[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8806-8813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, FINANCIAL CHOICE ACT OF 2017

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 375

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 10) to create hope and opportunity for 
     investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs by ending bailouts 
     and Too Big to Fail, holding Washington and Wall Street 
     accountable, eliminating red tape to increase access to 
     capital and credit, and repealing the provisions of the Dodd-
     Frank Act that make America less prosperous, less stable, and 
     less free, and for

[[Page 8807]]

     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schweikert). The gentleman from Colorado 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. This rule provides a structured process for 
debate and makes in order six amendments to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to return hope and opportunity to Main 
Street America through the Financial CHOICE Act. This legislation 
touches at the very heart of our economy, ensuring that our financial 
system facilitates job creation, economic growth, and fairness.
  Nearly 10 years ago, the American economy cratered. The Great 
Recession of the late 2000s revealed that our financial system was 
fragile, and many Americans got the short end of the stick.
  In 2010, Democrats passed H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. They promised the bill would lift 
the American economy. They promised an end to Wall Street bailouts. 
They promised to protect consumers. Seven years later, we know that 
these promises never came true.
  Due to Dodd-Frank's excessive regulatory burden, big banks are 
getting bigger while small banks and credit unions are disappearing. 
There have only been six new bank charters since Dodd-Frank--a drastic 
decline from the 170 on average per year before the bill. In fact, 43 
percent of banks with assets under $100 million have disappeared.
  Large banks survive because they can afford armies of lawyers to 
understand Dodd-Frank regulations. In 2010, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd 
Blankfein even suggested his bank would be among the biggest 
beneficiaries of Dodd-Frank. But for community banks with community 
budgets, the effects of the law have been devastating.
  Dodd-Frank also failed to address the too-big-to-fail problem. Under 
the Dodd-Frank law, big banks are growing larger, and taxpayers are 
still responsible for bailing them out. Furthermore, Dodd-Frank has 
made access to banking and credit more difficult for average Americans. 
Since the passage of the bill, bank fees have increased and millions 
more Americans are now considered unbanked or underbanked.
  Declining liquidity has limited access to credit for small businesses 
and the regulatory restrictions on mortgages have pushed homeownership 
out of reach for the middle class. Seventy-two percent of community 
banks say that the Dodd-Frank regulations restrict their ability to 
offer mortgage loans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the price we must pay to be a hopeful and 
prosperous nation. That is why I am here supporting the Financial 
CHOICE Act. It repeals Dodd-Frank, replacing the harmful law with 
reasonable regulations that ensure consumer protection, job growth, 
economic growth, and strong community banks.
  The Financial CHOICE Act ends the coddling of big banks. It 
implements historically tough penalties on financial fraud and insider 
trading. It ends taxpayer-funded bailouts and creates new bankruptcy 
laws designed for failing banks. It is time that Congress put Main 
Street ahead of Wall Street.
  The Financial CHOICE Act also reins in the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, a government agency that has incredible power to 
regulate the financial industry but that has nearly no accountability. 
The judicial branch has actually declared its structure 
unconstitutional.
  The CFPB is causing problems for consumers. They have a database for 
complaints from consumers, but it publishes consumer complaints before 
even checking if they are true. The CFPB also weighs in on financial 
regulations where Congress should instead be making these decisions, 
and the CFPB wasted over $200 million on lavish renovations of their 
office space in downtown Washington, D.C.
  This legislation we are considering today will restructure the CFPB, 
restoring congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back 
under the regular legislative appropriations process. We will also be 
refocusing the CFPB on enforcing consumer protection laws, rather than 
making up their own laws that only hurt the average American consumer.
  Perhaps most important to Coloradans, the Financial CHOICE Act 
creates economic growth and jobs by making credit easier to access for 
Main Street America. Thanks to the TAILOR Act, introduced by my friend 
and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), regulators will be able to 
craft custom regulations to reflect the specific business model of 
local banks.
  This bill also creates jobs and economic growth by requiring more 
transparent policymaking at the Federal Reserve. We rein in stifling 
regulations on small, community banks, allowing them to compete against 
their larger counterparts. We increase consumer choice by ensuring 
Americans can access a bank and a credit card.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to transform our Nation's 
financial system. We have the opportunity to level the playing field 
between big and small banks. We have the opportunity to turn up the 
heat on financial fraud. We have the opportunity to return regulatory 
power from the hands of unelected bureaucrats to the people. We have 
the opportunity to roll back hurtful regulations.
  We are here to restore hope and opportunity through the Financial 
CHOICE Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, I brought the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act to the floor of the House as chairwoman of 
the House Rules Committee. This law was a statement from Congress on 
behalf of the American people that unchecked corporate greed will never 
again bring the United States of America to financial collapse.

[[Page 8808]]

  My colleague began his speech this morning by saying that this law 
had not worked, but I am not aware of major bank failures or bank 
failures of any kind since we passed it, and I would say, indeed, this 
law has worked.
  Since it has been enacted, our economy has had over 80 consecutive 
months of private sector job growth. That is pretty good. In fact, it 
is a record-setting streak. More than 16 million jobs have been 
created, and business lending has been increased by 75 percent. I am 
not getting all the complaints that I used to get that they could not 
borrow money from banks, particularly the small businesses.
  Along the way, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established 
under this law has helped 29 million people in all of our 50 States to 
receive nearly $12 billion in relief from companies that engaged in 
irresponsible or predatory practices.
  One group that sent us a letter begging us not to do away with Dodd-
Frank was the Veterans of Foreign Wars who said that far too often 
their veterans were the victims of predatory lenders--shysters, people 
not telling them the truth--and that is exactly what the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau was established to do.
  You can't argue about whether or not it has been a success if 29 
million people in 50 States have gotten back $12 billion in relief of 
bad practices. But this legislation completely will do away with the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the only thing we have left to 
protect Main Street and the small investors.
  These gains weren't a coincidence, Mr. Speaker. They were the result 
of the Dodd-Frank law. Gutting Wall Street reform will be a historic 
giveaway to special interests.

                              {time}  1315

  The Wall Street firms who plunged our country to the brink, in 2008, 
would be free once again to take advantage of consumers and force 
middle class families to go it alone, without the protections this bill 
has provided them.
  The CHOICE Act is the wrong choice for consumers and families. 
Instead of standing with financial lobbyists, I urge the majority to 
uphold the trust of the people we all represent.
  Five years ago, Democrats and Republicans came together to almost 
unanimously pass my bill to end insider trading in Congress. The STOCK 
Act passed this Chamber by a vote of 417-2, one of the most bipartisan 
bills of that entire session of Congress.
  It wasn't easy. I led a 6-year fight to get it signed into law after 
learning that Members of Congress and their staffs were abusing their 
positions by making money from the information that they gleaned and 
that was not available to everybody else in America. They gleaned this 
information while working on behalf of the people whose information 
they were stealing. It took a ``60 Minutes'' investigation on 
television and a groundswell of public support, but the bill became a 
reality.
  For me, upholding the people's trust is the most sacred 
responsibility I have as a Member of Congress. That is why I am waging 
a new battle to strengthen the STOCK Act, after learning that some in 
this Congress have used legal loopholes to get around this law.
  Once again, we see the importance of investigative journalism and a 
free press, which has shined a light on the fact that some Members of 
Congress have purchased private, discounted stock deals and taken a 
part in initial public offerings outside of the United States. These 
special deals are not available to the general public.
  All this would have remained in the dark, had the STOCK Act not put 
into place a new requirement to timely disclose sales and purchases of 
stock. This is precisely the kind of outrageous conduct we intended to 
outlaw under the STOCK Act. It plays directly into the public's most 
cynical view of Congress.
  This, Mr. Speaker, comes at a time when just 20 percent of the public 
approves of how Congress is doing its job under the majority's 
leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup.
  This Chamber put aside partisanship and took a strong, bipartisan 
stand against this abhorrent behavior just a few years ago. It has 
become increasingly clear that we need to act again today to hold 
ourselves accountable to both the letter and the spirit of the STOCK 
Act law.
  We are not doing that today. Once again, we are taking away the 
regulations because some people find them so terribly abhorrent, but 
they protect the small investor and the people in the banks. We surely 
will never, I hope, see the day where we will ask the taxpayers of the 
United States to bail out the enormously rich, big banks. One of the 
worst things of that whole era was not a single fraudulent banker went 
to jail.
  Just 535 of us in a country of more than 300 million people have been 
chosen to serve on the American people's behalf in Congress. It is a 
sacred responsibility, one we should not be squandering, doing the 
bidding of the financial lobbyists or Wall Street firms, who are the 
ones behind the CHOICE Act.
  The majority should stop fulfilling the wish list of Wall Street and 
act on behalf of millions of Americans outraged by insider trading and 
other chicanery that still permeates the halls of Congress today. This 
Chamber must take action so that Americans recognize we came here to 
represent them, not enrich ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Williams), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy 
and Trade.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
rule because it is time to, once and for all, end the harmful 
regulations caused by this disastrous law.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take just a few moments to talk to you about the 
harmful effects Dodd-Frank has had on my home State of Texas. As of 
just a few months ago, in Texas alone, 358 State or federally chartered 
banks, credit unions, or thrifts have either closed or merged since 
2010, when Dodd-Frank became law.
  According to our Texas State Banking Commission, the last bank or 
credit union chartered in Texas was in 2009, in a State with one of the 
healthiest economies in the country. Mass consolidations and closures 
have left many Texans few options, something the previous 
administration promised.
  While Dodd-Frank aimed at fixing our recovering financial system, 
one-size-fits-all regulations have only hurt one person: the consumer. 
Increased bank fees, less access to consumer credit products, 1,000-
page rules, and billions of dollars in regulatory costs all have become 
the hallmark of our financial system over the last 7 years.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I will leave you with 
this: If you support crushing regulations that have hurt our community 
banks and our credit unions, if you support taxpayer bailouts, if you 
support an agency that is accountable to none, and if you support less 
accountability for both Washington and Wall Street, would you please 
vote against this rule and the underlying bill?
  But if you support financial opportunity for all, taxpayer bailout 
for none, less regulations on small community financial institutions, 
and more accountability and transparency, then support this bill, 
support consumers, and support Main Street America.
  In God we trust.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, those wondering why Republican lips are 
sealed so very tight when it comes to President Trump jeopardizing our 
national security, threatening our democracy, and engaging in one crazy 
action after another need look no further than this bill.
  You see, this is a bill to handcuff the cop on Wall Street. So many 
of our Republican colleagues are so eager to shield Wall Street from 
action and eventually to bestow one tax break after another on Wall 
Street, that they are willing to pay almost any price in silence 
concerning Mr. Trump's outrages.

[[Page 8809]]

  As a person who voted against all of the big bank bailouts, I am most 
concerned that this bill will produce only more. When the banks were 
bailed out, American families paid the price, as taxpayers. They paid 
the price for the recklessness that led to that unnecessary financial 
crisis.
  A more immediate concern is what happens to the cop on the beat, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new law enforcement agency that 
the AARP described as one designed to hold scam artists accountable. 
That is exactly what the CFPB has done. Whether it is payday lenders or 
deceitful language in the fine print of financial agreements, reverse 
mortgages, contracts denying consumers their legal remedies to address 
wrongdoing, or many other issues, this agency has been there to protect 
the consumers.
  Among those most threatened that have benefited from this law 
enforcement agency are our military families, who face unique financial 
challenges, from illegal foreclosures, to cheating them on student 
loans, to payday lenders who overcharge their families. This law 
enforcement agency has been there to protect them. Today, it would be 
substantially weakened by this legislation.
  One of the leading examples of the success of this law enforcement 
agency is Wells Fargo: fined $100 million, $85 million in restitution, 
$75 million in claw-backs from executives, a CEO resigned. None of that 
happened to the other banks, but Wells Fargo was caught. It was caught 
because there was a law enforcement agency on the beat doing something 
about it.
  There are those who fought this legislation from the start, and they 
won't give up on trying to undermine it.
  You need only look at what happened this year in enforcement actions 
to see what this agency is doing: a company failed to provide redress 
for illegal collection tactics, deceived consumers about credit scores, 
misstated the charges associated with pawn loans, denied consumers 
access to their own money, and kept borrowers in the dark about options 
to avoid foreclosure. One bit of wrongdoing after another. Why not have 
a cop on the beat working for us? Some people want to have the 
unlimited right to exploit consumers. This agency is the one thing 
standing in the way to protect them.
  I say: stop this Republican interference with law enforcement and 
send a message at the same time to President Donald J. Trump that our 
laws apply to him too, and ought to be enforced against him when he is 
engaged in wrongdoing.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most deceptive things that Congress does is 
regulate one part of an industry for the problems created by another 
part.
  The community banks had nothing to do with the collapse in 2008. It 
was Wall Street, the people in New York, the big banks. Yet the Dodd-
Frank regulation kind of let them scoot by and gave them permits to 
continue operating, while many of the Main Street businesses and many 
of the Main Street banks have closed down.
  My friend just mentioned Wells Fargo. CFPB stood on the sidelines 
silently and mute while they were conducting their affairs. It was a 
county prosecutor who actually uncovered it.
  So this idea that we here in Congress are going to do things that are 
going to get it in check simply is not true. What is true is that the 
agency created by Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, or the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, was so annoying that it put New Mexico's most 
sparsely populated county, with about 8 people per square mile, to be 
regulated the same as New York City. That is how much CFPB understood.
  In the process of their regulating, they shut down the loans for 
manufactured housing. That means nothing to the people in New York, but 
in New Mexico, that is 50 percent of the homes in my district. The CFPB 
didn't much care.
  They also limited the ability of regular banks to make loans on 
mortgages, establishing something called qualified mortgages. They 
simply said all balloon notes are prejudicial. Those things were 
hurting and penalizing the rural parts of this country. The people who 
suffered most were the people at the lowest end of the economic 
spectrum.
  Our credit agencies, our credit system in the U.S., has done much in 
order to make credit available, no matter where you are in the 
political and income spectrum.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PEARCE. The people at the low end of the spectrum had access to 
many different ways of borrowing. CFPB simply routinely eliminated 
almost every single one of them.
  As a representative of one of the poorest districts in the country, I 
have found CFPB's efforts to be meaningless to the big guys and 
punitive to us who are just trying to make a living out in the rural 
parts of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and support for the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the distinguished ranking member of 
the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and 
Investments.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership and for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the 
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.
  This bill will take us back to the regulatory stone age and would be 
a disaster for the entire financial system.
  Let us remember why we passed Dodd-Frank: we confronted the worst 
financial crisis, caused by mismanagement from the financial industry, 
that cost this country $18 trillion in household wealth, millions lost 
their homes, millions lost their jobs, and the suffering was deep and 
strong.
  First, this bill, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, would repeal the orderly 
liquidation authority, which is the only tool that would allow large 
financial institutions like Lehman Brothers or AIG to be wound down 
safely, without requiring a taxpayer bailout or causing a financial 
panic, like Lehman.
  We had two choices in the crisis: either bail them out--a bad 
choice--or let them fail--another bad choice.
  The liquidation authority is helpful, yet the majority claims that 
the liquidation authority codifies taxpayer bailouts. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. Under the liquidation authority, the FDIC wipes 
out the firm's shareholders, imposes losses on the firm's creditors, 
fires the firm's management, and completely liquidates the entire firm. 
The only people who are guaranteed not to suffer losses are the 
taxpayers.
  So if we wipe out this protection to the taxpayers, we are putting 
the taxpayers in harm's way yet again.

                              {time}  1330

  This bill would also devastate investors by rolling back decades of 
investor protections and trampling on the property rights of 
shareholders by making it virtually impossible for them to influence 
the management of the companies that they own.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Finally, the bill would 
completely gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been 
an incredible, effective watchdog for consumers and has protected the 
consumers who were often not thought about first of all or second of 
all--or not thought about at all. This agency protects them. If we 
would have had it, we would not have had the financial crisis we 
suffered. This would just make it easier for banks like Wells Fargo to 
rip off consumers and would protect them from being punished if they 
are caught.

[[Page 8810]]

  So I want to point out that the Republican ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act puts 
Wall Street ahead of Main Street, leads to taxpayer bailouts for big 
banks, guts consumer protections for seniors and their families, and 
brings back risky practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis. It 
is the wrong direction, it is a wrong vote, and I caution my friends on 
the other side of the aisle the voters are going to remember this vote. 
Don't turn us back to the Stone Age of regulation.
  I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this wrongly directed ``Bad'' 
CHOICE Act.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Subcommittee on Capital 
Markets, Securities, and Investments.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, the economic downturn in 2008 caused 
Michiganders and citizens around the country to lose their jobs, 
families to lose their savings, and way too many to lose their homes. 
Since that time, our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
attempted to convince the American people that Dodd-Frank was ``the 
answer'' to the financial crisis, despite the law failing to actually 
address the root cause of the downturn. In reality, Dodd-Frank has made 
it more difficult for hardworking taxpayers to secure a future for 
themselves and their children by denying them the economic recovery 
that they deserve.
  Let's be honest: Dodd-Frank was an agenda waiting for a crisis. So 
many issues not related to economic stability were crammed into this 
flawed law that, now, big banks have gotten even bigger and small banks 
have disappeared at an alarming rate. Even worse, Dodd-Frank enshrined 
``too big to fail'' and, frankly, put in place ``too small to save.''
  Enough is enough. In order to increase economic opportunity, we must 
enact commonsense regulatory reform and restore accountability to Wall 
Street and to Washington. The House Financial Services Committee 
achieves this goal through a carefully crafted Financial CHOICE Act, 
which we are debating here today.
  The Financial CHOICE Act eliminates Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all 
regulatory structure that has strangled community financial 
institutions with overly burdensome regulations that were meant for the 
largest banks in America. By enacting the CHOICE Act, community banks 
and credit unions can utilize their resources to help individual 
customers and small businesses achieve financial independence.
  If we want small businesses to continue to be the engine of economic 
growth, we must remove the regulatory red tape that is preventing these 
community lenders from supporting small business job creators.
  Additionally, the Financial CHOICE Act holds Wall Street accountable 
by imposing the toughest penalties in history. To protect consumers 
from financial fraud is a key goal for all of us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation also holds 
Washington bureaucrats accountable by creating constitutional checks 
and balances for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that it 
can more effectively do its job. No government agency should be 
unaccountable to the American people.
  Lastly, this commonsense legislation protects taxpayers by 
eliminating too big to fail, something that my colleague had just 
talked about, and requires failing institutions to liquidate through a 
streamlined bankruptcy process, not taxpayer-funded bailouts. The 
process that she was talking about, this orderly liquidation authority, 
the government runs the bank for 5 years, and that is unacceptable.
  So I hope you will join me in supporting this rule and supporting the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. This bill will have a devastating impact on the 
ability of regulators to protect everyday Americans from future 
wrongdoing on Wall Street.
  If you support consumers, you must oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. 
If you want to make sure that consumers have a fighting chance against 
those big banks and against illegal practices, then you must oppose the 
``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, because this act guts the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  In nearly 6 years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 
returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million Americans hurt by illegal 
financial practices, reduced $7.7 billion in consumer debts while 
winning $3.7 billion in compensation for consumers, and it has 
benefited nearly 50 million households in the form of new protections 
shielding consumers from surprise costs in terms on their mortgages and 
their credit cards.
  Now, at a time when we have a student loan crisis in this country, 
$1.4 trillion in student debt, we have to make sure that we are 
protecting families, students, and young people around these predatory 
debt collection practices and all working families around predatory 
lending.
  My home State of Washington was proud to work with the CFPB on those 
new regulations that would actually protect working people, make sure 
that they have off-ramps if they get into predatory loans and make sure 
that we regulate that industry.
  The benefits of Dodd-Frank are not limited just to consumers, by the 
way. Big and small banks have benefited: lending is at record highs, 
and 2016 data from the FDIC shows that those banks are doing pretty 
well.
  The financial crisis, which destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth 
and wreaked havoc on the financial lives of millions of families, was 
not a random event.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission itself said that 
widespread failures in financial regulation and rampant predatory 
lending practices were key drivers of the crisis. This bill ignores 
those lessons and takes us so far backwards, Mr. Speaker.
  Real people are struggling to recover from that 2008 crisis, still, 
and instead of rolling back protections for consumers, we should be 
investing in jobs for everyday Americans. We should be making sure that 
the guy on Main Street or the woman on Main Street has a chance against 
those big banks and against all those predatory practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support consumers and working 
Americans and to oppose the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I note for the record that the best way for a 
student to repay student loans is to have a strong economy and not the 
anemic recovery that we had from the last recession.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today to 
speak on the rule and in support of H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act, 
which represents years of hard work by our chairman, Jeb Hensarling, 
and the entire Financial Services Committee.
  For nearly 8 years, Dodd-Frank has targeted Main Street pocketbooks 
and stripped families of real opportunities for financial success and 
independence. For instance, the CFPB has spent years removing choices 
and making access to financial products more difficult to obtain. Under 
these regulations, it is now harder for families to qualify for a 
mortgage, to obtain an auto loan, and to access other forms of credit 
that they have depended on every day of their lives. Meanwhile, the 
CFPB fails to monitor and prevent actual and real

[[Page 8811]]

instances of consumer fraud like we saw with the opening of millions of 
unauthorized customers' accounts at Wells Fargo.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of chairing the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee on Financial Services, and today--today--we 
released a report titled, ``Was the Cop on the Beat?'' This is 
regarding the CFPB's wholly inadequate role in investigating the Wells 
Fargo fraudulent account scandal.
  We have received numerous records from both Wells Fargo and the OCC 
and others that indicate that the CFPB was asleep at the wheel when it 
came to investigating Wells Fargo. Unfortunately, the CFPB has produced 
no such documents, even under subpoena, that contradict this assertion 
and support the testimony of Director Cordray in front of this 
committee earlier in the year. This report highlights the need for 
reforms to the CFPB that are contained in the CHOICE Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, we need to bring accountability and 
transparency to a Bureau that has been thwarting congressional 
oversight and due process.
  Additionally, the CHOICE Act will increase lending in our 
communities, open up our economy, end taxpayer-funded bailouts, and 
hold Wall Street and Washington accountable. Americans today deserve 
the ``Right'' CHOICE Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has 
further speakers?
  Mr. BUCK. I do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy 
and Trade.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, when former President Obama signed the Dodd-
Frank financial control law into law about 7 years ago, supporters 
promised that it would repair the economy; they promised that it would 
end too big to fail; they promised it would enhance financial stability 
and protect consumers. But none of those promises have been kept.
  Nearly 9 years after the financial crisis, Americans are still stuck 
in the slowest, weakest economic recovery in 70 years. The percentage 
of Americans who are actually in the workforce is at its lowest level 
since the late 1970s, and we still have not fully reached the potential 
of our economic recovery. This is precisely because of the Dodd-Frank 
law. The Dodd-Frank law has clogged the plumbing of our economy with an 
avalanche of red tape.
  Far from ending too big to fail, Dodd-Frank has guaranteed that too-
big-to-fail banks will get a taxpayer bailout whenever they go into 
distress.
  As big banks have gotten bigger as a result of Dodd-Frank, the small 
banks, the community banks, the credit unions--the credit providers for 
the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, the job creators in this 
country--are fewer. That is a huge problem for the dynamism of the 
economy, and that is one of the reasons why we haven't seen economic 
recovery the way that we should.
  Dodd-Frank has made it more difficult for small businesses and 
startups to obtain capital to grow, invest, and hire. Before Dodd-
Frank, small business lending was more than 150 percent of large bank 
lending. Today, due to Dodd-Frank, small bank lending is about 80 
percent below that of large bank lending. This is why new business 
formation is at a generational low, because small businesses and 
startups and entrepreneurs have much more success obtaining capital 
from community banks than Wall Street banks.
  Financial services and products have been impaired. Since Dodd-Frank, 
the number of banks offering free checking has shrunk from 75 percent 
to 37 percent, the ranks of the unbanked have gone up, and one in five 
community banks in my home State of Kentucky have disappeared as a 
result of Dodd-Frank.
  Consumer protection? Hardly. Taking away financial services and 
products, eliminating competition and choice from the marketplace, 
eliminating free checking, taking away access to credit, that is not 
protecting consumers. That is hurting consumers. Dodd-Frank is the 
worst bill for consumers that we could possibly have.
  We need the Financial CHOICE Act, which will preserve access to 
financial services and products and give consumers access to mortgages 
and access to financial products like credit cards and overdraft 
protection and home equity loans. All of these services and products 
are going away because of Dodd-Frank and the busybodies in Washington.
  We need to protect consumers. There is nothing wrong with effective 
regulation, but this is regulation gone awry. It is unaccountable, it 
is not transparent, it is hurting the American consumers, and it is 
certainly not adding to financial stability when big banks and Wall 
Street are getting bigger and our community banks are going away.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chief deputy whip of the Republican 
Conference.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses and families are the backbone of small 
rural communities like the ones I represent in western North Carolina. 
The fact is that Dodd-Frank has had a crushing impact both on the 
ability of families and small businesses to access loans and the 
financial products that they need and deserve.
  Half of what community banks did prior to Dodd-Frank was lending to 
small businesses. Now it is down to 20 percent of what they do. That is 
as a result of massive regulations that have come about as a result of 
Dodd-Frank.
  For families, the availability of services that they used to commonly 
think is acceptable, like free checking and mortgage lending, are 
significantly diminished or altogether gone for them. Since Dodd-Frank 
became law, nearly three-quarters of community banks have either left 
or greatly reduced their mortgage businesses. This is problematic for 
families. The impact of these changes has hit rural communities like 
the ones I represent in western North Carolina the hardest.
  But it doesn't end there. The law's mandates have driven up the cost 
of borrowing, making it harder and more expensive for families to 
access credit or save for important life events like saving for your 
child's college education.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial CHOICE Act changes much of this. It begins 
to undo the damage caused by Dodd-Frank by removing onerous Washington 
mandates, very expensive regulations, by cutting off access to 
financial products that the American people need and desire.
  Additionally, the Financial CHOICE Act actually addresses the plight 
of small businesses by cleaning up these messy regulations that are 
unclear, that have made the marketplace less safe and secure for 
lending and small businesses, and encouraging the use of innovative new 
forms of capital formation that help businesses grow and prosper.
  That means jobs. This bill is directed at growing the American 
economy, getting us back on our feet, and helping expand prosperity not 
just to urban or rural areas, but to both, to all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill and 
get on with the business of legislating.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation, the Financial CHOICE Act. The acronym 
CHOICE stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, 
Consumers, and

[[Page 8812]]

Entrepreneurs. This legislation could be very well entitled the ``Make 
America Grow Again Act.''
  I cannot, Mr. Speaker, understate the importance of economic growth 
and what that means to this country: jobs, better jobs; wages, higher 
wages; and revenues, more revenues coming into the Federal Treasury as 
a result of healthy economic growth that will allow us to pay for the 
critical programs that people in this country depend on, whether 
seniors, veterans, infrastructure.
  You pay for your government with a healthy growing economy. That is 
not what we have today. We must grow again, especially as we think of 
these individuals.
  Opponents of this legislation are defending a stagnant status quo. 
They are defending a status quo that has given us the slowest economy 
since the Great Depression, a status quo responsible for the loss of 
1,400 community banks, a status quo that has a community bank or credit 
union closing every single day, a status quo that has resulted in the 
noncreation of 650,000 small businesses--that would mean 6.5 million 
jobs. Six and a half million people who would be paying taxes, paying 
Social Security taxes, paying Medicare taxes, allowing us to meet the 
commitments that we have--a status quo that has eliminated free 
checking, a status quo that is closing branch office banks in small 
towns in my district, a status quo that allows unaccountable agencies 
in this town to continue to have too much power and taking away choices 
from individuals.
  This legislation will end too big to fail and will end too small to 
succeed. Regardless of who you are or where you come from, you should 
have access to affordable reliable financial services.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. The 
points have been made. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  With each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of 
conflicts of interest and links to Russia and the Trump administration. 
Just last week we learned that President Trump's son-in-law, Jared 
Kushner, attempted to establish a back channel of communications with 
Russia and the Trump transition team before they were even inaugurated.
  Tomorrow, former FBI Director James Comey will likely testify that 
President Trump attempted to influence the FBI's investigation into 
possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian Government.
  Who knows what further ties to Russia we will uncover from his 
testimony.
  Without President Trump's tax returns, we simply have no way of 
knowing if he himself has financial ties to Russia, as news reports 
have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not our 
President has any business dealings with Russia or other foreign 
governments. It is imperative that we prevent the White House from 
becoming another arm of the Trump organization.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 
305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the 
Presidency to release their tax returns.
  If the President has nothing to hide, including financial interests 
or business dealings with Russia, then he should freely release his tax 
returns to reassure the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior 
to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the majority why we enacted 
the Wall Street reform in the first place.
  Our country was plunged into the worst recession since the Great 
Depression after big Wall Street firms played Russian roulette with our 
future for years. During the 2008 financial crash, more than 8 million 
Americans lost their jobs, $13 trillion in wealth vanished overnight, 
and 11 million homes were lost.
  After years of excesses and dodging regulation, the financial firms 
were finally brought under control by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act. The perverse notion of too big to fail was 
finally ended, and the financial playing field was tilted back toward 
consumers.
  We have all seen the results of the law in the form of record-setting 
private sector job growth, millions of new jobs, and historic rates of 
business lending. It is beyond me why anyone in the world would want to 
repeal this law and threaten this progress. Instead of doing the 
bidding of the financial lobbyists who don't really care for the law, 
we should be acting to uphold the trust of the people who sent us here.
  This begins with passing the End Congressional Stock Market Abuse Act 
to bring an end to the egregious use of exclusive stock deals and 
foreign initial public offerings by Members of Congress.
  The American people must be able to trust what we are doing here and 
trust that it is right for them without concern that we are using our 
position to enrich ourselves.
  My bill would enhance the STOCK Act, which passed the Chamber 
virtually unanimously--two ``no'' votes--in 2012, with provisions that 
I think we could all agree on: no exclusive stock deals for Members of 
Congress, no initial public offerings, regardless of where they are 
offered.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be focusing on today, not 
dismantling a law that has brought financial security to millions of 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the 
underlying legislation, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is not for the 
big banks. It is not for the bureaucrats and their swanky downtown 
office at CFPB. This legislation was crafted for the American people, 
the men and women who work hard every day to earn a living. These 
individuals want choice in the financial products they can buy. They 
want healthy community banks. They want lower taxes instead of Wall 
Street bailouts.
  The Financial CHOICE Act was written over the past several years with 
these people in mind. We will restore hope and opportunity for them.
  I thank Chairman Hensarling and the Financial Services Committee for 
their hard work on this bill. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and 
then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and 
the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Previous 
Question so that the House can vote on my bipartisan legislation, the 
Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
  I first introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act exactly one 
year ago today, along with my Senate counterpart Ron Wyden. This bill 
would codify the longstanding tradition of presidents disclosing their 
tax returns. The bill is simple, it is bipartisan, and it has the 
support of the American people. A recent poll found that 80 percent of 
Americans believe the President should disclose his tax returns. 
Earlier today, a petition was delivered to Congress with over 4 million 
signatures calling on the House to take up this bill.
  Since I introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act a year ago, 
candidate Trump and now President Trump has amassed serious ethical 
lapses, troubling connections to Russian officials, and countless 
potential conflicts of interest, all while hiding his full financial 
information from the public.
  Mr. Trump is the first president in decades to refuse to disclose his 
tax returns as a candidate and as President.

[[Page 8813]]

We know from his candidate financial disclosure filed last year that 
the President has 564 financial positions in companies around the 
world, and owes at least $300 million in debts to various banks. But 
there's no way for us to verify these claims without his tax return 
information.
  Disclosure of the President's tax returns would provide answers to 
many of the troubling questions surrounding this Administration's 
connections to Russia. In recent weeks, the President pressured the FBI 
Director to stop investigating Michael Flynn's Russia connections and 
then fired him. There are near-daily revelations of undisclosed 
meetings with Russian officials, disclosures of classified information, 
and more evidence that the Russians sought to directly interfere in our 
election.
  Only with full disclosure of his tax returns will we know the true 
sources of the President's income, the holders of his debt, and the 
extent of any business ties to Russia and other foreign countries.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the will of the American people and 
join our bipartisan effort to exercise Congress's constitutional duty 
to serve as a check on the Executive Branch. By defeating the Previous 
Question and voting to approve the Presidential Tax Transparency Act 
today, this body can start the process of obtaining the truth that the 
American people want and are entitled to.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 375 Offered By Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
     special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against 
     ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
     Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic 
     minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about 
     what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________