Personnel of the United States. The speaker pro tempore the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 411 and the nays are zero. The bill is passed. Without objection, the title is amended. For what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 103 and i ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the resolution. The clerk house concurrent resolution 103, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation hall for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the holocaust. The speaker pro tempore is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution . Without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition . Ms. Sewell mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of h. R. 620. The speaker pro tempore that request cannot be entertained. The house will come to order. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. Hensarling, seek recognition . Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 736, i call up h. R. 3299 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk Union Calendar umber 402, h. R. 3299, a bill to amend the revised statutes, the homeowners loan act, the federal credit union act, and the federal deposit insurance act to require the rate of interest on certain loans remain unchanged after transfer , and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to House Resolution 736, the bill is considered as read. The gentleman from texas, mr. Hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. Waters, each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Hensarling. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Hensarling mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hensarling thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of h. R. 3299, the protecting consumer access to credit act of 2017, a most important goal of this chamber. H. R. 3299 is an important bill that is cosponsored by a Bipartisan Group of members of the house. Mr. Speaker, it was approved by the House Financial Services committee with a very strong bipartisan support of 4217. Id like to start out thanking my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Mchenry, the vice chairman of the committee, for leading our congressional efforts. To help create a regulate framework which will encourage the growth of Financial Technology and expand muchneeded access to credit for americas Small Businesses and consumers. H. R. 3299 is a legislative response to the 2015 Second Circuit court of appeals of maddon v. Midland funding, which did not consider the valid when made legal doctrine which is a nearly 200yearold principle of usery law in our republic, mr. Speaker. Again, 200 years of common law upended in one court case. In that decision, the court held while the National Bank act allowed a federally chartered bank to charge interest under the laws of its home state as long as it makes nationwide nonk banks that bought those loans could not continue to collect that interest because nonbanks are generally subject to the limits of the borrowers state. The Second Circuit decision has caused considerable uncertainty and risk for many types of bank lending programs, including bank model marketplace lending where National Banks originate loans and then transfer them to nonbank third parties. Being able to offer consistent terms nationwide is vital to scaling the marketplace lending business, which in turn allows lenders to access cheaper Investment Capital and then pass the savings on to the borrowers who may be looking to buy their first home, start a business, send a kid to college. H. R. 3299, again, is a commonsense bill that simply codifies the 200yearold valid when made legal doctrine which would preserve the lawful Interest Rate on a loan originated by bank even if the loan is sold, assigned, or transferred to a nonbank third party. This concept is the backbone w Business Partners with banks. Those consumers with less access to traditional lending sources, this bill would help. Mr. Speaker, dont take my word for it. According to a recent columbiastanford university study, borrowers with Credit Scores under 625 have seen their credit cut in half. Cut in half thanks to this decision. Again, mr. Speaker, borrowers with less than stalar Credit Scores have seen their credit cut in half. We simply cannot allow this to happen. Now, mr. Speaker, thanks to President Trump and congress, passing the tax cuts and jobs act we are beginning to see this economy start to take off. We are finally seeing wages begin to grow after eight years of failed Economic Policy but so much work remains to be done for working american families. We have heard on our Financial Services committee, mr. Speaker, from so many of these families who are trying to make ends meet and its vital they be able to access credit. Americans like allen from New Hampshire who recently had trouble finding credit through traditional banks and Credit Unions due to the regulate low. He said, but for my local dealers efforts on my behalf there is no doubt i wouldnt be driving my current car. And this was a desperate situation as i am the sole income earner for my family. My wife is ill and we have two Young Children in school. After my old vehicle broke down, i needed to find reliable replacement transportation so i could get to work and continue to provide for my family. Mr. Speaker, we should not let the Second Circuit prevent allen from getting that car loan he desperately needs in order to get to work as the sole provider for his family. A Small Business owner from utah named maxine applied for a loan for her 37yearold established business so she can update and purchase equipment. To support a contract that would have led to the creation of 50 additional jobs. As she explained, quote, three banks informed us our rating, according to new Bank Regulations imposed by doddfrank, disqualified us from loan consideration. 50 jobs, poof, gone, mr. Speaker. And so is doddfrank not bad enough . Now we add this Second Circuit opinion to allow lower credit individuals that cut credit opportunity in half . I dont think so. I dont think so. Its not up for the unelected to make such decisions. We cannot continue to allow, mr. Speaker, washington red tape and the Second Circuit to cut off Credit Opportunities for hardworking americans. As the bill says, we must preserve and protect consumers access to credit, so i urge every member to support this very important bipartisan bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from california is recognized. Ms. Waters thank you very much. I yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Speaker, i rise today in opposition to h. R. 3299, the socalled protecting consumers access to credit act of 2017. Theres a good reason over 200 civil rights consumer faithbased housing, labor, and veterans advocacy organizations oppose this bill. The type of credit that this bill helps consumers access is the kind that makes it easier for vulnerable consumers to sink into insurmountable debt, like payday and other highcost loans. H. R. 3299 expands the ability of nonbanks to preempt state level Consumer Protections by stating that the Interest Rate on any loan originated by a National Bank that is subsequently transferred to a third party, no matter how quickly after it is originated, is enforceable. Which incentivizes rickier and predatory lending. H. R. 3299 advances a dangerous precedent by allowing third parties that purchase loans from National Banks to collect on Interest Rates that would otherwise be illegal because they exceed state caps. Now this bill is an attempt to overturn a Court Decision related to the legal concept of, quote, valid when made, quoteunquote, from the Second Circuit court of appeals in maddonvs. Mittland. Funding l. L. C. In that case the court held that when loans are transferred from banks to nonbank third parties, they must maintain the same terms, rates, and conditions as required by the state where the originating bank is chartered. Despite claims by proponents of the bill, legal experts have explained in testimony that, quote, the valid when made doctrine is a modern invention not a cornerstone of u. S. Banking law, end quote. The maddon decision is the only is only the rule of law in the states under the Second Circuit which are connecticut, new york, and vermont. But some industry advocates, particularly marketplace lender finteches have argued the ruling and confuse about valid when made caused such great market ambiguity that it has resulted in reduced lending to needy borrowers in those states. But those claims have not been substaniated. The only purported evidence we have on the effect of the maddon rule is a single unpublished study that cannot even be Peer Reviewed because it relies on private data from a single unidentified marketplace lender. And the authors of that study have not endorsed this bill. In addition 20 state attorneys general, including the attorneys general for all three states under the Second Circuit, oppose this legislative change. You know what . Predatory lenders are worried about madden case for a different reason. Elevate and online payday lender is scared that they wont be able to continue making predatory loans if the madden decision stays in place. In their public filings with the s. E. C. , elevate said that, quote, to the extent that the were broaden dden to cover circumstances applicable to elevate business or if other lit on related theories were brought against us and were successful, we ould become subject to state we usury limits and state licensing laws in addition to the state Consumer Protection laws to which were already subject to. In a greater number of states, loans in such states could be deemed void and unenforceable and we would be subject to substantial penalties in connection with such loans, quoteunquote. Mr. Speaker, i do not doubt the sincerity of the good actors that may be trying to navigate a difficulty to make new ruling potentially caused. Is isnt about those businesses because h. R. 3299 would go much further to allow other third parties, including payday businesses because lenders, to outright disregard state level laws and collect debt from borrowers at unreasonably high rates of interest if they purchase loans from a National Bank. These arrangements were called rent a bank. Or rent a charter agreement. And they allow payday lenders to use banks as a front for predatory behavior and the evasion of state Interest Rate caps. Payday loans drain wealth from lowincome consumers, particularly those in communities of color, and payday loans trap their borrowers into a cycle debt that it takes years to climb out of with high Interest Rates that are often in excess of 300 . So lets be clear. Instead of simply overturning the madden decision, h. R. 3299 would go far beyond that and codify and expand it, preemption power, without any proof it will benefit consumers. In fact, all we do know is that the bill will make it easier for bad actors to evade safeguards that states have put in place to protect bore rorse. We cannot advance a bill that will allow nonbanks like payday lenders to ignore state Interest Rate caps and make high rate loans. While congress has preempted some state laws, the National Banks, it did not authorize National Banks to extend the privilege to whatever entities they so choose. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Hensarling im pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Mchenry, vice chairman of the committee and sponsor of the legislation. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. Mchenry i want to thank the chairman for his kindness in working with me and my team on bringing this bill to the floor today. I want to thank his staff as well. What we have today is the protecting consumers access to credit act. A bipartisan piece of legislation that we have both republicans and democrats in the senate in support of, as well as democrats and republicans here in the house of representatives. The issue were dealing with is one of the Biggest Challenges facing our country. Which is the decline of lending to consumers and Small Businesses and small towns and Rural Communities like the ones i represent in western North Carolina. Its the same issue facing so many in urban settings as well. This tutchts all of america. Touches all of america. But the story in Rural America is bleak. Community banks are closing at a rapid pace and Small Businesses are struggling to find loans. Many americans dont have the savings to cover a common 1,000 emergency like a car repair. Thats into the just thats not just a rural issue. That touches all american communities. The good news is after the financial crisis, Innovative Companies and banks partnered together to find new ways to help hardworking americans and Small Business owners. They call it fintech. These Innovative Companies partner with banks to help Small Businesses get a loan. They help young people get out of student debt. They help Everyday Americans find the financing they need to lead better lives. Now, this should be something heralded by both parties. Shouldnt be in a partisan issue. Shouldnt be a left or right, conservative or liberal. Its a good thing thats happening with innovation and different modes of lending and borrowing in this country. While this era of financial innovation is brand new, the actual structure supporting fintech is based on one of the oldest bedrock principles in american law. The fundamental concept is called valid when made. Valid when made or what the Supreme Court referred to in 1833 as quote, the cardinal rule, end quote, of american Interest Rate laws provides a Legal Foundation for all fintech Companies Partner with banks. I dont have to share with the Ranking Member or other members of our chamber that banks are heavily regulated. If they even partner with another firm, this, too, is a regulated thing. Yet all that changed when the Supreme Court declined to hear the case of madden vs. Midland funding. In madden, activist judges on a federal Appeals Court broke with the longstanding legal precedent of valid when made and held that the 1864 National Bank act did not have a preemptive effect on loans created under this fintech bank partnership. The Legal Framework has been around almost for 200 years and the particular law that were dealing with has been around for 150 years. Roughly speaking. The decision, though, this decision has creat