Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in memory of my colleague, Louise McIntosh Slaughter. For my entire time of service in the House of Representatives, she was my ranking member of the Rules Committee. I sat just a couple of seats down from somebody who truly was inspirational and a fearless advocate for progressive values and a woman who, despite her advancing years, always remained ahead of the curve and future oriented. Louise had an internal energy, an internal fire that is rare in this body and, frankly, rare across our country. She long stood for an inclusive vision of America. She embraced LGBTQ families before it was popular. She always stood for women's rights despite opposition on both sides of the aisle. I already miss and continue to miss somebody who, to me, was a friend and a mentor in this institution. I express my sincere condolences to the family of Louise McIntosh Slaughter.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2016, during the 114th Congress, I intended to say: ``Mr. Speaker, today there are a lot of legal arguments and talk. I want to make sure the American people listening at home and watching at home know exactly what we are talking about here today. ``I want to talk about somebody whose life is on pause, waiting for the DAPA program to clear the courts. The brief that the Republicans are seeking to file is the exact opposite. It is saying that DAPA cannot occur. And this gentleman and his family, several of whom are Colorado constituents of mine--just to put a human face on it--show what DAPA means for so many families across our country. ``Mr. Edin Ramos of Colorado--he is pictured there next to his three lovely kids and his wife--is a native of Honduras. He has been in the United States for over 13 years. His kids are American citizens, were born here, don't know any other country. He fled his home country to avoid persecution and extortion at the hands of local, corrupt officials and gangs. ``He is married to a U.S. citizen. They have three young children together. He is a very successful business owner in Colorado. He and his wife employ 12 people. They make investments in their local community. Many rely on them for jobs, for the services they provide. Yet, the lack of any peace of mind prevents families like Edin Ramos' from reaching their full potential. ``Every day his kids come home from school, and his wife worries over something as minor as a taillight being out or a speeding ticket, that Mr. Ramos could find himself in detention for an indefinite period of time, removed from his family, or even deported to another country which he doesn't have any ties to. ``I would also like to talk about the case of Ms. Mercedes Garcia. Mercedes is a long-time resident of my hometown, Boulder, Colorado. Her life has been greatly affected by the arbitrariness of an immigration system that is immoral and has lacked meaningful priorities. ``She has been in the United States for close to 20 years. She is the mother of three American children, U.S. citizen children. But you know what happened? Her husband was removed from the United States in 2011 over a traffic citation, forcing her to be the sole provider for her three children. ``Now, Mercedes is undocumented herself, and she fears contact by immigration authorities on a daily basis. DAPA was a ray of hope for her. What DAPA would do is provide Mercedes with a meaningful level of certainty, the ability to legally seek employment, the ability to provide her family with expanded opportunities here in the U.S., and would help make her American citizen children as successful as they are able to be. ``Her children are just as American as you or me, Mr. Speaker, as is anyone born in the United States. Don't they deserve to have their mother help them succeed with all the great promises that this country offers? Why can't we give that certainty to their mother? ``DAPA is a legal, commonsense, lawful exercise of discretion. It is consistent with the actions of Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, for decades. It directs, very simply, with the limited amount of enforcement resources we have in the Department of Homeland Security, that we want to focus on removing undocumented immigrants who pose a threat to public safety or national security--not Mr. Ramos, not Ms. Garcia. We want to remove those who represent a danger or a threat to our country. ``To somehow misfocus those limited resources on tearing apart families instead of going after criminals would put the American people at risk. The President has acted to make the American people safer by ensuring that our limited law enforcement resources are focused where they will have the biggest impact. ``These policies are very simple. They create a process for low- priority enforcement immigrants who come forward, submit to a background check, register, be able to get a provisional work permit, and work legally. It enhances our public safety and national security. ``Yet we hear people from the other side saying: Well, this is something Congress should have done. I agree. This is something Congress should have done. You know what? It is not my fault Congress didn't do it. ``I have talked about immigration every week and every month here on floor of the House. I cosponsored a comprehensive bill. I signed a discharge petition last Congress to try to bring it forward. Yes, I agree. ``You know what? Congress didn't do it, Mr. Speaker. And that is on the Republican majority that Congress failed to act. ``So the President moved forward with the legal authority he has and that Republican and Democratic Presidents in the past have used to say that Ms. Garcia is not the same risk to this country as a dangerous criminal. ``It is common sense, and it is about time that we move forward with and DACA. ``I reserve the balance of my time.''

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4296, a bill that restricts how federal financial regulators determine the amount of operational risk capital large banks are required to hold. Operational risk standards were put in place after the financial crisis of 2008 and currently apply to the largest financial firms in the country. These capital requirements are designed to ensure that large financial institutions have enough money on-hand to protect consumers and taxpayers, avoiding another taxpayer funded bank bailout. At the time H.R. 4296 was brought to the floor, I voted in favor of passage. However, this was a mistake and I would like to reflect that I do not support this legislation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed to ensure that the American taxpayers will not have to pay for another Wall Street bailout. I am a proud co-author and supporter of the Dodd-Frank Act and continue to believe that it is critical to protect our nation's financial stability. Dodd-Frank put in place financial regulations that protect the broader economy by mitigating risk of large financial firms. Further, it enacted much needed consumer protections to make financial products offered to consumers safer and easier to understand. Significant changes to Dodd-Frank could undermine the stability of the economy and our financial services sector and increase the likelihood that predatory lenders will return to prey on vulnerable consumers.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for our all- Colorado lineup.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule provides for the consideration of three bills out of the Financial Services Committee. Before I turn to the bills, I want to talk about the urgent issues that are not scheduled for floor time this week. Why aren't we debating appropriations bills to keep the government funded through the end of this fiscal year? Just 2 weeks away from another government shutdown, yet, instead of discussing how we can keep government open through the end of the year, we are debating unrelated bills. We are halfway through the current fiscal year and we are forcing a month-after-month crisis of government funding. This is no way to run a government or a business. Agencies need certainty. Our constituents need to know that they can rely on government services and the security of our Nation. We should be discussing appropriation bills now. In addition, there are over 800,000 DACA recipients, or Dreamers, that don't have any certainty, whose ability to work legally hinges upon a court decision that is on appeal. In my home State of Colorado, there are over 15,000 Dreamers from countries far and wide, young, aspiring Americans who grew up in our country and know no other country, who are able to work legally today, but who risk the expiration at any moment by the whim of a court. Every day, over 100 DACA recipients lose their protected status or it expires. We need to take up, in this body, a permanent solution for Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to rely on the whims of the court system to protect them. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have demanded that Speaker Ryan bring an immigration bill to the floor. In fact, in the past, he said he would do so--last week, the week before. Yet we still haven't brought forward the Dream Act, or the Hope Act, or any of the bills that I am proud to cosponsor, that are bipartisan, that would address the urgent issue of how we can ensure that Dreamers are able to work legally. Even as we speak now, there are students on the Capitol lawn participating in an organized walkout in support of ending school gun violence. Students in Colorado are joining as well. I sent a letter to be read to the students who are doing that because I hope that we agree that no young person should have to fear going to school, nor should any parent have to fear sending their child to school. I strongly support sending more resources to schools that create supportive environments, that foster emotional and mental health. And, yes, we need to do more on gun violence, including universal background checks. So why aren't we discussing those bills here today? In addition, the administration's budget eliminated title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is the very kind of support and enrichment grant that helps schools support health and mental health services and counseling. So in the administration's own budget, it would undermine our ability to keep schools safe. School safety funding is not a replacement for gun safety measures, but it can help reduce violence by supporting our children in school and creating a safe learning environment. Those are some of the pressing issues that we could be considering; I dare say that our constituents are demanding that we consider. I dare say our continued ignoring of these issues is one of the reasons that the congressional approval rating is so low. Nobody is calling my office asking for these obscure bills today on regulations of big banks. I am getting calls from constituents about reducing gun violence in schools; finding a permanent solution for DACA recipients; keeping government open, and protecting the integrity of our elections from foreign interference. My colleagues must have short memories because we just forget how hard the financial meltdown of 2008 was on the country's middle class. While Wall Street banks were getting taxpayer bailouts, nearly 7 million Americans lost their homes, workers lost thousands of dollars in retirement accounts, and our unemployment rate spiked to 10 percent. Since Dodd-Frank was signed into law, we have avoided another major meltdown. The banking system is strong again because of the Dodd-Frank reforms, yet my Republican colleagues continue to bring bills to the floor that are aimed at crippling financial regulators to put banks ahead of the safety of the financial system, consumers, and the economy. H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act, would require that Federal regulators tailor any action to limit the burdens on financial institutions. What this bill does is force Federal regulators, those in charge of protecting consumers and our system from risk, to conduct a time- consuming re-analysis limiting what they look at to the burdens on financial institutions, the very protections that were put in place in Dodd-Frank and, instead, change those to financial institutions, not to ensure consumer protection, to reduce costs rather than ensure protection. It is almost like you are giving such authority to the tailors that they cut up your whole suit, and that is not what we want. If there are adjustments that need to be made, we should make them through statute, not give broad authority to government regulators to shred consumer protections. H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, would establish a new Office of Independent Examination Review, yet more bureaucracy and paperwork, and have financial institutions appeal and postpone supervisory determinations, creating yet more Republican red tape, more big government committees that the Republicans seem so fond of at the cost to taxpayers. This is, again, one of those bills that could have been easily tailored to provide targeted improvements to the exam process, but, instead, the Republicans want to set up more government committees and more red tape. H.R. 4545 takes away the financial regulators' ability to supervise financial institutions, instead, creating new government panels that risk putting consumers at additional risk. The last bill being considered under this rule is H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act. This bill would increase the annual exemption threshold under the SEC's Regulation A+ for companies to sell initial public offerings while being exempt from registration and disclosure requirements. The purpose of the JOBS Act, as my colleague from Colorado mentioned, is to help startups and small businesses access capital by easing some security regulations. Regulation A+, unlike these other two proposals, actually reduces regulations, so it is a good bill. I plan on supporting it. It would make it easier for smaller, nonpublic companies to access capital by allowing them to offer shares to the general public. So two bills setting up new bureaucracies and new Republican red tape commissions that tie up government, and one that actually reduces regulation, which I think will have more Democratic support. Currently, a company offering up to $50 million in securities is exempt from SEC registration requirements. This bill is very simple. It just raises the threshold from $50 million to $75 million. Compliance costs are very expensive. So for a company in that range, they are often prohibited from accessing capital markets. The SEC has the authority to raise the offering limit, something that Congress gave the SEC the authority to do. The JOBS Act requires the SEC to review the limit every 2 years, and if they decide not to increase it, the SEC has to report to Congress. According to the Kauffman Foundation, startup activity has increased steadily over the past 3 years. Startups are a major job creator in our communities. Reducing red tape and bureaucracy is a good idea. Startups create 3 million jobs annually, and we need to continue to find ways to support startups and entrepreneurs. So, again, the biggest problem with all of these bills is that they have nothing to do with what the American people are demanding Congress act on. Two of them create more Republican red tape, bureaucracy, give more power to the Federal Government. One of them helps small businesses raise capital by reducing regulation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any remaining speakers?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. President Trump's March 5 deadline ending DACA has come and gone, and all we got out of the White House was tweet after tweet, a stifling of bipartisan proposals in the Senate, and a continued failure to lead. President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA by Dems. Where are you? A deal can be made.'' Mr. Speaker, has the President forgotten that it was his decision to suddenly end the DACA program that has thrown the system into chaos? Well, to answer his question, the Democrats are right here. My colleague is right here with a motion to solve DACA right now. Let's do it. Let's rumble. This is actually the 25th time that we have attempted to bring the bipartisan bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor of the House, while it is Republican colleagues who have stood by ignoring the will of this House and the Nation and refusing to let us vote on a bill that would fix DACA. The Democrats have been and are making our position clear. We want immigration policies that make America safer and that reflect the fact that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. It is time that President Trump and my colleagues on the other side work with us to ensure that. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, Congress is spending our limited time here on the floor debating issues that are not being asked for by our constituents, creating new government commissions and Washington red tape that gets in the way of our economic growth and success. We have spent countless hours debating bills that the Senate probably won't even take up instead of the items we need to do like appropriations bills, where we are 2 weeks from the expiration of government funding. Apparently, these bills are rushed to the floor to score political points for special interests instead of dealing with the over 800,000 Dreamers whose ability to work legally hangs in the balance of a court decision. We are considering legislation that creates new commissions and red tape instead of focusing on how to put more money in the pockets of the middle class. I strongly urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the rule and the previous question so we can bring the bipartisan Dream Act forward and finally show that, yes, the House of Representatives can do its job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 94; NAY on Roll Call No. 95; NAY on Roll Call No. 96; YEA on Roll Call No. 98; and NAY on Roll Call No. 99.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 100 and NAY on Roll Call No. 101.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today, sadly, we find ourselves considering legislation that would actually make it easier for unscrupulous payday lenders to actually skirt State interest rate caps and another bill that guts enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act that puts an unfair burden on people with disabilities. These bills hurt the American people. Instead of spending our time here debating a very important immigration bill, like the Senate is doing across the way, we are considering bills that will only harm our most vulnerable populations. Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is having an open debate about immigration in our country. This House owes the American people no less. The Senate is trying to find solutions to help the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, to improve border security, or to address family reunification. The Senate is debating different proposals from both sides of the aisle. We will see what they come up with. Again, this House is simply not doing its job. This House is doing nothing to improve border security, nothing to address the DACA recipients or family reunification. Over here, there is not even a plan to bring any immigration bill or amendment to the floor. In fact, there is no commitment at all to actually address the issues that the American people care about. We have bipartisan bills today that Speaker Ryan could bring to the floor. They would pass with probably 70 or 60 percent of the vote. Mr. Speaker, the March 5 deadline for DACA protections is rapidly approaching. There is no plan in place to protect Dreamers like Anareli, Marcos, and Javier in my district. Instead, over 800,000 young adults are trying to see what happens next, hoping that the court system intervenes, hoping that somebody somewhere does something so they can continue to live and work legally in the only country that they know, the country that they call home, the United States of America. I have offered the Dream Act as an amendment to every spending bill that has come through the Rules Committee. I will continue to do so until we finally get it done. But, again, instead of bringing up a bill to help protect Dreamers before the self-Trump-imposed March 5 deadline, the House will consider legislation that undermines the civil rights of disabled Americans, and it also makes it easier for predatory lenders to evade consumer protection laws. And people wonder why the House of Representatives is as unpopular as it is. H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act is a bill that hurts consumers. It is one that makes it easier for payday lenders to evade well-thought-out State-level protection laws. That is why over 200 national and State organizations have written in opposition to this bill, which they fear would open the floodgates for predatory lending with interest rates as high as 300 percent. Additionally, 20 State attorneys general have also written in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two letters. November 29, 2017. Re Oppose H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned 202 national and state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable loans have devastating consequences for borrowers--trapping them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms such as greater delinquency on other bills. Specifically, the bill makes it easier for payday lenders and other nonbanks to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. The bill overrides the Second Circuit's Madden v. Midland decision, which held that a debt buyer purchasing debts originated by a national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's preemption of state interest rate caps. The Madden decision did not limit the interest rates that banks may charge on credit cards and other forms of credit, but it does limit nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. Reversing the Second Circuit's decision, as this bill seeks to do, would make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use ``rent-a-bank'' arrangements to charge high rates on loans. The bill provides that ``a loan that is valid when made as to its maximum rate of interest . . . shall remain valid with respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a third party, and may be enforced by such third party notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' In other words, if a bank originates a loan that exceeds state interest rate caps, and then sells or assigns the loan to a nonbank, that nonbank can continue to charge a usurious rate. This bill could open the floodgates to a wide range of predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or higher. The bill could bless arrangements such as the partnership between the payday lender Elevate and Republic Bank, through which Elevate is making high-cost loans that exceed state interest rate caps. Through its Elastic brand, Elevate offers purportedly open-end loans in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Elevate does not disclose an APR, but a $380 advance repaid with monthly minimum payments would cost $480 to repay over five months. Including all fees, the annual rate for this extension of credit is about 100%, which is nearly three times the 36% legal interest rate approved by voters in Montana, one of the states where the lines of credit are offered. Through its Rise brand, Elevate also makes closed- end loans at rates up to 365% in states where those rates are permitted, and it could attempt to expand to other states. Enova, dba NetCredit, also offers high-cost installment loans in a number of states through a rent-a-bank partnership. Enova, like Elevate, relies on Republic Bank and Trust to facilitate this scheme. Other payday lenders have regularly attempted to avoid state usury caps through rent-a-bank arrangements. For example, CashCall has attempted to partner with banks to make usurious loans in several states. Courts have struck down those arrangements, finding that CashCall had to comply with state interest rate caps. The bill could undermine these decisions, by stating that a loan's interest rate remains valid even if a loan is transferred or assigned to a third party and ``may be enforced by such third party notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' This could allow high-rate lenders to use banks to originate and then immediately transfer usurious loans. This bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection laws. In a letter by 20 State Attorneys General opposing provisions in another bill that would have overturned the Madden decision, the state law enforcement officers warned that the bill ``would restrict states' abilities to enforce interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt state usury caps.'' ' In fact, the Colorado Attorney General is in the midst of challenging online lenders' use of a rent- a-bank scheme to make loans in violation of the state's usury limits. This bill aims to thwart actions like these that seek to enforce state laws. The potential costs and damage to consumers are significant. In about 34 states, a $2,000 loan, 2-year installment loan at an APR exceeding 36% would be illegal. This bill risks making high-cost loans permissible across the country. The bill also could potentially expand short-term payday lending to the 15 states plus the District of Colombia whose state interest rate limits currently save borrowers over $2.2 billion annually in payday loan fees. Fintech lenders also should not be allowed to make loans that exceed state interest rate caps. State interest rate caps have not impacted responsible marketplace loans. The leading marketplace lenders do not make loans above 36% and the vast majority of their loans are well below that rate, comfortably within state interest rate caps. But the mere fact that a lender uses the label ``fintech'' or ``martketplace lender'' does not ensure that it is a safe or affordable loan. For example, OnDeck, a lender focused on small business lending, offers term loans up to 99%. Moreover, many marketplace lenders make very large loans of $30,000 to $50,000 or higher, and even 36% is a very high rate for such loans. Many states have tiered rate structures in recognition that interest becomes more unaffordable the larger the loan. Iowa, for example, caps interest at 21% for loans over $10,000. There are also signs that some online lenders may not be appropriately underwriting their loans to ensure that the loans are affordable, and that many borrowers may not have the ability to repay, especially, if the economy sours. Recent news reports and SEC filings show that delinquency and charge-off rates at these marketplace lenders are rising. One online lender apparently failed to verify a borrower's income for a full two-thirds of its loans in 2016. Another lender has had so many of its loans fail, that it has had to repay investors for their losses in the last three securitizations of the loans it bundled up and sold to Wall Street. This bill would weaken lenders' incentive to underwrite properly by making it easier to make high-rate loans. High interest rates result in misaligned incentives that can lead to lender profits but borrower catastrophe. Skewed incentives are already a problem in the marketplace loan industry. Moody's credit-rating firms liken this industry to mortgage lending in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis--``because the companies that market the loans and approve them quickly sell them off to investors,'' relieving themselves of the risk of the loan later going bad. This bill could make that problem worse. The bill is not necessary to ensure access to affordable credit. Proponents of this bill claim that the Madden decision has had an adverse impact on access to credit. They point to a study that showed a drop in marketplace lending by three lenders in the Second Circuit after the Madden decision for subprime borrowers, especially for those with FICO scores below 644. However, the study showed that these lenders offered only miniscule amounts of credit in the low FICO range even before the Madden decision. Thus, the impact on access to credit was trivial. Moreover, it is likely that the credit extended before the decision at the lower end of the FICO spectrum was made to borrowers who had trouble repaying, and that lenders were relying on high interest rates on large loans to compensate for high default rates. The bill wipes away the strongest available tool against predatory lending practices. Strong state rate caps, coupled with effective enforcement by states, remain the simplest and most effective method to protect consumers from the predatory lending debt trap. Contrary to what lenders often claim, robust state loan laws do not drive people to find loans online. In fact, illegal online lending is more prevalent in states that do not effectively regulate predatory lending than it is in states that enforce state interest rate caps. Accordingly, we urge you to reject this bill. For more information, contact Lauren Saunders at lsaunders@nclc.org or Scott Astrada at Scott.Astrada@responsiblelending.org. Action NC; Albany Center for Economic Success, Inc.; Allied Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Arbor Farm Press; Arizona Community Action Association; Arizona PIRG; Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending; Ashe County Habitat for Humanity; Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity; Baker Organizing School South.; Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc; Billings First Congregational Church; Brazos Valley Affordable Housing Corp.; Bucks County Women's Advocacy Coalition; Business Outreach Center Network, Inc.; California Reinvestment Coalition; CALPIRG; Capital Good Fund; CARECEN- Central American Resource Center. Carolina Behavioral Health Alliance; Carolina Jews for Justice; CASH Campaign of Maryland; Catalyst Miami; Catholic Charities of Southern New Mexico; CCCS of WNC, Inc. DBA OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling; Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico Office; Center for Financial Social Work; Center for Global Policy Solutions; Center for Responsible Lending; CEO Pipe Organs/ Golden Ponds Farm; Children First/Communities In Schools of Buncombe County; Church Women United in North Carolina; Clarifi; CO PIRG; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio; College Park: An American Baptist Church; Colorado Center on Law & Policy; Communications Workers of America (CWA). Community Capital New York; Community Council of Metropolitan Atlanta; Community Economic Development Association of MI (CEDAM); Community Loan Fund of the Capital Region Inc.; Connecticut Association for Human Services; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Covenant House of WV; Credit and Homeownership Empowerment Services Inc (CHES, Inc.); Credit Counseling Agencies of NC; Creighton College Democrats; Davidson Housing Coalition; Demos; Disability Rights North Carolina; Durham Regional Financial Center; East LA Community Corporation; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; Empire Justice Center. Faith in Action Alabama; Faith in Texas; Fayetteville Area Habitat for Humanity; Federation of Democratic Women DAC; Financial Pathways of the Piedmont; Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Florida Alliance for Retired Americans; Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Fons Law Office, representing consumers; Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch; Gowen Consulting; Greater Ward's Corner Area Business Association (Virginia); Habitat for Humanity of Catawba Valley, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of Davie County; Habitat for Humanity of Greater Greensboro; Habitat for Humanity of North Carolina; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights; Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; Hispanic Federation; HomesteadCS; Housing Consultants Group. IDA and Asset Building Collaborative of NC; Illinois People's Action; Illinois PIRG; Indiana Assets & Opportunity Network; Indiana Institute for Working Families; Indiana PIRG; Innovative Systems Group; Iowa PIRG; Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans; Just Harvest; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; La Casa de Don Pedro; Legal Aid Justice Center (Virginia); Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Long Island Housing Services, Inc.; Louisiana Budget Project; Lutheran Episcopal Advocacy Ministry NJ; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry-- New Mexico; Maine Center for Economic Policy; Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition; Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG; Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. MICAH; Mobilization for Justice, Inc.; Montana Organizing Project; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; MoPIRG; Mountain State Justice; NAACP; NAOMI; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers West Virginia Chapter; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients); National Rural Social Work Caucus; Native Community Finance; NCPIRG; New Economics for Women; New Economy Project; New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey Tenants Organization; New Mexico Fair Lending Coalition; NHPIRG; NJPIRG; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, Inc. North Carolina Assets Alliance; North Carolina Council of Churches; North Carolina Housing Coalition; North Carolina Institute of Minority Economic Development; North Carolina Justice Center; North Carolina PIRG; North Carolina Rural Center; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina United Methodist Conference; North Dakota Economic Security and Prosperity Alliance; OhioPIRG; Oklahoma Policy Institute; Oregon PIRG; PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Pennsylvania Military Officers Association of America; Pennsylvania War Veterans Council; People's Action Institute; Philadelphia Unemployment Project; Piedmont Housing Alliance (Virginia); PIRG in Michigan; Power New Mexico. Prince George's CASH Campaign; Prosperity Indiana; Prosperity Works; Public Justice; Public Justice Center; Public Law Center; Reinvestment Partners; Rural Dynamics, Inc.; Safety MD LLC; Samaritan Ministries; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South Central Community; Southern Poverty Law Center; Statewide Poverty Action Network; Step Up Savannah; Tabor Community Services; Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; TexPIRG; The AMOS Project; The Bell Policy Center; The Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina; The Midas Collaborative; The One Less Foundation. Tuscaloosa Citizens Against Predatory Practices; Tzedek DC; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative Advocacy Network; UNITE HERE; United for a Fair Economy; University of Wisconsin Law School, Consumer Law Clinic; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy; Virginia Organizing; Virginia Poverty Law Center; Virginians Against Payday Lending; VOICE Oklahoma City; WASHPIRG; Watauga County Habitat for Humanity; WESST; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; West Virginia Citizen Action Group; WISDOM; WISPIRG; Women AdvaNCe; Woodstock Institute; WV Citizen Action Group. State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, June 7, 2017. Re The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10). Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Minority Whip Hoyer: On behalf of the undersigned State Attorneys General and the Executive Director of the Office of Consumer Protection for the State of Hawaii (the ``States''), we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 10 (the ``Act''), which we understand the full House of Representatives intends to vote on this week. The proposed Act will eliminate many of the critical consumer protections implemented as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'') in the wake of, and in response to, the financial crisis. As the chief consumer protection officers in each of our respective States, we write to call your particular attention to those portions of the Act that would effectively eviscerate the role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''), the only independent federal agency exclusively focused on consumer financial protection. While the Act purports to protect consumers from over-regulation by federal agencies, its far-reaching consequences would make consumers more vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the marketplace. The undersigned States support the work of the CFPB and oppose any effort to curtail its authority. While we find numerous provisions of the Act to be objectionable, we write to highlight certain provisions that would significantly impact consumer protection -- a core function of our States. I. Background Our States' work to protect consumers from unscrupulous marketplace actors and practices is greatly enhanced when the federal government serves as an effective partner. In the years leading up to the global financial crisis, residents of our States suffered the consequences of a federal government that failed to fulfill its basic obligations to U.S. consumers to prevent fraud and misconduct by mortgage providers, servicers, and other financial firms. Families nationwide suffered dire financial consequences as a result of lax federal oversight and inaction. Since its inception, the CFPB has emerged as the independent federal consumer watchdog the nation has long needed, and as a key partner in critically important consumer protection work undertaken by our States and by State Attorneys General across the country. The exceptional record of the CFPB speaks for itself. As of January 1, 2017, the CFPB has handled over one million consumer complaints, and obtained $11.8 billion in relief for 29 million consumers. The CFPB has taken enforcement actions to stem abuses by student loan originators and servicers, for-profit schools, debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders, and foreclosure ``rescue'' companies, among others. Among its more recent, significant enforcement actions have been cases against mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation for widespread mortgage servicing failures, including improperly calculating balances, misapplying payments, and failing to investigate consumer complaints, student loan servicer Navient for student loan servicing abuses, including failing to notify struggling borrowers of their eligibility for income-based repayment plans and steering such borrowers into more costly forbearance plans--and Wells Fargo bank for its widespread practice of opening unauthorized bank and credit card accounts for consumers. In addition, as part of its statutory mandate, the CFPB has conducted thorough and nuanced studies of complex financial issues that impact consumers and has issued rules intended to protect consumers in a thoughtful, consensus-driven manner. II. The Devastating Effects of the Act on Consumer Protection The Act would effectively cripple the CFPB from doing the job it has been doing so effectively since its inception. A. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority Over Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices Section 736 of the Act would eliminate the CFPB's authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices (``UDAAP''). The CFPB's authority to prohibit entities it supervises from engaging in UDAAP violations has been the basis for many of the CFPB's most significant enforcement actions, including the Ocwen, Navient, and Wells Fargo matters discussed above. In addition, several of the undersigned States have jointly filed cases with the CFPB against businesses and individuals engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. UDAAP authority gives the CFPB the flexibility to respond swiftly to new technologies and practices that harm consumers, without the need to wait for legislation expressly addressing a given practice. B. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Supervision and Enforcement Authority Over Large Banks Section 727 of the Act would similarly eliminate the CFPB's supervision and enforcement authority over large banks and permit financial institutions that meet certain criteria to elect to be exempted from the CFPB's supervisory authority. This provision is concerning in a number of ways, not the least of which is that it is through the supervision process that the CFPB often learns of systemic issues in the companies and industries it regulates. The CFPB is the only federal agency that has been conducting consumer protection reviews as the focus of their supervisory authority (rather than safety and soundness), which is important for the reasons previously discussed. In addition, many of the CFPB's enforcement actions have been against the large banks. C. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Authority to Regulate Payday and Vehicle Title Loans Section 733 of the Act expressly prohibits the CFPB from engaging in any rulemaking or enforcement with respect to payday and vehicle title loans. Payday lending, as the CFPB's own extensive research has documented, has adversely affected the lives of millions of financially vulnerable consumers across the country. The CFPB has been at the forefront of curbing abuses in the payday lending industry and has supplemented state enforcement by taking enforcement actions against payday and other lenders that are attempting to collect on loans that are void under state law. The CFPB has been similarly aggressive in uncovering and confronting abuses in the vehicle title loan industry, where consumers, risk the loss of their vehicle (with the corresponding loss in mobility) if they find themselves unable to repay their loans. The Act will strip the CFPB of all authority in these areas, including its enforcement authority and the ability to adopt sensible and common sense rules to prevent consumers from falling into debt traps that are often the result of payday and vehicle title loans. D. The Act Would Permit Third Party Debt Collectors to Charge Usurious Interest Rates Section 581 of the Act would restrict states' abilities to enforce interest rate caps. Currently, there are no federal interest rate caps that cover financial products and services offered by national banks. Rather, national banks are permitted to export the interest rate of their home state and disregard the more stringent interest rates of other states in which they do business. Section 581 of the Act would add language to four federal statutes to provide that, when a national bank sells or assigns debt covered by the National Bank Act, the buyer or assignee has the right to collect that same interest rate, regardless of the law of the state where the buyer or assignee is located. This would make it more difficult to ensure that debt buyers, online lenders, fintech companies, and rent-a-bank schemes comply with state interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt state usury caps. E. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB Rulemaking Authority Regarding Mandatory Arbitration Section 738 of the Act would repeal the provision of Dodd- Frank that granted the CFPB authority to study and issue rules regarding arbitration in financial services contracts. Dodd-Frank expressly authorized the CFPB to study arbitration provisions in financial services contracts, and to issue regulations prohibiting or restricting such provisions if the CFPB concluded that doing so would be ``in the public interest and for the protection of consumers.'' After a thorough review, the CFPB concluded that tens of millions of Americans use financial products or services subject to mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit proceeding on a class basis and that the effect of such provisions is to prevent consumers from seeking redress, particularly for small dollar claims. Elimination of the CFPB's authority in this area can only operate to the detriment of consumers. F. The Act Would Reduce Transparency and Deprive Consumers of a Valuable Source of Information Finally, the Act would end the CFPB's current practice of publicly posting information concerning individual consumer complaints in a searchable database. This information helps consumers make informed decisions about the companies with which they choose to do business, and increases transparency in the marketplace. Eliminating the release of this information provides no benefit to consumers, but only to companies whose practices generate repeated complaints. III. Conclusion For these and other reasons, the undersigned States urge you to support robust and engaged consumer protection in the financial services industry by voting against the Act. A rollback of these significant post-financial crisis rules and regulations would substantially harm consumers and the public in general. If we can provide any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Eric T. Schneiderman, New York Attorney General; Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; Matthew Denn, Delaware Attorney General; Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia; Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii Attorney General; Stephen H. Levins, Executive Director, Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection; Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Janet T. Mills, Maine Attorney General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General; Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General; Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General; Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General; Peter F. Kilmartin, Rhode Island Attorney General; T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, States can, and do, like my own State of Colorado, put limitations on the interest rates of installment loans issued by nonbanks. Banks, on the other hand, have the preemption of State interest rate caps through the National Bank Act. So in order to get around State interest rate caps, payday lenders often use a bank to originate a loan at a higher interest rate, but the nonbank designs the loan, provides the funding for the loan, services the loan, and guarantees any losses the bank incurs. In all but in name, it is the nonbank entity that is the loaning entity. Essentially, the payday lender is the de facto lender and the bank is simply a nominal participant to evade regulations. These are referred to as ``rent-a-charter'' schemes, and they are not new. In the early 2000s, Federal banking regulators shut down several of these arrangements between national banks and nonbank lenders. In 2014, the OCC made it clear that banks may not rent out their charters to third parties. Right now, our Federal banking regulations are able to contain these schemes, but this legislation would undermine our ability to stop abusive and predatory practices. States are leading the effort to stop abusive lending practices. In my home State of Colorado, there is actually a lawsuit challenging this very scheme. And now that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has delayed a final rule that would have helped protect borrowers, it is actually up to the States to help protect consumers, and this bill would make it harder. This bill would cripple States', like Colorado's, efforts to stop predatory lending from preying on their citizens. The Republican assault on States' rights has gone from bad to worse. This is yet another part of the big government Republican war on consumers across the country preempting States' rights for Washington, D.C., control. It seems the Republicans want to control everything from Washington. That is why we need to make sure that our States are empowered to have the ability they need to protect consumers and protect our law. Lately, there has been an increased focus on fintech companies and how they can help serve the unbanked or underbanked. And I agree. I am a big supporter of financial innovation and promote financial inclusion, but we can't do that at the expense of consumers or at the very high cost of putting consumers into cycles of debt, which ends badly. Why are we considering legislation that would put all of the power in Washington, D.C., and take away State-level protections for consumers? Instead, we should be finding ways to increase access to affordable credit, make it easier for consumers to access the financial services that meet their needs, rather than trying to force a Republican Washington solution on all of the States across our country. We are considering this bill under a closed rule. There is only one amendment filed to this bill, and it is not even allowed to be debated about, no less voted on. Now, I want to talk about the other bill under this rule. H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act, is actually a package of several bills that came out of the House Financial Services Committee, some which are more controversial than others. Title I of the package, the TRID Improvement Act, was reported out by a 53-5 vote, and all the Republicans and Democrats supported Title V of the package, Eliminating Barriers to Jobs for Loan Originators. I support Title II, the Protection of Source Code Act, that is being included in this package. I also support Representative Foster's amendment to that title, which would provide additional clarification to the subpoena requirement and would only apply to the source for algorithmic trading. The problem is that it takes several bills that have broad bipartisan support and combines them with other bills that should be considered separately, which is forcing Democrats and Republicans to weigh the package as a whole. We simply can't know the ramifications of considering all these bills at the same time, especially when they haven't had hearings on the individual components. Finally, H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, is, in many ways, the most damaging bill that is discussed under this rule. We are celebrating the Americans with Disabilities Act that was signed into law 28 years ago to really allow Americans with disabilities to have every kind of opportunity that everybody else does, free from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and transportation. It was a landmark bipartisan effort. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities and sets a minimum reasonable standard for accessibility, which has been the law of our land for three decades. H.R. 620 would make it more difficult for people with disabilities to have their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under this bill, instead of requiring the public establishment to comply with the ADA, the burden should shift to the victim of the discrimination to prove a violation has occurred. You are forcing disabled Americans to go around with clipboards and inspector goggles, rather than forcing businesses to comply. It is simply not fair. It has been nearly three decades since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. All title III of the ADA requires is that businesses make their facilities accessible to the extent that it is readily achievable--a very reasonable burden under the law. Businesses have flourished over the last three decades and we have had continued economic growth. I have heard from so many of my constituents about this bill, including Cari Brown, a systems advocacy specialist with the Arc of Larimer County, serving disabled residents. She said: ``The standards set forth in the ADA are designed to ensure that people with disabilities can access basic public accommodations. Requiring people with disabilities to file a complaint to enforce compliance of a 28- year-old law is a step backwards.'' I think this is a Republican plan to turn everybody with disabilities into an attorney, because that is what they are going to need to be to be able to assert the rights that they already have under the law. There is significant, if not universal, opposition to H.R. 620 from health and disabilities advocacy groups, including, but not limited to: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation, The Bazelon Center, the National Council on Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. We knew, Mr. Speaker, that this President has mocked and taken on Americans with disabilities, but I frankly thought it was above the Republicans in Congress to join President Trump in assaulting the rights of those with disabilities. H.R. 620 will not allow people with disabilities to immediately file ADA violations, essentially denying access to buildings due to a lengthy legal process. Who has time to wait several years to access a building that you need to be in because of your job? It simply doesn't make sense. That means that people with disabilities will wait weeks, months, or years just to gain the access that is required under law. For businesses, there is simply no incentive to adhere to ADA guidelines. All of this combined harms disabled Americans and weakens the legal protections that, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have been proud of in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. President Trump continues to, frankly, offend our sensibilities and values by insisting that somehow Democrats don't care about fixing DACA. Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 22nd time we have tried to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, to the House floor for a vote. We have made our position clear. We want immigration policies that reflect our values, that make America safer, while realizing, of course, that we are a nation both of laws and of immigrants. Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again urged Congress to pass legislation that provides permanent relief for Dreamers. Even the conservative Cato Institute estimates that deporting Dreamers would result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade. Mr. Speaker, if we don't care about the families, about the young people affected, surely you care about $280 billion that will be lost if Republicans fail to act. Protecting these aspiring Americans is not only the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy. If we defeat the previous question today, for the 23rd time, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would finally help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is worse, the fact that we are taking up legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to gain access to buildings in their community, including buildings that they work in, or that we are considering legislation that makes it easier for payday lenders to prey on vulnerable consumers by forcing in Washington, D.C., Big Government Republican values on our States' rights; or is it worse that we are not taking up legislation to protect the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation in the beginning of March unless we act? My Republican colleagues are working hard to put Washington, D.C., Big Government ahead of people, to force people with disabilities to get law degrees and wander around with notepads to document when they are unable to get into a building, and putting payday lenders ahead of hardworking Americans. Instead, we should be focused on finding bipartisan solutions to protect aspiring Americans from being forcibly deported from the only country that they know as home. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 620, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Olympic athletes from the great State of Colorado. The Olympics are a demonstration of fellowship, sportsmanship, commitment, determination, and grit--a wonderful example for the world. There are 36 Olympians participating from Colorado, the most from any State in the USA, and they are competing in 17 different disciplines. I am proud to say that 12 of these Olympic athletes are from Colorado's Second Congressional District. Lindsey Vonn, Mikaela Shiffrin, Sarah Schleper, Joanne Reid, Casey Andringa, Chris Del Bosco, Jaelin Kauf, Mike Testwuide, Katie Uhlaender, Chris Corning, Kyle Mack, and Red Gerard all hail from the Second Congressional District of Colorado. And I am exceptionally proud that this past Saturday Red Gerard, at 17 years old, from Silverthorne, Colorado, won the Pyeongchang Olympic Gold Medal for the United States, the first Olympic Gold Medal for Team USA, before going from last place to first place on the final run. Red learned to snowboard right in his backyard in beautiful Summit County. Another young Coloradoan, Arielle Gold--and Gold is a great name if you are going to be an Olympian--despite dislocating her shoulder in training earlier in the week, is bringing home a bronze medal in the women's halfpipe. Those are just two of the 36 Olympic stories from Colorado. I wish I had time to talk about the other 34 because their dedication, perseverance, and spirit is an inspiration to all Americans, and I am rooting for them every step of the way.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that this body is descending down a fiscally irresponsible path, a path to trillion-dollar deficits, a path to mortgaging the future for my children and yours. To be clear, what this massive spending bill includes is a 14.6 percent increase in defense spending and a 12.2 percent increase in nondefense spending this year. Next year, a 15.1 percent increase in defense spending and 12.9 percent in nondefense spending. The headlines in The New York Times, Mr. Speaker, says: ``As Deficit Soars Toward $1 trillion, Congress Shrugs and Keeps Spending.'' I also want to quote from the Los Angeles Times. It says: ``The budget deal also means that the United States probably will be returning to trillion-dollar annual deficits . . . .'' When Trump took office about a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected the Nation's deficit would run between $500 billion and $700 billion. Now, with lower tax revenues and new spending, the deficit will blow past $1 trillion in 2019. To be fair, I have long argued that $500 billion to $700 billion deficits are too large. I have supported spending cuts, and I opposed the massive Republican giveaway to special interests through the tax reform bill. It would be easy to say here, Mr. Speaker, that the Republicans own this deficit, the Republicans own this debt. But that is too easy, Mr. Speaker. Do you know who owns this debt? My family and yours. It is owned by the American people, Mr. Speaker, in the form of future taxation, in the form of future reduction in services, in the form of a future threat to Social Security and Medicare. This fiscally irresponsible path has got to end. I will be opposing this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about the fiscal solvency of this Nation to join me in opposing this irresponsible spending bill. As has been mentioned, this bill also fails to include comprehensive immigration reform or the Dream Act. I would note that comprehensive immigration reform, which passed the Senate with a more than two-thirds vote a few years ago, would reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion in increased tax revenue and increased economic productivity. While the Dream Act and similar measures haven't been formally scored, they also would contribute to reducing our budget deficit because hardworking Americans would be able to get jobs, pay taxes, and participate in the American Dream. If this massive Republican spending bill passes, it will only dig our Nation deeper into a debt that will become harder and harder to ever emerge from. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this massive Republican spending bill and to get to work on fiscally responsible measures, like comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act; to reduce our budget deficit and, hopefully, eliminate it rather than bloat it further and further.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I am hearing Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, people blaming the President, but you know, I have great respect for the intellectual abilities of everybody in this body, my colleagues on both sides. And I think you all know--I certainly know, Mr. Speaker--that the American people blame all of us for this dysfunction and for the Federal Government closing. Of course they blame the President, of course they blame Republicans, and, yes, they also blame Democrats. Yet here we are continuing to play into the worst fears and partisanship of the American people, rather than talking about the path forward. I think we all know what the issues are that separate us, and they are not that great. Of course we want to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. We heard that from both sides. Let's figure out the plan to do it. Of course we want to fix deferred action because the President has canceled the program in March, and we want to find a way to rise to that challenge, to find a way that aspiring Americans can stay here and work. Let's do it. The budget caps and the timing are very important. I understand that Republicans want to spend more on the military than many Democrats do. And I have been a constant supporter of trying to find resources that we don't need in our defense and direct them other ways. Let's compromise and find a way to do it, but let's not do it while the government is closed. Why don't we find a way to do a 2- or 3- or 4-day extension, or at least get to work, rather than blaming one another on actually solving these issues, which won't go away? That is why you find the hesitancy of many of us to say let's just wait 3 weeks or 4 weeks and hash out the same exact issues that we all have our opinions on today, because that is much more uncertainty for the U.S. military, for the American people, for those who rely on basic government services. So it is time to actually work together in good faith, to rise to the responsibility of the office that the American people placed us in, to find a commonsense way forward that respects our values as an institution, and to make sure the people are proud of Democrats, proud of Republicans, and, yes, I dare to say, even proud of the President of the United States if he plays a constructive role in reopening the government and solving these pressing issues that face us right here.