you can see, the toughest rules focus on the largest and most 
complex financial firms that, as we saw in the crisis, can destabilize 
the financial system and inflict lasting damage to the economy and 
constituents we serve.
  We have monitored Dodd-Frank's implementation carefully and pushed 
regulators to tailor rules to reduce unnecessary compliance burdens 
while maintaining appropriate protections and safeguards for consumers, 
investors, and taxpayers.
  We must continue to take this type of targeted approach instead of 
advancing measures like H.R. 1116, this bill

[[Page H1578]]

that we are talking about right now, which would force the regulators 
to prioritize costs to Wall Street over benefits to consumers and the 
economy and expose rulemaking to needless litigation because of the 
nebulous standards in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of the TAILOR Act, who also serves 
as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations of our Financial Services Committee, a very, very 
hardworking member of the committee and a real leader to help preserve 
and maintain our community banks and credit unions.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his 
leadership on this issue, as well, and for considering this bipartisan 
legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, the ever-growing burden and complexity of financial 
regulations is creating an environment of difficult choices for 
community banks and credit unions. Often, they must choose to incur the 
costs of complying with a regulation or cease to offer the financial 
product the regulation modifies. Whatever choice these community 
institutions make, it is the local consumer and the local economy that 
loses.
  Burdensome regulations drive up the costs of financial products and 
limit choices for consumers, which decreases a community's access to 
financial products and services that help their families to be able to 
buy their first home, to help small businesses grow.
  In districts like mine in Colorado, that amounts to real economic 
impact, especially in towns where the community bank or credit union on 
the corner is the only true access to credit that the community has.

                              {time}  1615

  When smaller institutions are unable to absorb the costs of 
additional compliance, it is the small towns across America that are 
disproportionately affected.
  As one banker from Colorado recently wrote 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 that we follow.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why the bipartisan TAILOR Act's consideration on 
the floor today is so important. The TAILOR Act directs the Federal 
financial regulators to take into account the risk profile and business 
model of institutions as they develop new regulations, making them more 
targeted, more deliberate. The TAILOR Act also instructs regulators to 
weigh the impact that new regulatory burdens will have on smaller 
institutions, meaning real relief from compliance burdens for banks and 
credit unions.
  To put the impact of regulations into perspective, the Dodd-Frank Act 
alone created 400 new rules and came with 30,000 pages of explanation. 
In my travels across Colorado, I have heard far too often that 
community institutions have been forced to stop making home loans or 
loans to small businesses because they can't afford to hire more 
employees to manage the added compliance paperwork.
  The TAILOR Act would make sure that the compliance burdens are 
considered when new regulations are made so that community financial 
institutions won't have to choose between the needs of their 
communities and complying with regulations out of Washington, D.C. 
Community banks and credit unions need to be able to prioritize their 
customers and the needs of their communities instead of prioritizing 
compliance with heavy-handed regulations.
  One community banker from Colorado brought this into focus when he 
wrote me saying: Providing a real-time view of risk and continual 
review of such a risk applicable to each financial institution allows 
regulators to direct their attention to developing issues that could 
have the most damaging effect. With the number of financial 
institutions declining to historically low levels, the redeployment of 
focus based on complexity makes sense.
  Mr. Speaker, in Colorado, mortgages haven't been made, loans to 
expand small businesses have been denied, retirees and recently 
employed workers have been turned away, and relationships between 
community bankers and their neighbors have been discarded. The one-
size-fits-all approach to regulating the financial services industry 
has resulted in decreased access to much-needed credit.
  America is now in a position to be able to address this. The trickle-
down effect of regulation intended to respond to the culpable actions 
of the big banks after the 2008 financial crisis is harming Main Street 
and the ability of everyday Americans to be able to realize their 
financial goals. Directing the regulators to refocus their regulations 
will help Americans start achieving their goals once again.
  Once more, the regulators themselves have acknowledged the need for 
tailored regulations. Both Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Federal 
Reserve Chairman Powell have acknowledged the significant need for a 
return to common sense in the financial regulatory landscape. Mr. 
Speaker, the TAILOR Act, which passed out of the Financial Services 
Committee with broad bipartisan support, does just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank Chairman Hensarling for 
considering this measure here today.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the 
Financial Services Committee, ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee, and a senior member, of course, of our Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank the 
gentlewoman, Maxine Waters, for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act. This 
bill requires regulators on the FFIEC to reduce the scale and scope of 
their regulations based on the size and profile of a financial 
institution or class of institutions.
  Let me be clear: Like many of the bill's supporters, I strongly 
believe that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to 
financial regulation. Financial regulation must be appropriately 
adjusted according to the size and complexity of an institution or 
class of institutions. That is why Democrats worked so hard to create 
these flexibilities in Dodd-Frank and regulators are already required 
to adjust their rules accordingly. For example, the CFPB has exempted 
community banks from many of the requirements under the qualified 
mortgage rule, and the Federal Reserve has developed different capital 
standards for banks based on size.
  Moreover, we already have laws like the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act that instructs Federal financial 
regulators to go through extensive look-back reviews to update and 
improve their regulations. So while I agree that it is necessary to 
review and update our regulatory framework from time to time, 
particularly for our smaller institutions, I oppose H.R. 1116 because 
the reviews required under the bill tilt too far in the industry's 
favor and fail to provide sufficient protection to the public's or the 
consumer's interest.
  If enacted, this bill will provide our Nation's largest financial 
institutions with the opportunity to challenge any revised rulemaking 
in court if they felt a regulation was not uniquely tailored to meet 
their business needs. The bill also requires regulators to ignore the 
requirements of Dodd-Frank and other laws and subjects any future 
financial regulation to vague and impossible standards like 
appropriateness and necessity. These standards are undefined in the 
bill, making it very easy for a financial institution to challenge them 
in court.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Perhaps most importantly, the bill makes no mention of 
regulators also considering the protection a current or future 
regulation has for consumers or the benefit it provides to our Nation's 
financial stability.
  Instead of developing sweeping rollbacks of financial regulation, we 
should instead spend our time working to improve our regulatory 
framework

[[Page H1579]]

in order to ensure it maintains appropriate protections and safeguards 
for consumers, investors, and taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-advised 
bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and a real 
leader on our committee for proper regulation.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work 
and leadership on our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 
being such a champion for this initiative and others to bring about a 
more responsible, effective regulatory regime. For years, Members on 
both sides of the aisle have advocated for a more tailored, commonsense 
approach to Federal banking regulation. We have all said, time and time 
again, that rules designed for large institutions shouldn't apply to 
community banks and smaller credit unions.
  We pressed the Federal financial regulators to take into 
consideration the risk profile and business models of institutions. In 
their appearances before the Financial Services Committee and in 
response to congressional letters and calls, the regulators tell us 
they are tailoring regulations and supervisory requirements based on 
individual institutions. They tell us what we want to hear, that one 
size fits all; but, Mr. Speaker, these institutions have yet to see 
this relief that they really need.
  We lose a community bank or a credit union every day in this country. 
Today we have an opportunity to work together in an effort to change 
that, to make sure that our constituents continue to have access to the 
services they need and to achieve financial independence. We are doing 
a disservice to our communities and the people we represent if we 
continue to allow rules intended for the largest firms to be forced 
upon our small financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got a couple of 6-year-old grandsons. When they 
come over to the house and they want to play basketball, they can't hit 
a 10-foot goal, so we need to lower the goal in order for them to be 
able to play. Otherwise, they are going to quit; they get tired, 
frustrated; and they go away.
  This is what is happening with our smaller institutions. They are 
saddled with rules and regulations that are for the larger 
institutions, yet they have to play that same game and experience the 
same costs. As a result, they are going out of business at the rate of 
one a day.
  This bipartisan bill is straightforward and one that every Member of 
this body should be able to support. Mr. Tipton's legislation simply 
requires the Federal financial regulators to actually consider the risk 
profile and business model of a financial institution and to tailor 
regulatory actions accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
his outstanding work on this legislation and ask my colleagues for the 
support of the TAILOR Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the deregulatory bills that are 
produced by the opposite side of the aisle, and I keep wondering why 
there are so many attempts to provide the banks and the financial 
institutions, the largest banks in this country, opportunities to make 
even more money.
  According to an estimate from Goldman Sachs, the Republicans' tax 
scam bill represents a giant windfall for Wall Street megabanks. So we 
are here with another bill to deregulate, basically to talk about 
tailoring. Let me just redefine this tailoring. It just means changing, 
modifying, coming up with ways that the banks can basically complain 
about their costs and their burdens. But my friends continue to 
basically support them in whatever efforts they want in order to make 
more money.
  This report that I just referred to estimates that all of the largest 
banks, eight of the largest banks, will receive $15 billion windfalls 
on their 2018 tax bill. This includes $3.7 billion for Wells Fargo, 
$3.5 billion for Bank of America, $3.3 billion for JPMorgan, $1.4 
billion for Citigroup, and $1 billion for Goldman Sachs.
  What more do they want? How much more can you give them? What is the 
next deregulatory bill that you will come with on this floor?
  It is interesting to note that the Financial Services Committee is 
responsible for over 50 percent, or at least 50 percent, of all of the 
bills coming through the Rules Committee that come to the floor, which 
means that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have spent an 
inordinate amount of time coming up with legislation dealing with 
deregulation of these big banks.
  Now, we have a lot of things that we could be doing to protect 
consumers, working people, and families in that committee. I wish we 
would spend a lot more time on HUD. The homeless population in this 
country is expanding. It is exploding all over the country. In New York 
and California, in the Midwest--you name it--people are on the streets.
  Do you think we have been able to have a hearing on homelessness in 
this committee? No, because all of this time is spent on supporting the 
biggest banks in America and deregulating in ways that will cause them 
to be able to make more and more money.
  How much more do they want? How much more do they need? How much time 
is this Congress going to spend on trying to undo Dodd-Frank and kill 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
  I don't know the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker. And I wish 
they would answer me, but no, I know they are not going to. They are 
simply going to come and talk about tailoring. Well, tailoring just 
means changing, fixing in a way that will benefit the biggest banks.
  Mr. Speaker, I will let them continue with their deregulatory 
efforts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for yielding. 
My hat is off to the vice chair of the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee, my good friend, Congressman Tipton, for this fine piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1116, the TAILOR 
Act, and I urge its immediate passage.
  According to the most recent estimates, the 147 new regulations 
created under the Dodd-Frank Act have resulted in $40 billion in 
additional regulatory costs. Unfortunately, this one-size-fits-all 
approach trickles down to consumers and small businesses in my home 
State of Missouri, who, for years, have struggled to keep up with these 
unnecessary burdens.
  I would like to take a moment to share how those burdens have had a 
real impact on the constituents of Missouri's Second Congressional 
District.
  Due to new regulatory burdens imposed under the Dodd-Frank Act, a 
local credit union in my district contacted my office to tell us how 
they were forced to redirect their efforts away from helping their 
customers and into bureaucratic studies of how the new rules affected 
the credit union. Third-party costs skyrocketed, as the credit union 
was forced to spend more money on outside vendors and lawyers for 
guidance. Instead of providing their customers with new products or 
decreased costs, employees shifted their focus toward compliance 
efforts.
  Congressman Tipton's bill, which enjoys bipartisan support, is yet 
another example of Congress getting it right. This legislation will 
focus on the institutions model and risk profile, which will, in turn, 
allow financial institutions like the one I previously mentioned to 
focus their time and resources on the communities that they serve.
  Again, I am proud to support my good friend from Colorado, 
Congressman Tipton. I urge all Members to support his bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the chairman of our Monetary Policy and 
Trade Subcommittee.

[[Page H1580]]

  

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1116, the 
Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017, 
which directs the Federal financial regulatory agencies to tailor their 
rulemakings in consideration of the risk profiles and business models 
of the financial institutions that are subject to such rules.
  It also directs the agencies to annually report to Congress regarding 
the specific actions that those agencies have taken to tailor their 
regulatory actions.
  I would just like to thank the ranking member of our committee for 
actually making the argument in favor of this legislation. She is 
concerned about big banks, or big banks getting benefits, or big banks 
not getting enough scrutiny. This bill makes sure that regulatory 
agencies are focused on the systemic institutions and not overwhelmed 
by responsibilities of regulating nonsystemically important 
institutions, our community banks, our regulatory-challenged 
institutions in our communities; not focus so much attention on 
imposing compliance burdens on small credit unions.
  That is why I support my good friend from Colorado, Representative 
Tipton's bill, because it gives the regulators more focus on what they 
should be doing instead of heaping an avalanche of red tape on 
nonsystemic, small community banks, which are withering on the vine 
under Dodd-Frank.
  Mr. Speaker, since 2010, the Dodd-Frank financial control law has 
been a disaster for small institutions, those small community banks and 
credit unions across our country. That law generally applied one-size-
fits-all rules and regulations on financial institutions, regardless of 
the fact that many businesses in the same industry are substantially 
different.
  This is in recognition of the ranking member's argument that big 
banks are different than small banks. For the life of me, I don't know 
why she wouldn't be fully supportive of the bill.
  As a direct result of Dodd-Frank, which applies this one-size-fits-
all approach, the Commonwealth of Kentucky has lost about 20 percent of 
its banks and credit unions, with more bank closures anticipated in the 
future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. This is particularly concerning because our State-chartered 
banks provide about 75 percent of the lending in rural America and 
about half of all the U.S. lending nationwide. As you can see, with 
fewer community financial institutions due to Dodd-Frank's 28,000 new 
restrictions, Americans will have less access to the capital they need 
to buy a home, purchase a car, and start a business.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Tipton, for his leadership on 
the TAILOR Act. I urge my colleagues, especially the ranking member, to 
vote in favor of the TAILOR Act, to do exactly what she has been 
urging, which is allow regulators to focus on big banks, not small 
community banks. I applaud Mr. Tipton for fulfilling that objective.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed and somewhat amused by the statement that 
the community banks are just withering on the vine.
  Well, let me just talk about what is happening in the banking 
community. Dodd-Frank is not hampering the banking sector at all. In 
2016, the industry made record profits of $171 billion, and community 
banks are outperforming their larger peers. At the end of 2016, lending 
was up 8.3 percent for community banks and 4.8 percent for larger 
banks. Credit unions are expanding, and they have increased their 
membership by more than 16 million since 2010, an increase of 18 
percent.

  We oftentimes talk about what we are doing to the community banks. 
But we always--you, rather, always have a way of making sure that big 
banks are attached to this deregulation that you say you want to do for 
community banks. All you have to do is amend this bill and make it 
apply only to community banks.
  Would the gentleman who is talking about what the ranking member 
should understand and should be thinking about be willing to amend the 
bill so that it only applies to community banks?
  That is rhetorical, and I won't ask for an answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial 
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
TAILOR Act. As the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee, and a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, 
I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Tipton, for his work 
on this measure.
  I emphasize bipartisan. I listened to the other side of the aisle, 
and it sounds like there would be no support for this legislation, but 
there is support for this legislation. I wonder if the ranking member 
has been having some of the conversations with some of her members, 
because, over the past few years, we have learned that one-size-fits-
all, those rules, are a recipe for a more concentrated and less dynamic 
financial system.
  I spend a lot of time talking with community bankers, credit unions, 
and their customers. They complain about skyrocketing compliance costs 
and regulatory burdens that force them to take attention away from 
their core businesses when they continue to add staff not to serve 
customers but to work on compliance issues.
  Consumers complained about higher prices, fewer choices, and less 
access to important financial products. Small- and mid-sized 
institutions play an important role in financing the dreams and 
aspirations of Main Street businesses and middle class families.
  Unfortunately, these institutions are disproportionately affected by 
the one-size-fits-all rules coming out of Washington, D.C. Banks and 
credit unions are merging or closing altogether, and new banks are not 
forming to take their place. Storied institutions with 
multigenerational relationships in their communities are being forced 
to close their doors and abandon the cities and towns they once served.
  It is very sad, Mr. Speaker, to see a small town with a shuttered 
bank. We see it across western Pennsylvania and we are seeing it across 
the country.
  This has an unmistakable impact on our economy. I remind the other 
side about the studies where, because of the overregulation over the 
last 10 years, that 650,000 fewer small businesses have been created; 
6.5 million fewer jobs, that is 6.5 million fewer people paying Social 
Security tax, 6.5 million people fewer paying Medicare tax; critical, 
critical jobs that have not been created.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, small businesses can't get the loans that 
they need. Families can't get the mortgage or pay for college. All of 
this means that the American Dream is getting harder and harder for 
people across the country.
  Again, as I often remind my colleagues, the solution isn't 
deregulation. It is right regulation. The TAILOR Act achieves this. By 
enacting the TAILOR Act, we can focus regulatory energy and resources 
where they are most needed and help reinvigorate our community 
financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was just reviewing this bill somewhat and it has come 
to my attention that this so-called tailoring, which really means 
modifying, changing, doing something different, is for each individual 
bank.
  So each individual bank could say: We do things this way, so we want 
a rule that is tailored especially for us.
  Another bank could say: We do things another way, and we want some 
separate rules just for us.
  And on and on for every bank.
  Is this what this is all about? Is this what this so-called tailoring 
is about? This tailoring, which is modifying,

[[Page H1581]]

changing, basically deregulating in the interest of the big banks to 
make sure they can reduce their costs and get rid of what they would 
call their burdens?
  Are you really talking about having our regulators look at each bank 
and say: You do business a little bit different, so we are going to 
change the rules just to fit your bank?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't seem to me as if this is plausible. 
This does not make good sense. I don't understand why my friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle, in their deregulatory efforts, would even 
try this one. This one doesn't work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a senior member of the Financial Services 
Committee, and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, 
who knows how important our community banks are to the world of 
agriculture.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Mr. Tipton's 
bill, the TAILOR Act.
  But first I would note, as always, in participating in these kind of 
debates, any time you have a discussion led by Chairman Hensarling and 
by Ranking Member Waters, it is always an exciting, stimulating debate, 
and the intensity and the focus is always there.
  But, today, we are focused on what I think is a very important piece 
of legislation because too often we think of financial institutions as 
the big guys, the truly massive entities. The truth is, however, that 
institutions that accept deposits from Americans come in all shapes and 
sizes. Thus, it is important that the regulators consider those many 
shapes and sizes when requiring compliance. The TAILOR Act would 
require that consideration by regulators.
  My colleagues have already discussed that this provision has passed 
the House and is supported by the administration, as well as several 
industry groups. But I will note that for anyone in this body who 
represents a rural area, I guarantee banks and credit unions in your 
district are devoting a large portion of their budget to compliance. 
That is money that could easily go toward providing credit to the many 
Americans who need it.
  Shouldn't the regulators consider the small institutions when forming 
these regulations?
  This bill will free up some ability for those institutions to lend 
money to typical Americans and local businesses. I know my district 
would see the benefits of this bill, and I would guess that many 
districts nationwide would also benefit in the same ways.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for working 
so diligently on this bill and bringing it through the committee 
process, bringing it to the floor today, and giving us the opportunity 
to vote for it. I urge that vote. I advocate support.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague on the opposite side 
of the aisle, Congressman Lucas, enjoys engaging in these discussions 
also. I watched very closely his countenance, and I see that he is 
enjoining it even more than I ever dreamed he would. So let us continue 
with this very lively debate where we can at least lift the spirits of 
each other as we go through our daily work.
  Having said that, the chairman likes to say that we lose a community 
bank a day. However, last year, only eight banks failed.

                              {time}  1645

  The other 230 banks merged with others, and I would like the chairman 
to even acknowledge that long before Dodd-Frank, we were losing a bank 
a day, and that trend had been going on for 30 years. So I do not wish 
us to think that something new and extraordinary is happening, that 
somehow we have come to a point in time in the banking world where 
banks are being lost on a daily basis in a way that they have not been 
lost before.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very hardworking member of the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, on countless occasions, my colleagues on the House 
Financial Services Committee have called out the challenges faced by 
our family-owned community banks and credit unions created by the one-
size-fits-all regulatory approach of this Federal Government. We keep 
repeating this message because this is what all of us, Republicans and 
Democrats, are hearing from our constituents on Main Street U.S.A.
  As a direct result of the overly burdensome and unnecessary Federal 
regulation, members of the Ideal Credit Union in Minnesota pay an 
additional $225, and it now takes over 44 days to close a home 
mortgage. Ideal told me that, if the credit union could return to a 
more normal, reasonable processing time, their members would be better 
served and the process would be more efficient.
  My colleague from Colorado has heard similar examples from his 
constituents, too. That is why he introduced the TAILOR Act, to change 
the way agencies regulate our small town financial institutions that 
are telling us time and time again they need relief.
  Representative Tipton's legislation will direct the Federal 
regulatory agencies responsible for regulating our local Main Street 
financial institutions to consider a few factors when they are 
regulating, such as the impact their actions have on the ability of 
banks and credit unions to serve their customers, the risk profile and 
business models of the institutions they regulate, and the necessity 
and appropriateness of the regulations they are imposing.
  Tailored regulations are smart regulations and will help to limit the 
regulatory burden our community banks and credit unions continue to 
face.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of aisle 
to listen to the stories of their constituents and support the relief 
they are asking for. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1116, 
the TAILOR Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about one size does 
not fit all and they keep trying to make a case for the community 
banks, but they always tie the community banks to these deregulatory 
efforts so that the big banks can benefit from it.
  When I take a look at the Dodd-Frank requirements and how they target 
the largest banks, let's take a look at those banks that are less than 
$10 billion in assets. They don't have to comply with all of these 
regulations.
  If they are a little bit bigger, they are between $10 billion and $50 
billion, they have to comply with just a few more, but not as many as 
the large banks. If they are $50 billion to $250 billion, yes, we have 
a few more requirements for them. And then the big boys, the big banks, 
yes, we have more oversight and more requirements.
  Do you know why? Because they put this entire economy at risk if they 
fail.
  When we talk about doing all of the stress-testing, we are stress-
testing on these banks because we know that, in the event of an 
economic downfall, if they don't have the capital, if they don't have 
the kinds of things that would keep them safe, they could trigger 
another recession.
  So stop saying that one size does not fit all and trying to make 
people believe that somehow we are requiring the same thing of the 
small community bank as we are requiring of the big bank. It is 
absolutely not true.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), someone who knows that one size does not 
fit all.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for allowing me this time to speak in strong 
support of the TAILOR Act and for my colleague, Mr. Tipton, for 
bringing this legislation forward.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Speaker, not just 
because it is just one of these bills that you want your name on. It is 
because I really believe in the concept that right-sizing

[[Page H1582]]

regulation of our community banks and credit unions is what they need 
to be able to survive and succeed.
  Now, I want to make something clear. The other side has argued that 
if one bank wants a regulation one way and another one wants a 
regulation another way, it is almost impossible. It is the regulators 
that are doing the tailoring. It is the regulators, not the banks, that 
would tailor the rules. And if the minority side does not trust the 
regulators enough, they should not have extended all this power to them 
through Dodd-Frank.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, every time I meet with community banks and 
credit unions in my district, they tell me about the excessive 
regulatory compliance burdens that this one-size-fits-all regulatory 
scheme has on them, and they describe it as a death by 1,000 cuts. In 
other words, it is not one single regulation that makes it difficult to 
do business; it is the combination of many under this one-size-fits-all 
scheme. That is why this TAILOR Act is so important for the small guy
  Since the financial crisis, our Nation has lost one community bank or 
credit union a day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, in Georgia, we have lost more banks than 
any other State in the Nation, and, today, 52 of Georgia's 159 counties 
do not have a community bank headquartered there, and we have three 
counties that have no bank at all.
  The TAILOR Act is simple. It is a commonsense idea, and I stand in 
full support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
commonsense act to right-size regulations for our small banks and 
credit unions.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time 
I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentlewoman from 
California has 10 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, and to my colleagues on the opposite side of 
the aisle, I am going to take a couple of minutes to bore you. I am 
going to bore you with all of the groups who are opposed to your 
legislation.
  I heard one of your Members say that you have tremendous support. I 
didn't hear where that support is coming from, but I do believe that 
probably the biggest banks in America are supporting your legislation. 
So please allow me to share with you who is opposing your legislation.
  Allied Progress; the American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees; Americans for Financial Reform; the Arkansans 
Against Abusive Payday Lending; Center for American Progress; Center 
for Economic Integrity; Center for Justice and Democracy; Center for 
Responsible Lending; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; 
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union; Demos; the 
Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Indivisible; Interfaith 
Center on Corporate Responsibility; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid 
Incorporated; the Kentucky Equal Justice Center; the NAACP; the 
National Association of Consumer Advocates; the National Association of 
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; the National Center for Law and Economic 
Justice; the National Coalition for the Homeless; the National Consumer 
Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients; the National Consumers 
League; the National Fair Housing Alliance; the National Urban League; 
the People's Action Institute; PolicyLink; Progressive Congress Action 
Fund; Prosperity Now; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; 
Reinvestment Partners; Statewide Poverty Action Network; Tennessee 
Citizen Action; U.S. PIRG; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; 
the Woodstock Institute; and the World Privacy Forum.
  If you have time, I would like you to share with me who is supporting 
your legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time, and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority is continuing to move to roll back 
important financial regulations at a furious pace. Week after week, the 
majority pushes harmful bills through the House. This bill is just the 
latest example.
  In recent months, this deregulatory frenzy has included House passage 
of bills that, among other things, allow payday lenders to evade State 
interest cap rates, decrease operational risk capital requirements and 
roll back enhanced prudential standards for the Nation's largest banks, 
weaken consumer protections for mortgages, undermine efforts to combat 
discriminatory and predatory lending, reduce consumer privacy 
protections, and threaten the stability of our financial system and 
economy.
  Last week, Republicans pushed through H.R. 4607, another bill that is 
designed to weaken rules considered inconvenient by the financial 
services industry, despite the harm that could result for consumers and 
the economy.
  As we have discussed, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 1116, 
would allow large financial institutions to challenge financial 
regulations in court if they believe them not to be uniquely tailored 
to their business needs. It includes a provision that would allow these 
challenges for all of the financial regulations put in place following 
the financial crisis, making all of the important Dodd-Frank reforms 
targets.
  Of course, the legislation is totally silent on the need for 
regulators to consider the interest of consumers and to ensure the 
stability of our economy as they conduct rulemakings.
  Ultimately, this bill would serve to put consumers and the financial 
system at risk by subjecting important regulations to endless 
litigation. It is designed to block and bog down important rules that 
were put in place following the financial crisis to protect consumers, 
investors, and our economy.
  I would simply urge Members to oppose H.R. 1116, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) 
for his leadership. Again, whether it be through failure, whether it be 
through merger or acquisition, we still, on average, are losing a 
community bank or credit union a day in America. And when we listen to 
them, Mr. Speaker, what we know is it is the regulatory burden.
  I know that the ranking member speaks frequently of the Wall Street 
megabanks. They have done quite fine under Dodd-Frank. The ranking 
member likes to allude to their profitability. Listen, I hope every 
business in America can find some way to be profitable, but that is not 
the question.

  The real question is the profitability of our constituents, half of 
whom are living paycheck to paycheck. And it is those constituents who 
we care about when we lose an opportunity for them to capitalize their 
American Dream.
  When I hear from Colton in Terrell, Texas, in the Fifth District that 
I proudly represent, who says:

       You know what? Me and my wife have been unable to get a 
     mortgage due to credit. We are 25 to 30 years old. We have 
     good credit, but we are getting denied.

  That is everything to do with the regulatory burden, Mr. Speaker.
  I heard from Sara in Eustace in my district. She writes:

       I would like to refinance with a cashout option to fix some 
     storm damage to my property and home, but I found out that it 
     is not an option for me because the government doesn't 
     believe I should be able to do this.

  I heard from Alan, in Kaufman, Texas, who said:

       However, as a small-business owner, I offer owner financing 
     for real estate to people with little or no credit, but the 
     overregulation of Dodd-Frank has caused my cost of business 
     to rise. I am forced to pass that cost on to the consumer. 
     Regulations cost the consumer, not the business.

  So the ranking member wants to know who is for this bill. Well, I can

[[Page H1583]]

tell you what, Colton is for this bill, Sara is for this bill, Al is 
for this bill, and, oh, by the way, so is the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Heck), Democratic member of our committee; so is the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), Democratic member of our committee; 
so is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), Democrat member of our 
committee; so is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), Democratic 
member of our committee.
  Again, there is lots of great bipartisan work that goes on at the 
House Financial Services Committee. Regrettably, very little of it 
takes place with the participation of the ranking member.

                              {time}  1700

  Again, this is a very simple bill. It just says tailor the 
regulation. Tailor the regulation to the size and complexity.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in too-big-to-fail banks. I don't 
believe any financial institution is too big to fail in America. I am 
not going to vote to bail them out with taxpayer funds; maybe the 
ranking member will.
  But if I did, if I believed in too-big-to-fail banks, it would be 
limited to about eight or nine. Using the ranking member's favorite 
phrase, the Wall Street megabanks. Then, fine. Then why don't we see an 
amendment from her that limits the entirety of Dodd-Frank to the so-
called Wall Street megabanks? I am still waiting for that amendment. I 
have yet to see it.
  Why don't we release the rest of the banking and credit union world 
to help finance the American Dream, to help finance the cars, to help 
finance the small businesses, to help finance the homes?
  Again, it is a simple amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. And, 
by the way, it happens to be one of the most important amendments 
supported by the trade associations for the credit unions and for our 
community banks. So they believe in it, Mr. Speaker.
  So I encourage every Member of this body to vote for the TAILOR Act 
and save our community banks and credit unions to finance the American 
Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Connolly moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1116 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 3, line 22, insert ``, unless such tailoring is done 
     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 by 
     the appropriate Federal financial regulator'' before the 
     period at the end.

  Mr. CONNOLLY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to this bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee.
  If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended, and you are going to love it.
  My amendment would prohibit Federal agencies that regulate financial 
institutions from tailoring their regulation of the financial industry 
at the request of and the personal gain of the President, the 
President's family members, or senior executive branch officials; 
something that ought to concern us in light of recent headlines.
  This is a simple prohibition that in any other era would pass for 
common sense. Unfortunately, we have become inured to the daily 
outrages emanating from this White House, and we are learning how much 
our democracy depends on the morality and ethical behavior of 
individuals in the absence of institutional restraints.
  When the President calls his friend to tip him off, if that is what 
happened, to a major announcement about steel tariffs, and that friend 
dumps affected stocks, there is no mechanism to prevent that from 
happening.
  It just shouldn't happen. Morality and ethics dictate as much.
  When a senior White House employee repeatedly violates the Hatch Act, 
allegedly, we depend on the President to punish and rein in that kind 
of behavior. If he doesn't, nothing happens, and the message to the 
rest of the Federal Government is that the politicalization of 
government institutions is okay as long as it is the President who 
approves your motives.
  Now, of course, this institution, a coequal branch of government 
under our Constitution, could create consequences, but, of course, we 
won't.
  Instead, we will continue to turn a blind eye to activities and 
behavior that are dangerous to our democracy, Mr. Speaker. Behavior 
that should concern any patriotic American.
  In predicting inaction by this body, I am not engaging in idle 
speculation. This Congress has a proven track record of shirking its 
institutional responsibilities for basic oversight of the executive 
branch, irrespective of who is in the White House.
  Take the President's tax returns. That which was once a norm, 
Presidents releasing their tax returns as a credential to be examined 
for Presidency, was overturned by the simple refusal to do so by this 
President.
  We depended for so long on candidates and Presidents to self-govern, 
to self-report, that we didn't anticipate the scenario in which a 
President, so devoid of any sense of transparency and accountability, 
would simply say: No, I won't do that. And not so much as a whimper 
from the Congress.
  A year ago, one might have said Congress would never pass the 
President's tax plan without insisting on first seeing the President's 
tax returns and how he might stand to benefit or not from the actions 
we took.
  Well, we did just that. And in the process, we exploded the deficit 
by close to $2 trillion for good measure.
  This should go without saying, but the corruption that is emanating 
in this time, in this administration, is not normal. It is not how the 
government should be run.
  Neither President Trump, Jared Kushner, nor Ivanka Trump has divested 
entirely from their personal businesses. And our appreciation for 
divestiture as an anticorruption measure only grows in its absence.
  The President's son-in-law and senior White House official, Jared 
Kushner, has been freelancing meetings with foreign governments while 
also seeking financing from those countries for his distressed property 
at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. He is taking meetings with financial 
institutions in his official capacity, apparently, and then turning 
around and securing, apparently, hundreds of millions of dollars in 
loans for his family business from those same institutions. This is not 
normal. It is not how government should be run.
  We should not be selling our foreign and domestic policies to the 
highest bidder at a real estate auction. This Congress could hold 
hearings, could issue subpoenas, could create real consequence for 
these actions, but we see and hear no evil.
  The Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I sit, is 
missing in action. We have requested multiple subpoenas for information 
from the White House on everything from General Flynn's activity while 
serving as National Security Advisor to Jared Kushner's conflicts of 
interest, or apparent conflicts of interest, and inability to obtain a 
security clearance.
  Not a single subpoena request has been granted by the majority. The 
majority won't even give us a vote on those requests. It may seem 
tedious

[[Page H1584]]

and repetitive, but we need to get back to the basics of government 
oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this simple, commonsense amendment to 
return us to regular order and to return to our duty as Members of 
Congress to provide vigorous oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend 
from Virginia, and he is my friend, but I also must say that rarely in 
the history of the House have I ever seen a motion to recommit that has 
less to do with the underlying bill than this one.
  I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle, over a year 
later, still cannot accept the outcome of the election, which, 
unfortunately, is a complete slap in the face of democracy.

  I know there is an element that works full time on the other side of 
the aisle to impeach the President. This is their full-time avocation. 
Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we continue to work 
in order to try to improve the lot in lives of the common working man 
and woman.
  So we were very proud to work with the President on the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act that has brought us the lowest unemployment rate in America in 
17 years.
  Under their economic policies, Mr. Speaker, what we saw were high 
levels of unemployment. What we saw were stagnant wages. What we saw 
was 1.6 percent GDP growth when in the postwar era we have averaged 3 
percent economic growth. What we saw under their economic policies was 
that people couldn't make ends meet. Too many were still living 
paycheck to paycheck.
  And now I hear from my constituents. I heard from one the other day 
who said: Guess what? They just announced at my husband's business 
everybody is getting a 5 percent pay increase.
  I just heard from Michael in Terrell, who is a doctor, and he said: 
Thanks to President Trump--who they are trying to impeach--thanks to 
President Trump and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now I can afford to buy 
a new ultrasound machine for my rural practice, and I am going to 
actually hire an additional ultrasound technician.
  All due to the President, again, they are trying to impeach.
  I heard from Charles in Winnsboro who said: You know what? The new 
tax reforms will drop my tax bracket by 17 percent, and this will allow 
me to rebuild my shop that had been destroyed.
  And then I look at the employers in my hometown of Dallas, Texas: 
American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Comerica. So many of them, 
Mr. Speaker, are offering $1,000 bonuses. Many are offering increases 
in minimum wages. Many have increased 401(k) plans. All, again, due to 
the activities of the Republicans, because not one single Democrat 
supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  So I understand how my friends on the other side of the aisle wish to 
attempt to change the subject because they are probably now embarrassed 
they didn't support it, because they have seen how much good it has 
done, how much of a difference it makes.
  So if they want to waste the House's time by once again trying to 
find ways to undermine the President, impeach the President, I know it 
is a full-time job for many, but on this side of the aisle, we are 
going to continue to make sure that the lot of the common man and woman 
is improved. We are going to make sure that our community banks and 
credit unions can lend to them. We are going to ensure that there is 
great economic growth so that we can continue to fund the American 
Dream. That is what we are going to do on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject the motion to 
recommit and to support the underlying TAILOR Act.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182, 
nays 232, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               YEAS--182

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

                               NAYS--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford

[[Page H1585]]


     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cardenas
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Katko
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Moore
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Speier
     Tsongas
     Walz
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1737

  Messrs. ROKITA, MITCHELL, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. STEWART, 
THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, BUCK, and GRAVES of Georgia changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RASKIN, NEAL, DOGGETT, LOWENTHAL, and SCHRADER changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 107.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 169, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               YEAS--247

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

                               NAYS--169

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Katko
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Olson
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Tsongas
     Walz
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1745

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


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the 
following votes because I chose to remain in my congressional district 
in Miami because of health reasons. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 104; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 105; 
``yes'' on rollcall Vote No. 106; ``yes'' on rollcall Vote No. 107; and 
``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 108.

                          ____________________