Various Measures

The committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time, without objection all members shall have five legislative days within which to submit additional materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Today we will advance a series of bills aimed at strengthening our economy and supporting small businesses and American families. At last week's State of the Union address, President Trump spoke about the strength and resilience of the U.S. economy. After years of economic hardship brought on by the Biden administration, marked by runaway federal spending, historic inflation, rising interest rates, and burdensome regulations, the American people are finally seeing a return to stability, renewed growth, and policies that put American workers and families first. Prices are coming down. Inflation is cooling, energy costs have eased. Investors are putting capital back to work with renewed confidence in the strength and stability of the economy. The bills before us today reflect President Trump and Republicans' shared commitment to promoting pro-growth, America First policies. We're working to strengthen Main Street, expand access to capital, support American businesses, and ensure that our financial system is the most dynamic in the world. Committee Republicans are dedicated to fighting every day for American families, which is why we are advancing today the Main Street Capital Access Act. Co-led by our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Chair Andy Barr of Kentucky, this bill simplifies outdated regulatory requirements that have crippled our community banks and local lenders over the past few decades. Giving them the flexibility they need to get back to lending in our communities throughout the country, ensuring that small businesses and potential homebuyers have the financing they need to prosper. Expanding access to capital strengthens local economies and keeps opportunity within reach so that businesses can grow and American families can achieve greater financial security. We will also review the chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation Dan Meuser's Restoring Secondary Trading Market Act. This important bill amends the Securities Act of 1933 to preempt state blue sky laws for certain off-exchange secondary trading transactions. By streamlining the regulatory framework for off-exchange trading, this bill promotes greater uniformity and efficiency in our markets, reduces unnecessary compliance burdens, and strengthens investors' confidence so that our capital markets remain competitive and effective in supporting economic growth. We're also eager to advance Representative Garbarino's Small Entrepreneurs Empowerment and Development Act, the SEED Act, which also amends the Securities Act of 1933 to allow small issuers to conduct limited micro-offerings without being subject to costly disclosure and filing requirements. By easing these regulatory burdens, this bill gives startups and small businesses greater flexibility to raise early-stage capital, empowering them to grow and innovate while preserving strong anti-fraud protections to safeguard investors and maintain confidence in our markets. As we all know, a strong national defense relies on a resilient industrial base, which is why we're working hard to advance today Chairman Davidson's bipartisan Defense Production Act Modernization Act to reform and reauthorize the DPA. Updating and extending the DPA ensures the United States has robust supply chains to support domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign adversaries. We also have for consideration today Representative Troy Nehls' Save Our Shrimpers Act, which supports our domestic shrimping industry and the hardworking men and women in our coastal communities. The bills we're reviewing today address the real challenges by Americans, by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, expanding access to capital, and reinforcing critical industries, we're working hard to protect the integrity and security of the financial system. I look forward to today's discussion of these important bills that I believe will benefit the American people. I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member for her opening statement.

Thank you very much, Chairman Hill. Americans are fed up with rising grocery, utility, and housing costs caused by the Trump administration's reckless policies. But instead of changing course, Trump is doubling down. After the Supreme Court struck down his unlawful tariffs, of which Americans paid nearly 90 percent of, he imposed more while his own Treasury Secretary admits Americans may never get their money back. As if that weren't enough, last week Trump unilaterally waged war in Iran, sending gas and energy prices soaring. And while families struggle at the pump, he's deploying the U.S. Navy and spending taxpayer dollars to protect oil tankers bound for, of all places, China. Unfortunately, none of the bills before us today will lower costs for Americans. Instead, they risk driving up prices for families saving for retirement, preparing for college, or just looking to take out a loan. And it doesn't stop there. These proposals could even raise the cost of everyday items like shrimp. That's right, you heard me, the Republican Party wants to play around with the price of shrimp. Didn't they learn anything from Red Lobster? Before I discuss the bills that will make life more expensive for Americans, I want to thank the chairman for working with me and my staff on a broadly bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Defense Protection Act, Production Act. These are extraordinary authorities that have strengthened our national defense and helped protect Americans during crises like the COVID pandemic. During COVID, DPA helped boost production of personal protective equipment, or PPE, and vaccines. When hurricanes and supply chain disruptions strained hospitals, it helped restore essential supplies. And when the United States became too dependent on foreign sources for key materials, the DPA helped rebuild production here at home, from batteries to critical minerals that support both our military and everyday life. That's the DPA protecting national security and public safety. To make sure the DPA continues to work for the American people, Democrats have worked across the aisle to put forth a stronger, modernized DPA that adds clear guardrails, strengthens oversight, and keeps the law focused on the public good, not as a loophole for political abuse. Now, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would agree that the DPA should never be used to conduct surveillance of Americans or to build autonomous killing machines. Nor should it be used to punish Trump's perceived political enemies. Turning to the deregulatory bills before us, my Republican colleagues claim they support community banks, small businesses, consumers, and investors, but their bills tell a different story. These proposals gut safeguards, let Wall Street megabanks and their CEOs off the hook, and undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They strip away transparency, open the door to risky trading and unregistered stock sales where scams thrive. That's not strengthening our financial system, it's undermining our economy. Under the Trump administration, enforcement has already rolled back lawsuits against bad actors trying to cheat hardworking people that have been dropped. And when oversight weakens and resources get cut, you better believe that the scammers will move in fast. Meanwhile, small businesses are already being squeezed by rising costs that make worse, made worse by Trump's tariffs. But the bills pile on this pain, subjecting small businesses to litigation and scams. Small businesses don't have armies of lawyers to navigate these hidden risks. That's why we should be passing legislation that keep markets fair so entrepreneurs succeed on hard work, not scams. Committee Democrats continue to fight for Americans and reduce costs, and we will always continue pushing for solutions that help small businesses grow. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman yields back. I'd like to recognize myself for a point of personal privilege. Before we begin today's markup, I want to take a moment and recognize former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who turns 100 years old this Friday. Not only has Alan been a longtime friend of mine dating back to our work on economic policy during the Bush 41 administration, but he's been one of the most consequential economic policymakers of our time. Serving as the chair of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, Alan's tenure was a pivotal moment in our nation's economic history. From the 1987 stock market crash to expansion and the technological transformation of the 1990s. His commitment to fiscal discipline and sound economic stewardship helped produce a budget surplus in the late 1990s, setting a constructive course for future administrations and reinforcing confidence in America's long-term economic outlook. Alan left a lasting impact in the direction of U.S. monetary policy, guiding the economy through periods of volatility with a steady hand and laying the groundwork for sustained growth and innovation. Chairman Greenspan's 100th birthday marks a century defined by service and a legacy of leadership that helped shape the direction of American economic policy for generations. I hope you all will join me in wishing Chairman Greenspan a very happy 100th birthday. [Applause.] Yield back. Pursuant to notice, I'll start our markup today and I call up H.R. 7688, which is our bipartisan effort to modernize the Defense Production Act, which was introduced by Representative Warren Davidson, who's the chair of our National Security Committee. The clerk will report the bill which was distributed in advance.

H.R. 7688 to modernize and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950 and for other purposes.

Without objection the bill's considered read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Davidson has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which were distributed in advance. The clerk will report that amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7688 offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio, designated as Davidson OH 117.

Without objection the amendment's considered read and will serve as base text for the purposes of amendment. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, you're now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. I do move to strike the last word. I am proud to sponsor H.R. 7688, the DPA Modernization Act of 2026. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their collaborative work to make this reauthorization a truly bipartisan reality, especially Representatives Huizenga, Nunn, Beatty, and Vargas. The Defense Production Act, or DPA, has been a longstanding and valuable tool in the United States' national security toolbox. Since it was enacted in 1950, these authorities have enabled the United States to mobilize our industrial capacity during national emergencies. Reauthorizing the DPA is not just about extending existing authorities, frankly, it's important that we modernize them for the very different, very real threat environment we face today. The need for a robust and proactive DPA and broader defense industrial base in the United States has only intensified as the geopolitical threats we face loom larger, supply chains reveal themselves to be fragile, and emerging technologies continue to change the supply chain landscape. That being said, as the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, it is our job to assess how existing DPA authorities are implemented and executed to ensure they are operating at peak effectiveness and that they are mobilized for efficiency. Ahead of today, the committee has held two hearings focused on DPA. The last DPA reauthorization occurred in 2018 and since then, the use of DPA authorities has expanded, raising a few important questions for this committee to consider. How do we ensure accountability and transparency in how DPA funds are deployed, how do we better coordinate across agencies and the private sector, and how do we strike the right balance between preparedness and responsible use of federal authorities? COVID in particular highlighted these changes and this is the first attempt to reauthorize this in the wake of COVID. These are just a few of the guiding questions that shaped our approach to the legislation. So I'd like to provide an overview of a few key updates that we will be considering today. First, governance matters. The interagency DPA committee structure that oversees DPA investments should be modernized to meet today's challenges. A more formalized governance framework with reallocated roles, clearer lines of authority, and a strong congressional reporting obligation would improve transparency while also preserving the agility that makes DPA effective in the first place. Second, the DPA should be about preparedness, not just a reactionary crisis response. The legislation not only requires clear strategies for national defense priorities from critical minerals to shipbuilding, it holds DPA agencies accountable for delivering results. At the same time, this bill helps ensure that the DPA's immense powers cannot be abused through ad hoc interventions in consumer markets. Third, today's supply chains and industrial challenges can require substantial capital, whether it's related to critical minerals, advanced manufacturing or innovative technologies. However, Congress should institute clear guardrails on equity investments made under Title III. A defined cap on government equity could prevent mission creep and ensure that the DPA remains a targeted instrument, not a standing industrial policy for day-to-day use. The government should only enter into an equity position when necessary and should exit as soon as practical. As an alternative, I would highlight the bill's establishment of a new critical minerals initiative that would draw on offtake agreements to incentivize new production without the need for government control of the industry. My colleagues and I have approached this reauthorization as an opportunity to strengthen and recalibrate this vital tool that underpins our nation's ability to prepare for and respond in times of crisis. In an era of great power competition, ensuring that we call on our industrial base is critical for our success. So I urge all of our colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which would refocus the DPA with purpose and a commitment to national defense. I am encouraged by how collaborative this process has been and hope it continues to be that way as we get it across the finish line. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, seeks recognition, the gentlewoman from California, the ranking member is recognized to strike the last word.

I move to strike the last word.

Recognized for five minutes. Gentleman yields back. Seeks recognition, the gentlewoman from California, the ranking member is recognized to strike the last word.

I move to strike the last word.

Recognized for five minutes.

The Defense Production Act of 1950 is a 75-year-old law that grants the President the authority to prioritize, allocate, and accelerate the production of industrial resources to meet national defense, security, and emergency preparedness needs. It is a necessary proven act that has allowed the government to pivot before or through emergencies, speeding up the manufacturing and distribution of goods like vaccines and masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. The law has also been deployed in response to natural disasters like the Hurricane Katrina recovery and to refill stocks of supplies after the United States has distributed to allies like Ukraine. DPA's powers can and have been used for good. In the hands of the wrong leadership, however, it is a heavy authority that has the potential for abuse. The ability to direct the activities of the private sector and to redirect whole industries is one not to be taken lightly. It is one thing to rate contracts for the manufacture of ventilators in a pandemic or for shipbuilding in a storage, directing funds where they are needed most. It is wholly another to use prioritization or DPA's penalties as a means of forcing companies to bend a knee to a president or his arbitrary will. Recently, the Defense Department has tried to force Anthropic, an AI company, to allow AI to be used to surveil Americans and operate autonomous killing machines. It has also been reported, however, that Secretary Hester is using these authorities to pressure Anthropic because he considers the company too "woke." That is why H.R. 7688 is a necessary piece of bipartisan legislation that strengthens the law for the next 75 years and rein in abuses of power. It makes significant improvements to organize the Defense Production Act so that agencies are better prepared to respond to emergencies that impact the national defense. It will strengthen congressional oversight of these activities and it will improve ethics, equity, and even fraud risk management standards. It increased caps and encourage innovation. In particular, I'm pleased that we have a strong conflict of interest provision that will block DPA funds from benefiting the President or his family. We appreciate the collaboration from Chairman Hill and his staff and the bill sponsors on developing this important text. Several provisions introduced by our Democratic members are also included in the bill, such as a provision by Mr. Himes that I want to thank Representatives Beatty and Vargas for their work and leadership as well. And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The vice chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I move to strike the last word...

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. And I do want to say thank you to my friend and colleague, Mr. Davidson, for his work on this. This is an area that I had responsibility for early in my time here in Congress and I know the effort and the time that you and your staff have put into this reauthorization. And quite honestly, I'm very glad to see it's moving on a bipartisan basis. That is an important step, I believe. The DPA provides the President, but that means all presidents, with a broad set of authorities to ensure that the U.S. domestic industry... and my deep apologies for that. That would be Mrs. Huizenga calling right now. So I'll... it is a priority, I hope she understands. I don't dare tell her I'm reclaiming my time. So... and dear Lord, I hope this isn't being recorded right now.

Would Mrs. Huizenga like to engage in a colloquy?

I definitely reclaiming my time right now. All right. So as I was saying, there is a broad set of authorities that ensure that all presidents have the ability to meet the time and the need and I think it's important to remember that that priority is national defense requirements. It was enacted in 1950, I won't go over all the history, but since then Congress has reauthorized DPA provisions on at least 53 separate occasions. Early years, the administrations did use DPA to expand missile production and things like that that were tied to national defense. But recently, we saw the prioritizing of baby formula deliveries, which many of us opposed during the Biden administration. Some could label that an abuse of power. But we have seen over the last five years truly how it's been laid bare, especially during the periods of national emergencies such as we had during the COVID pandemic. And the ranking member alluded to the ventilator situation and that was one of those things that was exposed. We everything from paper masks to ventilators to pharmaceuticals, we were overly dependent and there was discussion of Ford Motor Company having to go into the ventilator business of manufacturing and fortunately they did that on a voluntary basis and we didn't have to deal with that. So I want to say thank you to them for that. But that's the type of thing that that tool has traditionally been used. During the field hearing that Mr. Davidson had had during August, we discussed how COVID-19 pandemic exposed this reactive posture and that reactiveness during a national emergency often creates a delayed and chaotic response. Today's bill is going to help modernize the DPA, allowing all presidents to be proactive and bolster our domestic capabilities. It's important to note that some DPA provisions haven't been updated in over 70 years. The DPA Modernization Act of 2026 provides clarity, recognition, and prevents abuses that have occurred in prior administrations. The bill cuts red tape by allowing regulations to be revised or waived for the procurement of critical technologies and critical minerals, which is especially timely as the United States moves to onshore our own supply chains and counter China's manipulation of critical minerals and rare earths. The bill places important guardrails on government acquisition authority by capping federal ownerships at 15 percent, ensuring that private sector is given an opportunity to compete. And that is one of the, I know one of the guideposts that Mr. Davidson has had, that is one that I share with him. And lastly, H.R. 7688 provides the DPA as a strategic tool by requiring industrial base assessments and plans to address certain national defense contingencies, including steps to ensure supply chain resilience. So Mr. Chairman, I believe that the bill before us today is a very, very good first step and letting the DPA expire would be a costly strategic mistake. So I urge all members to support the bill, yield back the balance of my time and I will be calling Mrs. Huizenga back immediately. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Nunn of Iowa, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate everybody coming together to discuss the Defense Production Act and that it falls into this very committee is very, very important. I'm proud to co-lead the DPA Modernization Act of 2026. Congress created the DPA for one purpose and one purpose alone, securing and financing our national defense. However, in the last six years, the DPA has produced only one allocation order and one loan. When Lockheed Martin needed surge capacity for Javelin missiles after Russia invaded Ukraine, the DPA moved too slowly to prove helpful. Yet the previous administration spent more DPA dollars on heat pumps than missiles. This bill would help fix that. I'm proud to have championed three provisions in this bill and have been glad to work across the aisle with good partners on making this a success. The first is the FORCE Act, which I introduced with Representative Himes. In the book Freedom's Forge, it tells the story of how America won World War II, not just on the battlefield, but on the factory floor. William Knudsen, straight out of General Motors, oversaw converting America's industrial war fields to a war production capability. At Ford's Willow Run plant, Charles Sorensen turned an empty field into a factory production, producing one B-24 Liberator bomber every 63 minutes. Now neither man was a government employee. They were private sector experts and they answered the call, saved the free world. And that's exactly what this FORCE Act intends to do. We saw that we do not have on the bench the ability to cover down on every challenge we have, but we do have partners who are ready in the private sector to stand shoulder to shoulder with us. When COVID hit, the government scrambled to find people who understood supply chains and logistics. As a result, we improvised back then. We cannot improvise if it comes to a conflict with a near-peer adversary like China. The FORCE Act rebuilds what Freedom's Forge described, a National Defense Executive Reserve of engineers, logisticians, supply chain experts who volunteer, who train with us in advance, who are ready and on standby in our federal agencies when they are needed most to defend our nation at a time of a national security. Let's build the bench before the game even gets started. The second effort we are leading is the ARSENAL Act. Today, the Defense Production Advisory Committee members in the Department of Energy cannot find enough in real time to, excuse me, the Defense Production Advisory Committee members at the Department of Energy cannot find out in real time what the Department of War already funds. My bill would create a live dashboard, instantly visible to every member of the DPA Advisory Board action to be able to action things across the government. This means no more duplications, no more silos, just full transparency and full accountability. This improves on capabilities we have already in existence and makes them far more effective moving forward. Third, I co-led the CLEAR Act, which strengthens the DPA Committee's structure and coordinating because of a strategic tool, it's only as good as those who are wielding that strategy. This bill also strengthens our critical mineral process at a time when we need it most by launching a Critical Mineral Resilience Initiative. The initiative fast-tracks permitting for domestic mineral projections and creates price floors and offtake agreements to make America production viable. Just last month, President Trump invoked the DPA to protect glyphosate, the crop protection tool Iowa farmers put on millions of acres every growing season because we simply lack enough domestic production here, we need to be able to protect it. Iowa's farmers should not depend on Beijing to know whether they're able to plant corn crop this year. We cannot defend this country on supply chains we do not control. The DPA moves too slowly under current authorities and the authorities are divergent in their purposes. Our ability to track, to streamline and provide clarity are muddled. And if asked today at the Department of Energy or the Department of War or any of our other agencies where they've been able to succeed in track this, they would return a blank sheet of paper. This is no longer acceptable. This is no longer successful in today's modern era. These three in tandem with the DPA provide us a pathway forward. And these three additions to the DPA will help fix the challenges that I've highlighted. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and pass this. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield my time.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Seeing no other speakers, I'll recognize myself for five minutes. I want to thank Warren Davidson, the chairman of our committee on national security, our vice chairman, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Nunn, ranking member on the subcommittee, Ms. Beatty, and Mr. Vargas, all for their collaborative good work in a bipartisan way to modernize the Defense Production Act. Since 1950, you've heard it noted that it's been reauthorized 50-plus times, but it's become a hodgepodge of disjointed statutory language. We've found in collaborating together across both sides of the aisle there's some real reforms that would make it more accountable and I think those are really well outlined in this bill. Our approach is that the Defense Production Act is not merely a tool, but it's a vital national defense imperative, one that has to be sharper, faster, and more focused on its core mission. This bipartisan bill reflects that both on financial accountability, the direction of the Defense Department, how it's utilized, how the accountability following its utilization is monitored. And I want to commend Mr. Davidson for holding hearings both in Washington and out at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, along with numerous meetings with stakeholders and specialists in order to try to get this draft bill right. The result is the bill will be, I think the DPA will be less scattershot and a lot more strategic, less ad hoc and more accountable, meeting real defense needs. The executive will be required to formulate plans and deliver on them. We will incentivize the creation of new mines and critical minerals and refineries to diversify our supply chains away from a dependency on hostile players such as China. And we will establish real interagency leadership and real-time monitoring of the DPA activities. Modernization also means reorganizing the statute as itself. As I noted in a few seconds ago, the current law is confusing and in some cases outdated even for those who try to implement it and use it on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Davidson's bill provides a clearer framework that will improve implementation and even basic readability. In an era of strategic competition, our adversaries are moving with urgency as they advance new technologies, ramp up production capacity, and pour resources into their own strengthening of their own defense industries. The United States must not only match but exceed that urgency to reinforce the position as the world's leading defender of freedom. This bill is a product that exemplifies agreement on both sides of the aisle on how best to accomplish that. The reauthorization and update of DPA will strengthen resilience in critical sectors such as critical minerals, helping to create a constellation of new processing facilities here at home and importantly in allied nations. It will expedite the procurement process. It will enhance the efficiency and coordination of both the DPA Committee and the DPA Fund, in other words, the behind-the-scenes administrative functions of putting defense production powers into action. And it will make the DPA more accountable for achieving real strategic ends from, as I noted, critical minerals, which is today's big issue on defense supply chain, to public health response to shipbuilding. In recent years with the pandemic and Russia's illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, supply chain disruptions have clearly exposed the fragility in America's productive capacity, impacting our ability to adopt quickly and maintaining continuity across those essential supply sectors. We cannot wait for the next crisis to expose more gaps. The enhancements to DPA we're considering today are long overdue and I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their diligent work to make this proposed set of changes a reality. I urge all my colleagues to support the DPA Modernization Act of 2026 and I yield back the balance of my time. Who seeks, anybody else seek recognition on the ANS? Seeing none, we'll move to amendments. Anybody wish to offer an amendment to the ANS? Ranking member's recognized.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

We will pause for the amendment to be distributed.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

We will pause for the amendment to be distributed.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from Indiana. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman has reserved a point of order. Thank you. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment, excuse me, an amendment to H.R. 7688 offered by Ms. Waters of California designated as Waters 142.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read and I now recognize the ranking member to describe her amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would prevent the Defense Production Act from being used for any presidentially declared emergencies related to domestic federal elections. President Trump was busy last week between threatening a private company and starting a war with Iran. It is also reported that he is working on a plan to take over American elections. The Washington Post and other media reported that the Trump administration is circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims that China interfered in the 2020 election. It's silly enough that this grown man is still upset about his loss. In that draft order, Trump refers to the Defense Production Act authorities three times, attempting to build the case for being able to suggest voting machines are invalid. This is outrageous and would undermine the confidence of the American people to exercise their right to vote. To make it clear to the president that this is unacceptable, this amendment says that DPA funds may not be used to address federal elections. And so, I am pleased about the bipartisan work that we're doing on DPA. I'm pleased about the bill that we have before us and the work that has gone into it. But I think that it is very important for us to recognize that our national elections cannot be interfered with by the president of the United States, angry because he feels that he was undermined in some way. And so, this is a huge possibility that the president would attempt to use the DPA to deal with federal elections. We know that the president does not like, well, mail voting. We know that the president wants additional identification. We don't know what all that identification will be that he would require, but the president is actively working to federalize elections. This is scary, this is possibly unconstitutional, and I think that the members of this committee know and understand that this is a real threat to our elections. And even though we have worked so well on this DPA bill, I just believe that it is important that we take action to stop the president from using DPA to federalize elections or interfere with the elections in the way that he is promising to do. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlewoman yields back. Who seeks recognition on Ms. Waters' amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Wait before, excuse me one second. Does the gentleman from Indiana insist on his point of order?

Withdraw it.

Gentleman withdraws point of order. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Davidson of Ohio, the chairman of our national...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do oppose this amendment. The vast majority of the DPA Modernization Act has been public for around nine months now. The majority has worked in good faith with the minority members to craft a strong bipartisan product. This is the first that we've even heard of the minority's interest in constraining the DPA's use in elections, and we have not had any time to consider all the implications of her amendment or to make sure it's properly focused. It would be irresponsible, therefore, to adopt her amendment. What we can say with certainty already, though, is it has some flaws. For instance, we do need to fortify our election infrastructure and guard against foreign attacks, such as cyber intrusion from Russia or China. The minority amendment would make it impossible to use DPA to do things like that that are essential for national security and election integrity. In other words, the minority's amendment would directly undermine election integrity in the United States. It's simply contrary to the objectives of the DPA to prevent it from protecting critical infrastructure. So, you know, I think that is a real threat here. And outside the scope of this amendment, I do hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to make sure we have election integrity, and that would mitigate any need for any emergency action to be taken if we bolster our own laws. So I hope that becomes bipartisan. So again, I oppose this amendment and I urge all of our colleagues to vote no. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition on Ms. Waters' amendment? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays have it and the amendment is not adopted.

Request a recorded vote.

The gentlewoman requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hands, a recorded vote is so ordered. But pursuant to subsection C5 of rule three of the committee rules, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We'll now move to the next amendment to Mr. Davidson's ANS. The gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendment is at the desk, it's business number 90.

We'll pause while it's distributed.

I request a point of order.

Gentleman requests a point of order. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7688 offered by Mr. Liccardo of California, designated as Liccardo 090.

Without objection, the amendment's considered read, and I now recognize the gentleman from California to describe his amendment. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. I appreciate very much the very good bipartisan work that has resulted in the crafting of this reauthorization of the Defense Production Act. Like our national defense, AI safety should not be a partisan issue. According to a recent Gallup survey, by a ratio of eight to one, U.S. adults believe government should maintain rules for AI safety, even if it means developing AI capabilities more slowly. That's 79 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Democrats urge AI safety over other goals. Agentic misalignment is not yet a household term, but it soon will be. In Silicon Valley where I live, it's on the mind of every AI researcher and engineer with whom I talk, including those who work at the largest hyperscalers. Even the most optimistic among them warn of the potential misuse of AI to produce very dystopian outcomes. A $380 billion hyperscaler, Anthropic, has warned the Pentagon and the public of the potential misuse of its product for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens and for autonomous killing machines that could exceed human constraint. They seek reasonable guardrails. They believe so strongly in those guardrails that they're willing to walk away from a lucrative government contract without them. In full disclosure, I am a Claude subscriber, but I can't claim to have used it to create any homicidal bots. Regardless, when the company that designs and builds the jet fighter is telling us when to use the brakes, we should listen. Instead of listening, the Pentagon's bureaucrats and lawyers believe they know better. They can fly the plane without brakes. Instead of listening, they're threatening. They told Anthropic that if they sought guardrails, they'd blacklist the company as a supply chain threat, preventing any other government agency from buying their software. Ironically, the Pentagon also invoked the Defense Production Act and threatened to deploy Anthropic software without paying the company a dime for the next six months. So let's be clear. The people who built a very complex technological tool seek guardrails to protect the American public from its misuse. And they are not simply being ignored by the government. The government has a right to ignore them. They're not simply being passed over for another company. The Pentagon certainly has a right to do that. They're being punished for seeking guardrails. The Pentagon's response publicly has been, don't worry your pretty little heads, when we deploy AI tools, we'll follow the law. There's only one problem with the Pentagon's approach. There is no law. The law is years behind the technology. The American public eagerly awaits this Congress or this administration to enact laws providing reasonable safeguards for AI use. But nobody should hold their breath. The same American public has waited 30 years for Congress to enact a simple data privacy statute that every industrialized nation on the planet has enacted. The same American public has waited three decades for online protections for children, lacking even modest changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act since 1996. The only response from the majority in Congress or this administration has been to propose moratoria of state laws that might provide AI guardrails without any federal AI safety law to supplant those state rules. Nonetheless, the Pentagon persists in saying, don't worry, we'll follow the law. To Secretary Hegseth, I say, please forgive the American public for demanding a more sober approach to AI. Let's also be clear about the power granted to the federal government by the Defense Production Act. It gives the Pentagon a uniquely daunting power to commandeer the private sector to serve national security. We should all be very wary of abuse of this very expansive authority. The Supreme Court expressed its wariness in 1952 when it struck down President Truman's assertion of presidential authority to seize Youngstown steel mills during the Korean War. This very committee has expressed its own wariness by its changes to this very reauthorization bill by narrowing the scope of the Title I authorities to declared national emergencies. That is the right thing to do. If we believe in capitalism, then we should agree that we must constrain the federal government's potential to abuse its power to dictate prices, production, or the paths of supply chains. But there's another concern. We cannot deploy and build AI in a climate of fear if it's to be trustworthy. And we certainly cannot have honest conversations about AI if people and companies are afraid to speak. And we cannot protect the American public. This amendment offers a very narrow essential intervention. Thank you, I yield.

I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Indiana insist on his point of order?

I withdraw my point of order.

Is there any further debate on this amendment? Gentleman from Ohio.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do strike the last word and I do oppose the gentleman's amendment. DPA regulations have long codified common sense limits to the government's ability to compel the private sector. For instance, a private sector entity may reject a DPA order if it doesn't actually provide a good or service. There are limitations there. And I think the gentleman's right to be concerned about artificial intelligence. It was one of the big pushbacks to, you know, just a sentence or two kind of granting blanket immunity to artificial intelligence companies last year. And when we got a clean vote on that in the Senate, it was rejected 99 to one. So I am hopeful that there's bipartisan collaboration on artificial intelligence and we do need a federal standard there. But we shouldn't try to... We haven't even figured out what to do on artificial intelligence as a body. So the idea that we're going to figure that out and jam it into this amendment, I think is problematic. But I would love to work on this. I recently authored an op-ed highlighting that in the movie I, Robot, they at least had three laws. We haven't passed anything. I like that Elon Musk has highlighted that AI should be maximally truth-seeking. And so I think this is a timely debate for an artificial intelligence bill, but I do think it's kind of out of place on this bill that has remained bipartisan and is intended to become law. And I think it would become a diversion from an otherwise very collaborative process. And so for those reasons, I oppose it, but want to continue working on the substance of the gentleman's concern and would love to work with you on that, Mr. Liccardo. I yield back, Chairman. I oppose it, but want to continue working on the substance of the gentleman's concern. And would love to work with with you on that, Mr. Liccardo. I yield back, Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to support Mr. Liccardo's amendment and I want to pick up on something that my friend from Ohio just raised because I want to support this on both moral and literary grounds. Isaac Asimov probably thought more about robots and how to fit robots into an ethical framework than darn near anybody. And I want to just remind everybody of those three laws that Mr. Davidson mentioned, which were essential to making sure that robots don't destroy us. The first law, a robot may not injure a human being or through inaction cause a human being to come to harm. The second law, a robot must obey orders given by a human except when such orders would conflict with the first law. And number three, a robot must protect its own existence except if this conflicts with the first or second law. Now this all sounds very literary, I guess. But the whole idea is that if you don't have those protections, then we lose control. And we are now sitting here with a Department of Defense led by Major Hegseth who would like to use robots to kill human beings. Who would like to be in a position of directing robots to kill human beings. Who would like to take a human out of the loop and would like to destroy those robotic agents that would satisfy the first two laws. Now we are not rich with AI companies who seem particularly compelled by ethics. We got a whole lot of AI algorithms out there who will happily tell you how to commit suicide, who will happily tell you how to produce explosives, who will happily tell you how to launder money. And there was a story recently, happily told somebody how to hack into their robot vacuum cleaner to access the controls over 9,000 robot vacuum cleaners operating as far away from Germany and pick up video feed from those agents. The fact that we have one AI company who is trying to be somewhat more ethical than the others and the Department of Defense is stepping all over them is both immoral and ignorant of the finer works of Isaac Asimov and Will Smith. And on that basis, I would encourage support of Mr. Liccardo's amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Dr. Foster, you're recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, and I'd like to speak in support of this amendment and associate myself with every one of the words of Mr. Liccardo's description of this amendment and why it's important. You know, I'm a physicist, and there are many, many echoes of where AI is today and where we were at the birth of the nuclear age and the atomic bomb. During World War II, when it became clear that the atomic bomb was feasible, we saw the greatest agglomeration of talent come together to save the free world on the Manhattan Project. And we had at that time an exigent threat and we had a declaration of war, which we don't have now, which may or may not be relevant to this discussion. But you know, at the end of that, the brilliant set of physicists had to make a decision of what they would continue to work on and what they would not. Many, including the gentleman who started the laboratory where I worked for 25 years, Fermi National Accelerator Lab, Bob Wilson was a key player in the Manhattan Project, and when the war was over, he turned in his security clearance and never touched anything again. Others believed that the threat was so real that they pushed hard, like Edward Teller is one, who pushed very hard to develop not only nuclear weapons, but thermonuclear weapons, hydrogen bombs. And that was very divisive inside the physics community. And but great debates were had. You know, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was born at that time to try to have the discussion of what we should be working on. Because the truth of the matter is, technically, there's a very small number of really brilliant people who are crucial in this technology, no different than what happened in the Manhattan Project. And you're not going to get those people to come and work in the United States, in a company in the United States, if they know that the fruits of their efforts can be seized for projects that they believe will put our world, their families, the American public at risk. And those risks are not only external from competitors, they're also internal from the risk of surveillance. And so I think it's interesting and important that in all the time we've had the Defense Production Act, it has never been used to threaten the company that a company founded by one of these people. Many of the scientists went off and founded companies to work on the peaceful use of the atom or on military uses of the atom, but they never felt that their company would become a target if they made a decision that they would only work, say, on peaceful uses of the atom. And so this is really what this amendment's about. The best and brightest to come to these companies will only come there if they have the assurance that their best efforts will be towards the betterment of mankind. That's worked very well in the case of nuclear energy and the Defense Production Act coexisting for that time, and I think we should apply those principles here explicitly in the case of artificial intelligence because of the recent threats that we've heard about. That's why I support this amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Seeks recognition? Ranking Member, recognized to strike the last word.

I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

As I mentioned earlier, the Defense Production Act can be used to force private companies to take certain actions, making it a very heavy authority. When used in response to a national emergency like a pandemic, this can benefit all Americans. Unfortunately, as recent examples demonstrate, when used as an arbitrary tool to force companies to bend a knee, it is also a power that can be abused. The headlines about the Pentagon, President Trump, and the American artificial intelligence company, Anthropic, should disturb everyone. It should be unnecessary to need to remind the Trump administration that Congress and the American people will not tolerate surveillance of Americans. Let me repeat, surveillance of the American people. It should be unnecessary to tell them that fully autonomous weapons that use AI, not people, to make decisions about who to kill are also unacceptable, putting America's warfighters and civilians at risk. But on top of these troubling issues, we find the Defense Production Act raised as a weapon to punish American companies with whom the administration sees as political foes, rather than as a tool to facilitate collaboration and innovation to benefit America's national defense. This is a completely inappropriate use of DPA. Representative Liccardo's amendment would prevent any president from using DPA to punish firms for trying to mitigate risk of human harm, particularly when those harmed are members of the American public. This is a reasonable addition to the bill and one that all members should embrace. I support this bill and I ask the other members on this committee on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

Gentlewoman yields back. Who seeks recognition on the Liccardo amendment? Seeing no other speakers, I'll recognize myself. Oh, sorry, Mr. Barr from Kentucky. You're recognized to strike the last word.

Move to strike the last word.

Recognized for five minutes.

I want to yield my time to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I just think it's appropriate to address specifically some of the concerns here with artificial intelligence. When you look, for example, how air defense works today, shooting down a missile in the sky, no one can make that many targeting decisions that fast. And they make it using the benefit of machine learning to even select the target and to deconflict targets so that you don't shoot two or three missiles at the same thing and you try to take, you know, you're wasting resources. The machine learning is able to be applied to that in a defensive technique, and you could easily see how that would pivot to say, well, we're not just going to shoot a missile down out of the sky, we're going to find where they were shooting it from and engage in targeting. And the Pentagon, in this particular case that's continually sort of passively being referenced or directly at times in the debate, said we will comply with all laws. But the company in this case said, no, no, we want to apply our own company policies. Well, is your company policies supposed to trump law? And when you've sold this to the United States, should the United States then be able to use it for all lawful purposes or is it all going to be licensed and restricted? And those are the kinds of debates we're having. And when the normal market's functioning, you don't even need to invoke the Defense Production Act. You know, so this is for extraordinary use, break in case of emergency reason we have the DPA. I do think we're way early on regulating AI and it's going to be hard for this body to function in a way that keeps up with the pace of the market and the technology in artificial intelligence. So I do hope we can have a maybe a bipartisan working group or task force to talk about AI. We've done that as a body, but there are a whole range of things that we ought to be doing to get momentum behind passing this. And you know, I hope this kind of serves as an impetus to build that. But I do think that it would be a diversion from the focus of this bill and again encourage everyone to oppose the amendment. I yield.

Yield back. Gentleman from Kentucky yields back. Recognize myself for five minutes. I think this has been a good discussion. I appreciate the gentleman from California raising this issue and I appreciate the comments that the chair of the subcommittee has made. So let's kind of take these things one step at a time. Let's first of all focus on this issue of the retaliation issue. You know, the DPA regulations have long codified common sense limits on the government's ability to compel the private sector. So for instance, the private sector entity may reject, as Chairman Davidson noted a few minutes ago, a DPA order if it doesn't actually provide a good or service. The company may reject a DPA order if the government doesn't regularly meet established terms of sale. So the idea is that DPA should be trying to manage scarcity. At the same time, we ought to be, I think, concerned in this committee of undercutting all government authority. I think Mr. Davidson just made that point. Both the government agencies are held to a legal standard by Congress and those government agencies in turn are required to hold their contractors to a legal standard. It's especially challenging when it comes to managing risk. Meeting national defense requirements, especially during an emergency, will always entail procurement for uses that someone may have issue with. But that doesn't mean that it's the government attempting to be retaliatory or punitive. For example, in 2020, President Trump invoked the DPA to allocate resources for the production of personal protective equipment during the COVID pandemic as it broke out. Should a company have been allowed to veto the government's order, such by arguing that the DPA could divert PPE from another urgent medical need? If the company had expressed concerns and the government insisted on its allocation, would that have been retaliation? I think the argument is no. Secondly, we're talking about this particular case of Anthropic, where from what I've read and all I know about it, I've read in the press, I have no detailed knowledge of this situation. We're trying to amend our general DPA oversight bill for a specific case, a specific company, where the details around it are largely unclear, at least to this committee at this moment. What we do know is the DPA was not invoked by the president. On the contrary, the president simply ordered that all federal agencies cease the use of Anthropic's AI. And as early as this morning, one of the president's cabinet secretaries was arguing it's because they had a contract to provide the service and the proposal by Anthropic is outside that contract bound as described by our chairman, Mr. Davidson. But even if the president had ordered Anthropic to accept DOD's contract, that would not have constituted retaliation. So let me also go out to 30,000 feet. This committee has issued a joint resolution on AI, and Dr. Foster and I both served in the last Congress on the minority leader, Mr. Jeffries, and the speaker, Mr. Johnson's AI task force. And we do recognize a point that Casten made, I thought, well, which is a human in the loop in the current environment is important. And I think members on both sides of the aisle have spoken about that today. And that we want AI software, AI agents to be at the direction of human engagement. And that's an important component in our resolution that we voted out of this committee unanimously, H. Res. 1007, that Bryan Steil offered at our last markup, where regulatory agencies should expand knowledge of governance and regulatory best practices related to AI. I mean, this is the nature of our resolution that we voted on on a bipartisan basis here just a few weeks ago. So I'm like Mr. Davidson. I like the debate. I think we agree that a human should be in the loop. But I think that in this context, in the DPA modernization, that I cannot support the gentleman's amendment. But I hope he will continue to work with the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Davidson, and that good work like Dr. Foster and I did on the AI subcommittee can be used to guide America's oversight through its Congress of how artificial intelligence is used not only in the intelligence and defense industries, but right here relevantly at the Financial Services Committee. I believe the gentleman's amendment would undermine the crucial accountability issue and invite endless second guessing at various scenarios where we need speed and agility to safeguard our national security. So I urge a no vote and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there any further debate? If not, then the question now occurs on Mr. Liccardo's amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays have it and the amendment is not adopted.

Request a recorded vote.

The gentleman from has requested a recorded vote. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is so ordered. Pursuant to subsection C5 of rule three of the committee rules, further proceedings on that amendment are postponed. We'll now move to the next amendment on Mr. Davidson's amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it is distributed.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. Or is it too early?

Point of order is reserved on your own member's bill. If that's fine, we'll do that. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7688 offered by Mr. Barr of Kentucky, designated as Barr 137.

With that objection, the amendment's considered read and the gentleman from Kentucky is now recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to the underlying bill and the amendment which draws from language in legislation I've offered in this Congress titled Securing Reliable Power for Advanced Technologies Act would, if adopted, strengthen the Defense Production Act's national security framework by addressing the growing energy reliability crisis that threatens America's economic and technological leadership. The reality we must confront is simple. Prosperity is energy intensive. Winning the AI race will be energy intensive. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, who as a boy attended Oneida Baptist Institute in Clay County, Kentucky, in eastern Kentucky, in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky, said that China could win the AI race and is only nanoseconds behind the United States and advancing fast. America's ability to outpace China in artificial intelligence will not hinge only on chips and code, but on the energy supply that powers them. China's AI buildout is backed by guaranteed stable baseload generation, ensuring their hyperscale data centers run at full capacity without interruption. Every week, China permits two coal-fired power plants to keep up with this soaring demand. The United States, on the other hand, has created for itself a self-inflicted energy crisis. As a result of Obama and Biden era policies, the United States has prematurely retired 290 coal-fired power plants over the last 16 years. Our country's energy demand is at the highest in our nation's history and is projected to increase 50 percent by 2050. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, data center demand is likely to double or even triple by 2028 as AI adoption, industrial electrification, and manufacturing expansion converge. Goldman Sachs estimates that data center power demand may rise by 160 percent by 2030, driven in large part by AI workloads. McKinsey predicts that data centers could consume nearly 12 percent of all U.S. electricity by 2030. Without policy changes, the U.S. is set to lose an additional 104 gigawatts of firm baseload generation capacity by 2030 while only adding 22 gigawatts in that same timeframe. Our country's energy demand is at the highest, and yet our desire, our will to put on new energy production capacity is not there. We're set to lose 104 gigawatts, as I said. This shortage was not inevitable. It's the direct result of Washington repeatedly moving the goalposts on the very source of power that keep our grid stable and imposing new rules. When the federal government changes the terms in midstream, it doesn't just create uncertainty. It imposes real financial losses. It strands capital and discourages further investment into dependable baseload generation our grid relies on. Over time, that instability has forced plants offline and chilled new baseload development precisely when we need it the most. This instability has not been limited to fossil fuels. Across the energy spectrum, from nuclear to renewables, regulatory whiplash has undermined long-term investment and grid reliability. Nearly 10 gigawatts of nuclear capacity has been retired over the past decade, with additional closures looming, often driven by shifting policy frameworks and market distortions rather than technical failure. When Washington sends inconsistent signals across all generation types, the result is the same. Fewer reliable sources coming online as demand accelerates. Fortunately, the Trump administration is committed to restoring American energy dominance and eliminating burdensome unfunded mandates that have hamstrung energy producers for far too long. To fully realize that commitment, Congress must reinforce it with durable policy reforms that provide stability that allows for long-term investment. As I've discussed before in this committee, we need to depoliticize the financial system and modernize permitting. But we also need to ensure energy investments are protected from sudden federal actions that undermine their viability. This amendment would create a new energy security trust fund within the Defense Production Act to prevent major power plant investments from being derailed by abrupt federal regulatory changes. By creating a self-funded trust fund, which would be managed independently to prevent political interference, this amendment would provide targeted compensation to power plants when new federal statutes or finalized rules materially impair the facility's ability to operate, reimbursing them for a percentage of lost revenue. Basically, political risk insurance. Enrollees pay premiums and enrollment fees, creating a market-based risk pool that ensures energy producers are not punished when Washington moves the goalposts. Compensation is triggered when qualifying federal action clearly and directly causes at least a 10 percent sustained reduction in output for 180 days, ensuring that the program is disciplined and tied to real economic harm. I've run out of time. I've got just a few more points I'd like to make.

Gentleman yields back. We'll, I'm sure, have some help on that. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Casten. Moves to strike the last word.

So want to thank Mr. Barr for raising this and I'd spoken with him about the floor, about this on the floor. And I strongly oppose this legislation because it essentially misunderstands the entire structure of U.S. energy markets. And I say that respectfully. No one in this country has built a coal plant since the deregulatory trends of the 1990s because coal plants are lousy investments. When we deregulated our power sector in the 90s, we immediately built 200,000 megawatts of combined cycle gas turbines over the next 20 years because it was the cheapest form of generation. Lots of those investors lost their shirts because markets ultimately drove the price down and they didn't make the money they thought they were going to make. That was the result of regulation, but it was the result of regulation that embraced markets. We're now seeing surges of construction. 2,000 gigawatts of generation are in the queue right now. 2,000, yeah, gigawatts. So 2,000,000 megawatts of generation are in the queue. 85 of those megawatts are fossil fueled, the balance are solar, wind, and batteries. That's being built because people who are willing to risk private capital are saying, given the choice, I want to build an asset that has no marginal operating cost because that asset will run regardless of where power prices are. The coal industry is not collapsing because we got woke. And if we got woke, we got woke when we fell in love with markets in the 90s. The coal industry is collapsing because we embraced competition. So if we are going to argue, as Mr. Barr is saying, that when we lose market share for assets that can't compete, we're going to give them insurance, what we're basically saying is we hate capitalism. Now, I would also point out that the coal plants that have been built in this country since the 90s have almost exclusively been built inside regulated vertically integrated power markets. And remember, I'm a guy who spent 20 years building power plants. When the boiler MACT rules were passed that tightened emission standards for coal-fired boilers, the Ohio PSC was expressly asking the regulated utilities in Ohio not to accelerate their compliance because under the rate law, they had been guaranteed a return on that investment capital. And if they had retired those plants early, then they would have been forced to bring forward all the unamortized capital and lead to a gigantic price increase for Ohio consumers because they would have had to get the money back that they were guaranteed under the Ohio rate law. So in other words, they already have an insurance premium if you're sitting in a regulated market because we have centuries of ruling that says if you're a regulated utility, your regulator says I will guarantee you rate recovery, cost recovery in exchange for you meeting an obligation to serve, and then they force the retirement of that asset, the regulator is obliged to give that money back because otherwise it's a takings violation under the Constitution. We could spend a lot more time going into this regulatory history, but I say this as a guy who was competing against those because we sat there saying I have a cheaper asset, I can provide power to Ohio customers at a lower cost, and we couldn't get in there because the market was filled because of these distortions to markets. So if we are going to accept this provision, we're not protecting people from regulatory interference. We're protecting people from a trend in our history that I am frankly proud of, that over time we have gradually injected more and more competition into our energy markets. We have attracted more and more people, first the folks who were deploying combined cycles, the Dynegys, yes, even the Enrons who also went bankrupt, the Reliance, those companies who were building those assets in the '90s. Many of those assets are still running. Companies may have gone bankrupt, but those assets are now keeping the lights on. They were built by the private sector. The new assets that are being built, the solar, the wind, these are overwhelmingly being built by the private sector. So to accept this amendment, to put this in, is to say that we want to slow down that transition, we want to go back to a world that didn't embrace competition, that didn't put consumers first, was anti-market, was centrally planned government monopolies. If you're into that thing, there are countries that are into it, but I'm proud not to live in a country that prides itself on that. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Seeks recognition, gentleman from Ohio.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, I appreciate that Mr. Barr's worked hard on this. I've enjoyed collaborating with him. I'm enjoying the discussion and dialogue. And of course, Mr. Casten's had an extensive background in energy. You know, I would point out that a lot of the energy sector, including wind and solar, maybe in particular wind and solar, but certainly a lot of the energy sector isn't really market, it's all subsidized. And I think what Mr. Barr's getting after is, you know, one team comes in and favors these subsidies over those subsidies, and they want to turn the other guy's subsidies off. And maybe we should just get rid of all the subsidies, but we're not doing that. We're selectively getting rid of the previous subsidies. So I think the spirit of Mr. Barr's amendment is to let's agree that we should have an all-of-the-above policy and at least raise the stakes so that it is less like ping-pong and is at least more committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I look forward to the debate and I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barr.

I appreciate the chairman's great work on this reauthorization of the Defense Production Act. Appreciate the dialogue. Appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to offer this amendment, which I will withdraw, Mr. Chairman, and I'll explain why in just a minute. But I do appreciate my friend from Illinois's engaging in the conversation at least while we have different perspectives. Let me address the gentleman's concern for markets because the distortions in the market are government-created. It's just simply not true that private capital is moving to wind and solar because there is some kind of market demand for wind and solar-powered AI data centers. The reality is intermittent and unreliable power sources like wind and solar cannot deliver the firm baseload dispatchable power that is required for data center dominance and AI dominance. That's why China, in contrast to the gentleman's fantasy world of wind and solar-powered AI data centers, China is guaranteeing right now baseload power for their AI race, approving roughly two coal plants a week. We fiddle in this country while Rome is burning. We fiddle because the United States is debating permitting, debating wind and solar, and we're retiring firm generation every single week in this country. This country has retired 290 coal-fired power plants since 2009 when China is racing forward with baseload power. China installed 48 gigawatts of new coal-fired generation capacity and approved 67 gigawatts of further coal capacity in 2024. The CEO of a major investor-owned utility, I asked the question to the CEO recently, is it really true that coal just can't compete in the marketplace? And his answer was simple. He said no, coal can compete, coal should compete, coal is needed for us to supply the firm power, the dispatchable power for all the data centers that are coming online. But we've rejected capitalism. We haven't embraced capitalism. We've rejected capitalism with government intervention to artificially and prematurely retire our coal fleet in this country, which is essential to deliver the firm baseload power that we need. So the distortion in the market is not what I'm proposing. The distortion in the market is 16 years of bad policy that has forced us to lose our competitiveness. And so energy producers in the next few decades are going to be investing trillions of dollars, but we need to invest it in reliable power, reliable sources of power. This is a race that will shape the global economic and military dominance of the future. And we also need to keep the lights on in our hospitals, our factories, our businesses, and our homes. This amendment would remove the uneconomic disincentives to invest in and finance the firm baseload power supply that our country needs to win the AI race. It's a concept I've been working on with the Trump administration. I've spoken with Secretary Burgum, the chairman of the Energy Dominance Council, Secretary Wright, and Secretary Lutnick. This is work that is ongoing. It will be refined. We're waiting on TA from the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. But in the interest, Mr. Chairman, of producing a bipartisan product and to continue to refine the details of the administration's proposal, I will withdraw this amendment. And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your time and consideration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to address this key national security concern. withdraw this amendment. And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your time and consideration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to address this key national security concern.

I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for the good discussion today and the gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Let's see, we don't seek recognition. Let's see, are we on, but he's withdrawn the amendment. Are we still talking about it? I'll ask the gentleman from Illinois if he has still interest. Let me one second, Sam. I want to also clean up the gentleman from Ohio's for the script purposes. You had a point of order. Do you withdraw?

I do withdraw the point of order.

I thank the gentleman for that. Just a moment, let me pause for a second. I think the gentleman's withdrawn the amendment, so we'll move on to the next amendment. Is there another amendment on the Mr. Davidson's amendment in the nature of a substitute? If there are no further amendments, without objection, the previous question's substitute is ordered and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once the votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and then we'll consider the question to report the measure. We'll now move to our next bill. Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act, which I introduced. Clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.

H.R. 6955, to make improvements to the federal banking laws and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill's considered read and open to amendment at any point. I've got an amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute, copies of which were also distributed in advance. Clerk will report that amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Mr. Hill of Arkansas, designated as Hill AR 067.

Without objection, the amendment's considered read, will serve as base text for the purposes of amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act. And I want to commend Chairman Barr for his leadership and steady hand over many years, but particularly in this Congress, crafting and advancing this very balanced bill. Since becoming the chairman of the full committee, I've made it a priority to restore the strength and vitality of our community banks across our country. Community banks are not relics of the past. They are foundational to our financial system and indispensable to our economy. Our community banks finance small businesses, support family-owned farms, provide mortgages in rural communities, and serve as trusted institutions on Main Street in towns across our country. It's our duty to ensure that these community banks are not squeezed by laws and regulations that were written for the largest, most complex institutions. The United States banking system is unique now in the global economy. That uniqueness stems from the diversity, dynamic size, and scope of the industry. We do not rely on a simple small handful of megabanks like you see in Europe, like you see in Australia, like you see in Canada. We have a diverse banking system that has banks of all sizes to meet the needs of small, medium-sized, and large businesses across the country. And those different kinds of banks provide a distinct role in fueling economic growth at all elements and sizes of our economy. That diversity is a strategic advantage and promotes resilience, competition, and local accountability. But for too long, our regulatory framework put in place particularly after the 2008 financial crisis has failed to adequately distinguish between globally systematically important institutions and the more straightforward, less complex local community bank model. While well-intentioned, the cumulative weight of post-crisis regulation has disproportionately burdened those smaller, local, regional institutions, public or private, that had nothing to do with the events of 2008. In 2008, I was running one of those institutions as the CEO, and I can tell you the reaction was a gross overreaction for many of us in that community banking space. The result has been consolidation, declining de novo formation, and reduced access to capital in rural and underserved areas. This legislation takes an important first step at reversing those trends. First, it addresses the sharp decline in de novo formations. Today, chartering a new bank has become unnecessarily complex and a very expensive process. By improving transparency, clarifying supervisory expectations, and streamlining review procedures, this bill promotes responsible new bank formation, especially in communities that lack adequate access to financial services. Second, it modernizes regulatory thresholds to reflect economic reality. Risk should be driven, should drive regulation, not arbitrary numbers frozen in time. Static asset thresholds do not account for inflation or economic growth, and over time they effectively force institutions into more burdensome regulatory regimes without any corresponding increase in risk. Just like everybody complain about being pushed into a higher tax bracket when tax brackets are not indexed. By indexing the thresholds, we can ensure regulatory treatment keeps pace with the economy rather than penalizing institutions for just growing alongside of it. The Main Street Capital Access Act also makes significant improvements in bank supervision and examination, such as removing reputation risk from supervising supervision and requires regulators to rethink the exam rating system to ensure each component is based on articulate, clear, reviewable criteria. We also address the 1994 Riegle Act by having a fair appeals process. We charter new territory by advancing reforms on bank resolution framework. And in my view, this bill improves financial stability, protects taxpayers, encourages greater competition, strengthens consumer confidence in the banking system. It's a bipartisan piece of legislation and is a product of extensive work and consensus building within our committee. As the chair of the committee and as a former banker who understands firsthand the vital role of our banks, I hope everyone can support this measure and I yield back the balance of my time. Who seeks recognition? The ranking member is recognized.

I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all care about community banks and credit unions, and I was pleased when you and I were able to work out an agreement to include a bipartisan package of 12 provisions in our housing package to support these community leaders. That package recently passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 390 to nine. However, I'm disappointed that shortly after that, we are now considering this big deregulatory package made up of 30 Republican bills and just a few Democrat bills. And instead of focusing on helping our community banks and credit unions, there's a wide range of sweeping deregulatory provisions which would benefit not only megabanks but also undermines the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Indeed, this so-called Main Street Capital Access Act appears to be the most sweeping form of bank deregulation since before the 2008 global financial crisis. In the nearly two decades since that crisis, we've learned a great deal about how to maintain resilience financial system in the face of many obstacles, including through the pandemic. But this package ignores those lessons and will not only significantly roll back safeguards and oversight of the largest banks, but also undermined consumer protections and anti-discrimination measures. Importantly, while the nation grapples with an affordability crisis and surge in financial scams and fraud, costing consumers tens of billions of dollars, this package would hamper the CFPB's ability to issue any new rules, undercutting the very agency Congress established to combat financial abuses and empower consumers to protect their finances. At a time when the Trump administration has largely shut down the CFPB and this committee has failed to fulfill our statutory duty to have acting director vote testify, the last thing we should be doing is undermining the CFPB any further. Furthermore, this bill ignores the lessons from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks which failed a few years after Congress rolled back enhanced prudential standards on these banks. Instead, this bill lets even more of these regional banks escape critical safeguards that promote safety and sound. The so-called Main Street Capital Access Act falls well short of what we know can be done on a bipartisan basis to promote, preserve, and enhance access to banking services for Main Street communities. Unlike our package of community bank reforms included in the housing bill, fully nine of the provisions in this package were opposed by all Democratic members of this committee and another seven provisions were opposed by most Democrats. So instead of rolling back progress to pursue deregulation that enables unnecessary risk taking, speculation, and weakens our financial system, we should work together to strengthen community banks, credit unions, and consumer protections as well as promote access to affordable financial products and services. And so I urge members to oppose this bill and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, Mr. Barr, you're recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you. I move to strike the last word. And I want to start by applauding Chairman Hill for his leadership on this critical legislation. The Main Street Capital Access Act is exactly the kind of targeted reform needed to advance this committee's goal of making community banking great again. Community banks represent the financial backbone of this country. They finance farms, factories, family businesses, and first-time homebuyers. These institutions don't just serve communities, they are part of them. They are the engines of the American dream. They are the nurseries of the national wealth, as one of our founding fathers so famously said. But here's the hard truth. Washington has not been treating them that way. For years, federal regulators have been writing rules as if every bank in America is a trillion-dollar global institution and then acting surprised when community banks disappear. That's the result of a regulatory culture that forgot who the system is supposed to serve. The Main Street Capital Access Act is about changing that. The goal is simple. Regulation should follow risk, not size, not zip code, not political fashion. A $500 million community bank in rural Kentucky should not be regulated under the same framework built for a Wall Street G-SIB. Community banks in Kentucky face burdensome capital rules and a supervisory framework designed for Wall Street. That means higher costs, fewer loans, and more forced consolidation. And this hurts the American consumer by reducing access to credit and opportunities for small business growth. We intend to rectify this issue via this community bank package. The Main Street Capital Access Act opens the door for new bank formation, improving transparency in the chartering process, making applications more predictable, and ensuring rural and underserved communities can once again see new institutions form instead of watching their local banks disappear. We are also restoring proportionality to regulation, updating capital leverage and enhanced prudential standards so that they actually reflect a bank's risk profile, not just an arbitrary asset threshold. That means less money spent on regulatory gymnastics and more money available for loans in the community. We're also bringing fairness and due process back to supervision. Banks should not be governed by unpublished examiner preferences. They should be governed by clear rules, risk-based testing, and transparent standards. You should know what you're being judged on before you're judged. That's how a system governed by law is supposed to work. The act also addresses the structural problems that are driving consolidation. The act requires regulators to justify their actions and create clarity and predictability in the merger process so that healthy banks can grow and troubled banks can find partners before they fail. And the act ensures that when banks do fail, community banks aren't shut out of the resolution process by design. Finally, this legislation recognizes reality. Innovation is happening whether Washington likes it or not. The question is whether it happens inside the banking system where it's supervised and safe or outside it where it isn't. These bills let banks partner, modernize, and compete. For states like Kentucky and Texas and Arkansas, this is personal. Community banks are the financial infrastructure of rural America. When they thrive, small towns thrive. When they're regulated out of existence, capital dries up and opportunity for local ownership disappears. The Main Street Capital Access Act is a critical step toward restoring the financial backbone of this country. Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to request unanimous consent to enter into the record letters of support, many, supporting and endorsing H.R. 6955 from the following organizations: the Kentucky Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, 44 community banking associations, the American Bankers Association, Arkansas Community Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, the Community Financial Services Bank in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, Opportunity Finance Network, which is a network of 500 CDFIs across the country, the CDFI Coalition, the Community Development Bankers Association, the National Bankers Association, the Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Bankers Council.

Without objection.

And to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I want to just point out to my good friend the ranking member, her opposition to this legislation is opposition to the Opportunity Finance Network. It is opposition to the CDFIs of this country. It is opposition to the National Bankers Association, the minority depositories. Those institutions support this bill. The CDFIs, the minority-owned banks support this bill. And I would encourage all members of the other side of the aisle to join us in bipartisan support of this legislation. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Seeks recognition. Would you like? The ranking member of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, Mr. Foster, you're recognized.

I'd just like to thank the chair for all of his work with us on this. We've been negotiating really hard and it came very close. There's a bunch of good things that we support. Many of these went got strong bipartisan support, many of the individual provisions here, and many others he has generously offered to modify in ways that, as a package, probably could make them acceptable to us. But in the end, we could not get across the finish line here. And so I won't be supporting this here. However, I will direct my staff to continue working and negotiating as this moves towards the floor. If it succeeds in the House and dies in the Senate, which is very common around here, a lot of the things in this package are things that I think we should pick up and continue to work on in the next Congress if it has to. These are good things we share on an honest affection for the small community banks that are so important. I know the business I started on depended on bank support and very understanding bank support, especially in our early days, and that's pretty unique. And so I just wanted to again express my thanks to the chairman and his staff for all the negotiations and my regret that we didn't weren't able to get this done.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes.

I just want to thank the gentleman for his constructive work with Chairman Barr and myself and our staff. Appreciate your willingness to work through these issues. You certainly have our word that between now and taking the Main Street Capital Access to the floor, we'll continue to work with you and we appreciate your engagement in making sure we get the best package that we can through the House. And I yield back to the gentleman.

And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Roger Williams, you're recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

Recognized for five minutes.

Across the country, community banks are the institutions that know their customers and communities the best. They help to finance small businesses, farms, homebuyers, and local development. But too often, they are forced to navigate a regulatory structure that makes it harder to form new banks, grow responsibility, and compete. This package, the Main Street America Capital Access Act, takes a practical approach and reinforces the idea that regulation should be risk-based and tailored to the size of the institution. It promotes a greater transparency and accountability in supervision, and it works to ensure that local institutions have the tools they need to serve their communities effectively. H.R. 6955 encourages new bank formation, modernizes outdated thresholds, improves merger clarity, strengthens funding flexibility, and supports responsible innovation, all the while preserving safety and soundness. Two provisions in this package originated as bills that I introduced. One provides greater flexibility for long-term investment in growing businesses. The other enhances transparency and accountability in the merger process. So both are aimed at expanding access to capital and promoting a more competitive banking system. The Main Street Capital Access Act is about making sure financial policy supports businesses and gives them the opportunity to thrive and to succeed. I want to thank you, Chairman Hill, for your leadership and including some of my efforts in this package, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6955. With that, I yield the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Flood, who's the chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. You're recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of us in this committee have spoken about the perils of a concentrated banking system where the largest institutions just get larger, regional institutions consolidate, and community banks slowly fade away. I represent a state that is built on a foundation of community banks that are lending to farmers and small business people, to professionals, and I need this system to remain robust. Since Dodd-Frank, we have seen a 37 percent decrease in the number of commercial banks in the United States. The reality is that we are rapidly moving towards a new world that I don't think anybody in this room supports, where our banking system is more concentrated and less diverse. The Main Street Capital Access Act is legislation that would go a long way towards preventing that outcome by right-sizing the regulation for our community banks. Within this bill, there are important reforms to the exam process for small banks, the process for the formation of de novo banks, the community bank leverage ratio, stress testing, and so much more. This legislation also makes key reforms to the way the FDIC considers bids for a failing financial institution. It includes the Least Cost Exception Act, which I lead with Ranking Member Foster. As it stands currently, the FDIC must pursue the least cost resolution in the event of a bank failure. The least cost resolution requires the FDIC to take action that is the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund of all of its available options in the event of an insured depository institution being at risk of default. There are situations where there is a compelling public policy case for the FDIC to choose an option that is not necessarily the least costly to the DIF. Specifically, this would allow regulators at the FDIC to select an alternative method to handle failing financial institutions if, and this is important, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, in consultation with Treasury, determine that the potential costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund are outweighed by the benefits of limiting further concentration in the U.S. banking system. So let's think of it this way. In the event of a bank failure, we need to provide the FDIC with the flexibility to evaluate bids from smaller institutions, as long as there are guardrails in place to limit any additional cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Allow me a moment to describe some of the guardrails in this legislation. Number one, a competing bid to the least cost option resolution must be the least costly of all the alternatives, and it must exceed the cost of liquidating the troubled depository institution. Number two, the FDIC will be tasked with completing a rulemaking on the maximum cost an alternative bid that can pose to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Once that threshold is set, a bid cannot be selected if it goes above the threshold set by that rulemaking. And finally, if a bid that is not the lowest cost bid is selected, the smaller institution must agree upon a plan to pay the difference between the cost of the bids back to the FDIC. All of those provisions taken together make the Least Cost Exception Act a well-rounded and balanced piece of legislation. I feel that all of the provisions of the Main Street Capital Access will help level that playing field for community banks and strengthen the communities they serve. I urge my colleagues to support the Main Street Capital Access Act, and I yield back to the chair.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. I rise in support of the Main Street Capital Access Act and want to highlight provisions based on the legislation that I've introduced to promote bank competition and regulatory clarity. First, the Halting Uncertain Methods and Practices Act brings greater objectivity and transparency to the CAMELS rating system. CAMELS ratings drive critical supervisory outcomes, from merger approvals to deposit insurance assessments. Yet today, those ratings can rely heavily on subjective examiner judgment. Section 301 directs regulators to establish clear, articulable, and reviewable criteria for each CAMELS component and to ensure composite ratings reflect an institution's actual financial condition and risk profile. That strengthens supervision by grounding it in objective standards, not weakening it. Second, the Bank Competition Modernization Act modernizes merger review for community bank institutions. If a merger results in an institution under $10 billion in assets, regulators would no longer be required to solicit a competitive analysis from the Department of Justice. These smaller transactions rarely pose competitive concerns, yet they can be subjected to lengthy delays during the merger review process by overlapping authorities. Safety and soundness, BSA/AML compliance, or Community Reinvestment Act reviews remain fully intact. This simply aligns the analysis with the economic reality and will promote efficiency so communities can maintain access to a local-based lender by promoting mergers among community banks. Finally, the Merger Agreement Approvals Clarity and Predictability Act, Section 602 of the bill, promotes transparency and accountability in merger approvals. It directs the GAO to study how regulators use commitments and conditions in merger reviews, and whether those practices align with statutory requirements. Congress should understand whether extra-statutory considerations are creeping into what should be a disciplined, predictable review process. These provisions reinforce fairness, clarity, and accountability in supervision and merger review while preserving strong prudential oversight. I urge my colleagues to support the Main Street Capital Access Act. Thank you, and I yield back, Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Ranking Member.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Just a moment. Is anybody else seek recognition on the underlying ANS? Seeing none, we will entertain amendments. 150. And the gentlewoman has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it's distributed.

See the number again.

See the number again.

150. The number is 150.

I'd like to reserve a point of order.

Gentleman from Georgia reserves a point of order. Clerk will report.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Ms. Waters of California, designated as Waters 150.

Without objection, the amendment's considered read, and the gentlewoman from California is now recognized for five minutes to describe her amendment.

Thank you so very much. My amendment is an amendment that would authorize $4 billion in additional grant capital, capital grants, and other support to increase affordable lending in underserved communities. Mr. Chairman and members, if we face the facts of what is happening in this country, whether we're talking about urban areas or rural areas, small businesses are struggling. Not only businesses of color, business women businesses, and rural businesses in particular really do need the support of the CDFIs. It is very important that we understand the role that CDFIs play in helping communities that are overlooked, who cannot get loans from big businesses. The big businesses do not want struggling small businesses, rural or urban, in their banks. They don't have time to deal with small businesses. They don't think they make enough money off of small businesses. And so during COVID, we understood what was going on and we did something meaningful where we worked with the then Treasury Secretary and Nancy Pelosi, myself and Ms. Velázquez. We worked after the big banks had created their own panels and portals and literally took care of their big clients. And that helped the small businesses so much to remain open, to be able to help them, these small businesses, during COVID so that they could maintain, they could pay their personnel, they could keep their doors open. So CDFIs played an important role. CDFIs can continue to do that. They can continue to play an important role. Many of us represent communities in rural and urban areas that need help. This bill does not put a new dime into CDFIs. It talks about having helped CDFIs. It talks about a bond guarantee program that most CDFIs don't even use. Why don't we understand what the need is and how our small businesses cannot go to the big banks and get any help? We need to expand CDFIs so that they can leverage that money and provide substantial support to these communities that are denied. That's simply what this is all about. This is about not simply paying lip service to CDFIs and talking about what all was done for CDFIs in this bill. No, this is about this amendment is about doing something real that is really supportive of CDFIs and their ability to support small, minority, women-owned businesses, etc. And so I would ask the members of this committee to do something substantive-wise and that is to support small, minority, women-owned businesses in rural and urban areas so that they can expand their business, so they can get up to date with the computer needs that they have, so that they can be able to provide the services that are denied by the big banks who think they own this committee and think they own this Congress. Let's do something substantive for small businesses. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ranking member yields back. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, the chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

Thank you. I appreciate my friend and colleague's intent with this amendment and she has been a very well-intentioned advocate for CDFIs over the years and I appreciate that because I agree, CDFIs play an important role in expanding access to credit and support underserved communities. But it is precisely for that reason that we included in our legislation provisions into the ANS to strengthen transparency at the CDFI Fund by requiring annual testimony and further improve the CDFI bond guarantee program so that smaller CDFIs can participate. I encourage my colleague to take a look at page 13 of our bill, section 903, subsection A. There is, in fact, in our base text an authorization of appropriation. We're not Appropriations Committee, we can't appropriate, but we can authorize and we do it here. We authorize $4 billion to the Emergency Capital Investment Fund for CDFIs. Additionally, CDFIs are already treated as financial institutions and they benefit from the provisions in this bill that right-size regulation and allow banks and credit unions to get back to focusing on their customers. It is critical nonetheless that we obviously get our fiscal house in order and this amendment would increase expense for the American taxpayers. That's why I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. But I again, I would remind the gentlelady from California that it is the Opportunity Network, the Opportunity Finance Network, the CDFI advocacy groups, they are supporting the bill. They support the Main Street Capital Access Act because we are helping CDFIs. So it just doesn't make sense that we would throw the baby out with the bathwater and oppose the bill even if the gentlelady's amendment fails. And I do encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'll yield, I'll yield.

Thank you so much. Thank you so very much. Of course, CDFIs would support the bill. They're desperate. They would support anything that helps in any small way. They are appreciative, but you know what the advocates want? You know what they're pressing us for? More capital so that they can make loans to these small businesses that are so desperate to stay open. Let me tell you, with this crisis that we're in, with this crisis that we're in, small businesses are hurting and we can do more. And yes, the advocates would say thank you for any little thing that we do, but let's do something substantive. Let's put $4 billion into this bill. We can do this and it will accomplish what I think you would like to see accomplished. It certainly would accomplish what I and others would like to see accomplished and that's all. Don't think that because the advocates support it that they're happy and they think this is a great job we're doing with CDFIs. They appreciate any little thing that can be done, but let's be serious about what we can do and let's make some substantive addition to the capital that they need so desperately in order to lend in communities that are ignored, can't walk in the doors of the big banks. Please, I would ask for an aye vote on my amendment.

Gentlewoman yields back to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Yes, I yield back.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition on the Waters amendment? Anybody seek recognition on the Waters amendment?

Mr. Chairman.

Gentlewoman.

I would request the ability to correct something that was said by the gentleman relative to the amount of money in the bill. I think it's important if I may say that he indicated there was $4 billion in the bill. It's not. That's what I'm asking for.

Will the gentlelady yield? Yeah, I misspoke. I meant it was in yours. It was in yours.

Hang on. Let me do this. Let me recognize myself for five minutes. Thank you. You've made your point. Let me I'll yield some time to Mr. Barr to respond.

Yeah, I obviously misspoke.

I can't hear you.

I misspoke.

I can't hear you. Speak up.

I misspoke. Speak into the microphone. I reclaim my time. My point is the same, which is that the underlying point is the same, which is that the reason why the CDFIs support the bill is because of the relief that we offer to them, the fact that we are helping CDFIs, and the fact that we are going to empower them to do more lending into the community than they can do right now. And that's why you should that's why I would urge you and others on the committee to support this bipartisan legislation which helps all kinds of community financial institutions, CDFIs included. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back to me and I'd like to thank for that exchange and for that clarification. And I just would I would add the point that this committee on a bipartisan basis has been supportive of CDFIs. I think the committee expressed in a letter on a strong bipartisan basis the support of making the New Markets Tax Credit program permanent in the one big beautiful bill. I think in the one big beautiful bill the opportunity zones being made an important component of last year's tax measure is a gateway for greater use of CDFIs in some of our most troubled economic areas. And I agree with really both the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee in the sense that sure CDFIs support the bill because it is a net benefit to them. They're always eager for more. I think we've balanced that effectively in the bill so I would urge a no vote on the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Is there no further debate on the amendment? All those in favor of Ms. Waters' amendment say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair the nays have it. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted. We will move to the next amendment.

Recorded vote is requested on the...

I will be gracious on that. Recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of recorded vote raise your hands. Sufficient number having raised their hands, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection C5 of rule 3, the committee rules, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We'll now move to the next amendment. Gentlewoman.

I have an amendment at the desk number 148.

The ranking member has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it is distributed.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from...

Reserve a point of order.

Gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order. Clerk will report the amendment, please.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Ms. Waters of California designated as Waters 148.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read and I now recognize the gentlewoman from California to describe her amendment.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. Now look, instead of focusing on supporting our community banks and credit unions, I'm deeply disappointed in the majority's attempt to add a handful of provisions that would undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to help consumers and their ability to regulate and supervise these megabanks like Wells Fargo, which has repeatedly broken the law and harmed millions of consumers. So my amendment would eliminate the bill's various rollbacks of consumer protection. It would also fully fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and ensure they immediately resume their work to undermine and supervise megabanks that community lenders compete with. Let me be more specific. My amendment removes any proposed changes involving important consumer protection laws. This includes limiting the application of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which helps curb discriminatory mortgage lending practices, or the Truth in Lending Act, which ensures consumers understand the terms of any financing they agree to. My amendment also removes the CFPB from section 201 of the bill or the so-called Taylor Act. This dangerous section contains sweeping and harmful reforms that require the CFPB as well as banking regulators to tailor all regulation for all their regulated entities. However, because this section requires any new rule to be tailored and not just to types of institution, but every individual institution, any unique company out of thousands of banks, credit unions, or non-bank financial companies would have a basis to sue and block any new rule from being implemented. Section 205 would render the CFPB powerless if they ever tried to issue or update a rule for the benefit of consumers. So instead of rolling back consumer protections, we need the CFPB back on the beat and fully funded. So my amendment would also restore the CFPB's funding cap from the Federal Reserve to its original 12 percent level and requires the agency to resume supervision of the megabanks that community banks compete with at the same frequency and with same number of staff as in 2024. These changes would help ensure the CFPB can resume the kind of work that earned it bipartisan praise in the past from four out of five Americans and resulted in $21 billion going back to more than 205 million harmed consumers. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that Trump and too many Republicans have been focused on trying to destroy the CFPB for too long. We have fought hard. We have some support from the courts, but they are destroying the infrastructure of the CFPB, making it unworkable. You're smiling, that's what you want. But we need to fight that. We need to fight that because the CFPB is there to protect consumers. Prior to us in Dodd-Frank organizing it, consumers had nowhere to go. They could not tell about rip-offs and fraud and being undermined by all kind of big corporations and companies. And so, we on this committee have the power, if we have the will, to do something about straightening out the efforts to undermine and to deny and to destroy the CFPB. This is what this is all about. Now, I know Trump may not want you to do it, but I know you're independent. I know that Trump cannot make you do something that's not in the best interest of the consumers of this country. So I appeal to you, maybe you have forgotten your power, I don't know what it's all about, but I make this amendment because I think I want to give you an opportunity to do what is right for consumers. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman yields back. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?

No, I can withdraw the point of order.

You withdraw the point of order. Would the gentleman like to be recognized?

I would.

The gentleman's recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you. I strike the last word and, well, it wouldn't be a markup in the House Financial Services Committee if we didn't have a debate about the CFPB, right? I'm going to miss our exchanges that we have about the CFPB, but actually I think your last point about Congress reclaiming its powers is a good one. I wholeheartedly agree. And that's exactly why I think we ought to on a bipartisan basis, in the interest of advancing separation of powers in this institution, we should adopt the TABS Act, a bill I've been working on for 13, now 14 years in this body, to reclaim Congress's appropriations authority, our power of the purse over the CFPB. We have these debates. I talk about enjoying these back and forths because for 14 years the ranking member and I have been debating about this. And when we've moved from the Obama administration to the Trump administration to the Biden administration and back to the Trump administration, it's been whiplash. This agency has become a political football instead of a professional independent agency that does exactly what the ranking member and Senator Dodd and Chairman Frank wanted, which was a professional independent agency that is not political but actually does the job, the mission of promoting healthy consumer credit markets. But the gentlelady's amendment would gut this whole bill. The whole point of our legislation is to prevent the bureau's overreach, the kind of overreach that we saw in the previous administration that crippled our community banks and credit unions, that hurt consumers by basically banning in-demand financial products like overdraft, for example. The junk fee agenda harmed consumers that Mr. Chopra was advocating for. So this amendment would remove common sense updates to thresholds and remove the CFPB from requirements to tailor their regulations, establish an independent supervisory appeals process, provide a disclaimer on guidance, and remove reputational risk from their supervision of financial institutions. There's no policy basis for taking out the CFPB as opposed to other regulatory agencies that oversee our financial institutions. I would also point out that the amendment moves in the exact opposite direction in terms of streamlining supervision by requiring the exact same number of staff as the CFPB used during the end of the Biden administration. We need to get our fiscal house in order. This amendment would prevent more efficient supervision that saves American taxpayers' resources. And I'll just conclude with the point that I was making at the outset, which is that if we really want to prevent this whiplash that members on both sides of the aisle have witnessed, that the American people have witnessed over the years, where you have wild swings in the political posture or the policy trajectory of the agency, we need to reform the agency. We need to defeat this amendment. We need to recalibrate where the bureau is going so that there's not overreach. That's why we embed these reforms in this Main Street Capital Access bill. Doesn't do away with the bureau, doesn't abolish the bureau. It's not the parade of horribles that the ranking member suggested. We're just simply trying to get a tailoring of regulations and where the bureau...

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just finish the point. I will, but let me just finish one more point. And so, after we do this, after we do the Main Street Capital Access Act, let's come together and think about ways to professionalize the agency. Not abolish it, professionalize it so that we don't have these wild swings from one administration to the next and we can have durable policy and certainty and predictability in our consumer credit markets that will protect consumers and also allow our community banks, our community financial institutions to do what they do best and provide in-demand services and products to the American people. And I will yield to the ranking member now.

Thank you very much. Yes, a lot of attention has been put on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the opposite side of the aisle. Never liked it, never supported it, didn't like the fact that we did everything to protect them exactly from what has been tried to happen to undermine them, etcetera, etcetera. Now, just think if you put that kind of attention on the big banks instead of allowing them to continue to harm our consumers, rather than allowing them to continue to harm our consumers...

Reclaiming my time, because I only have 20 minutes. Reclaiming my time. I understand the gentlelady's point. The problem is trickle-down regulation. When they said that this was only for the big banks, maybe that was their intent, but maybe it wasn't. But it certainly in practice that's not been the case. This agency has harassed the smallest institutions in this country through their proxies in the FDIC. This is a problem. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition?

I have another amendment.

Is there any other debate on that amendment? Do you want time? Do you want him to yield you some time?

Oh, yes, I accept.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

Thank you. I yield my time to the ranking member.

Excuse me. Thank you very much, Mr. Casten. The question is, when will you invite the CFPB Acting Director Vogt to testify? It looks as if you took pleasure in grilling former Director Chopra, but when will we follow the law and hold the current agency accountable?

Well, I thank the ranking member for the question and you can be assured that it's still my intent to have the acting director testify at some point in the future. We have to find the right time to do that. And I go back to what I said when we talked about this at the beginning of the Congress. It was my hope that the administration would name a director that could be confirmed by the Senate and that I was initially waiting for that, but I'll be working with OMB and the CFPB on a time that the acting director can appear. Yield back to the gentlewoman.

Well, I thank you very much, but I'd like to just reiterate the point that the big banks are fined time and time again about the ways that they undermine the consumers of this country. But they don't care about the fines, it's just a cost of doing business. And we don't really use the power of this committee to be able to make those big banks do what is expected of them and all of the assistance they get in being able to operate.

Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

Yes, I yield.

Thank you. Thank you for yielding because I think you're making a good point insofar as the larger institutions can afford it. Dodd-Frank really gave the big banks an advantage because here we have an agency that imposes enormous amounts of cost and time and compliance on institutions and big institutions can handle it. Large regional banks, they don't like it, but they can handle it more than community banks. It's community banks and smaller banks that have to deal with the trickle-down regulation of the CFPB that we're trying to fix in this bill. That's exactly what we're trying to solve is we're trying to give a little bit of tailoring and a little relief to the smaller banks who can't afford...

Reclaiming my time. Let's just agree that we can work together on dealing with the problems of the big banks. That this committee is going to put some time and effort into looking at all of the claims, all of the dissatisfaction with the way that big banks operate. If we go into our communities and ask them what they feel about the big banks that they're getting services from, they'll have more complaints that we have not dealt with. Will you work with me on an idea that we need to spend time on the big banks? Do you agree?

Well, I think that the CFPB needs to be reformed for all because whether they're big or small, whether you're a customer of a large bank or a small bank, a lot of these, for example, an overdraft product is something that the American people need and want...

Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. You're not going to throw the small banks into this. I want you to know that the chairman of this committee worked with small banks. He's not going to allow you to do that. Not just I'm not agreeing to it. And so, no, don't try to throw the small banks into this. I'm talking about the big boys. I'm talking about the big banks. I'm talking about the ones who get away with paying these humongous fines over and over and over again. It's time for you who care about financial services, who care about banks, to say yes, let's always work for our communities, let's work for CDFIs, but it's time that we put some effort on the big boys, on the big banks, who are the real problem, who close their doors to small businesses and to the average person that want to get a loan. It's time for us to say open up the opportunities for these smaller banks to be able to get the kind of loans that will ensure they success. And so, I say to you, thank you for what you do on small banks. You still have a lot to do on CDFIs, but join with me in going after the big boys and the big banks because I know you're not afraid of them. I know how tough you are. I know when you get started on something, you don't let up. So I want to work with you on big banks. Do you agree?

I'm grateful for all of the banks of all sizes that they help promote American competitiveness. We need them all, we need them all. I yield back.

Gentleman's time has expired. Is there further debate on Mrs. Waters' amendments? Hearing no further debate, we'll... the question now occurs on her amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall say aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it, the nays have it, the amendment is not adopted.

A recorded vote is requested.

A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection C5 of rule three of the committee rules, further proceedings on that amendment are postponed. We'll now move to the next amendment. Who seeks recognition? The gentlewoman from California.

I have an amendment at the desk that's number 149.

We'll pause while the clerk looks for 149. And gentleman from Kentucky.

Appreciate the, gentleman reserve a point of order. Reserve the point of order.

Gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order on the Waters amendment 149. Stand by. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Ms. Waters of California, designated as Waters 149.

Without objection, the amendment's considered read, and the gentlewoman from California is now recognized for five minutes to describe her amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we have a few reforms that are responsive to the sudden failure of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional banks nearly three years ago. However, there is much more that should be done to help ensure community banks can compete with the big banks for business deposits. And more needs to be done to hold culpable CEOs of failing banks accountable. So my amendment would add my bill, H.R. 4551, the Employee Paycheck and Small Business Protection Act, that includes a maximum cap of 10 million, rather to a bipartisan bill in the Senate. However, unlike the Senate bill, my bill takes a data-driven approach, and I think the chairman prefers allowing the FDIC and NCUA to either maintain the current 250,000 threshold or raise it as high as 10 million or in any number in between based on research and weighing the cost and the benefits for such a change. The amendment also enhances emergency tools by allowing the FDIC and NCUA to establish an emergency transaction account guarantee, or ETAG program, to guarantee all deposits in transaction accounts in a future crisis for up to nine months. Any extension beyond nine months would require congressional approval. As we saw with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, when banks fail abruptly, small businesses are left scrambling to figure out how they're going to pay their hardworking employees if they lose any money, while other businesses quickly transfer their funds from trusted community banks to megabanks. With smaller banks such as the First National of Lindsay, small businesses lose funds through no fault of their own simply because their bank is too small to qualify for emergency protections. This is not fair to small businesses or their workers, and it threatens to undermine community banks and credit unions while concentrating even more power in the megabanks. The simple truth is small businesses need reliable banking services, and they should be able to work with local financial institutions in their community. Even Treasury Secretary Yellen and Vice President Vance agree. So instead of rolling back any scrutiny of bank management as section 301 of this bill would do, we need to strengthen accountability for their actions. My amendment includes another bill of mine, the Failed Bank Executives Accountability and Consequences Act. This provision would expand authority with respect to clawing back compensation, imposing fines, and banning future work in the industry for bank executives that negligently contribute to their bank's failure. A similar bill passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 21 to two. The failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank make clear that it is past time for legislation aimed at strengthening the safety and soundness of our banking system and enhancing bank executive accountability. And so I urge members to support my amendments, and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Does the gentleman from Kentucky continue to reserve his point of order?

I can withdraw.

Gentleman withdraws. Who seeks recognition on the Waters amendment? Gentleman from Kentucky.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do oppose the amendment. And let me just say I'm speaking for myself, not the chairman, not any other member of the committee, but just for myself. I look forward to working with the ranking member on and other members on this ETAG idea. I think that deserves further deliberation and and I'd like to see us make some progress on that idea in particular. But I oppose the amendment, which goes well beyond just an ETAG program. And this bill is about reducing the regulatory burden for our Main Street community banks. Tackling broader deposit insurance reform through this bill is inappropriate before we have concluded our actual review of the data and the issue. And I think this ETAG idea can be taken up separately after we do this important work. The committee has taken a data-driven approach to this issue and will continue to do so. The committee has been examining proposals for broader reform to the deposit insurance framework and will ensure that robust conversations occur before making decisions that could greatly impact the banking system, especially when it comes to assessments and and what and we really need to understand what increasing the limit of deposit insurance would mean in terms of cost to the system and to ultimately to customers. The committee sent a letter to the FDIC in December asking for more data to help inform our review. A key concern raised by that letter was that the data reported by banks on call reports is insufficient to target any proposals that would raise the insurance limit for specific account types. It is important that we are thoughtful about any additional coverage, including the costs that this may impose on financial institutions, especially community banks, through higher DIF assessments. So because we need to be very careful about those DIF assessments, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. And I'll just add that as we as we heard from Chairman Powell in the 118th Congress, this executive compensation issue that the ranking member has raised was not at the heart of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. All this amendment would do is that that part of the amendment would incentivize executives to leave the banking industry altogether or migrate to the largest institutions with the least likelihood of failure. We need we need talent to remain in some of these regional banks. The last thing we need is, you know, another Silicon Valley Bank mismanagement issue. We want we want strong management at these banks. And for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Would the gentleman yield? I will yield.

I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the ranking member for raising her concerns that she's expressed for quite some time on deposit insurance reform. She's been quite consistent on that in each of our in our meetings. And I want to thank you, Chairman Barr, for the roundtables that you've held, for the outreach that you've done, and for our very good deposit insurance hearing last fall where we heard from both small institutions like CDFIs and we heard from credit unions in your roundtable. We heard a superb presentation by the Texas Bankers Association on the big picture. And it's why we've advanced on a bipartisan basis our custodial deposits and reciprocal deposits proposals because we know that helps our smallest institutions have a diverse depository support. And we'll continue to work on that. I do agree with the chairman's comments about the data analysis that we got some support from now confirmed chair Travis Hill over at the FDIC. And it is important on not only ascertaining that right potential level of deposit insurance, but also the impact on DIF premiums and the impact on banks because that is a key component that's sort of been just accepted as we're going to work it out. And I think by being data-driven as we consider these proposals, we do need to be data-driven. And finally, both the ranking member and the chairman have talked about and you've just referenced it, the ETAG type program. And so I'm committed to continue to work with both sides of the aisle on the importance of how our deposit insurance system works. Thank you for raising it. Thanks for the good discussion. And I yield back to Chairman Barr.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on Ms. Waters' amendment? If there's no further debate, the question now occurs on Ms. Waters' amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it, the nays have it, and the amendment is the amendment is not adopted. Let's move to the next amendment. Who seeks recognition for an amendment to and Mr. Sherman of California?

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Sherman has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while that's distributed.

Reserve a point of order.

Point of order's reserved. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Mr. Sherman of California, designated as Sherma 125.

Sherma 125. Without objection, the amendment is considered read, and the gentleman from California is now recognized for five minutes to describe his amendment.

I'm glad the chairman recognized Congressman Sherman. Both credit unions and community banks play a very important role in our economy and will play an more important role in the future. Section 101 of the Main Street Capital Act provides for a three-year phase-in for de novo financial institutions that meet federal capital requirements, and it lowers the community bank leverage ratio for rural community banks to 7.5 percent. This provision is designed to help the creation of new community banks. I think that's a good idea, but I think we also need to do something similar to promote the creation of new credit unions. Credit unions play an important role in our system. They face unique challenges when a de novo institution is in creation. Startup credit unions face significant hurdles in building liquidity and the capital base necessary to serve their communities. If we want community financial institutions serving our communities, the regulatory environment should be structured to give them a realistic path to viability. If we're going to help de novo banks, we should be helping de novo credit unions. The process is different, but both play an important role. In the last five years, there were 44 de novo banks chartered. That's too small, but there were only 19 de novo credit unions, and that's way too small. And so this amendment is designed to assure a level playing field. With that, I would yield to Congressman Barr to see if he has any comments.

I appreciate my good friend yielding. I appreciate Congressman Sherman for raising the issue. I appreciate his acknowledgment that we do have a dearth of de novo charters for community banks. I acknowledge and agree with the gentleman that credit unions play an important role in the diversity of our financial ecosystem, and I'm happy to continue to work with you and your staff to address credit union issues, whether that's evaluating legislative proposals or potential hearings. I would emphasize that the Main Street Act does include already meaningful relief and right-sizing for credit unions in addition to community banks and all financial institutions. In fact, our bill directs the NCUA to issue both an annual report on federal and state credit union charter applications and a separate report on barriers to de novo credit union formation in rural areas. It also includes provisions that would require the NCUA to tailor new regulations to an institution's size and risk profile, provide certain credit unions examination relief, and establish an independent supervisory appeals process for credit unions. I think the great work of our staff, through the great work of our staff, I've been informed that I think there's 14 separate regulatory relief provisions embedded in our legislation that would benefit credit unions. And so I would urge all members to take note of that. Nonetheless, I look forward to working together to address these issues facing credit unions. And I'll yield back.

I thank the gentleman for including provisions that help both community banks and credit unions on a host of fronts. And I thank the gentleman for his commitment to work with me on the issue of credit unions that are seeking a de novo charter and the level of capital that they will be required to have in their first three years. I look forward to ensuring that credit union priorities are addressed in this committee. As I mentioned before, the goal is to create a level playing field between de novo banks and de novo credit unions. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this. Until we work out the language, I will have to oppose this bill, but I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to increase community financial institutions, both credit unions and banks. And I'm confident that this bill will be improved before it reaches the floor. With that, I would withdraw the amendment.

Gentleman withdraws the amendment. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek...

To strike the last word.

Are you going to speak on this amendment? It's been withdrawn.

Yes, on this amendment.

It's been withdrawn. He withdrew.

All right, thank you.

Is there additional amendments to the ANS? Gentleman from Illinois. The gentleman from Illinois has an amendment at the desk. We'll pause while it's distributed.

I'll reserve a point of order.

For what purpose does the... Okay. Okay, the point of order has been reserved. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6955 offered by Mr. Casten of Illinois, designated as Casten 100.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized on his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So section 404 of the current bill would require U.S. banking regulators to provide information about their interactions with global entities, and I certainly share my colleague's commitment to restoring transparency and accountability among financial regulators, especially as relates to engagement with hostile or potentially hostile foreign actors. To that end, I believe that this administration owes the same level of disclosure to the public and to Congress over its handling of Venezuelan oil funds. My amendment would direct the Federal Reserve to provide detailed information on the U.S. Treasury-run account that is allegedly holding billions of dollars in revenues from the sale of Venezuelan oil and directing payments to the Venezuelan government. Now I say allegedly because we have no actual proof that that's happening. I don't see any New Yorkers in the room, but in the words of former Knicks announcer Marv Albert, let's go to the videotape. January, President Trump announced that he had a plan to sell up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil. He subsequently issued an executive order that directed the Treasury Secretary to hold in safeguard the proceeds from the oil sales as well as to facilitate transactions of those funds as directed by the Secretary of State. Also in January, later, Secretary Rubio confirmed that $500 million in proceeds from the first sale of Venezuelan oil bypassed the United States, bypassed Venezuela, and was funneled through a bank account in Qatar without providing any transparency over those how those funds would be spent and used by the interim Venezuelan government. Secretary Rubio also claimed that the Treasury Department, emphasize Treasury Department, has a written agreement with the Venezuelan government to review monthly budget requests from this bank account in Qatar. In February, Secretary Besant, testifying before this committee, said that he was unaware or perhaps unwilling to detail where, how, or under what authority the Treasury Department was controlling those Venezuelan oil funds. He was also unaware of any authority to channel those funds through foreign bank accounts. He was also unaware of any written agreement with the Venezuelan government and said that, contravening what Secretary Rubio had said, there actually was no audit agreement. So no audit controls over the flow of funds in order to ensure that the Venezuelan government is not using that revenue to pay off Maduro's allies, including militia groups, drug cartels, maintain control of Venezuela, or going to other shady characters. Later, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said that those funds aren't going to Qatar anymore and they're being deposited in a U.S. account that's being managed by the Treasury Department. This is the account that you recall the Treasury Secretary said that he wasn't aware of and had not been responsible for setting up. And then it's owned by Venezuela's national oil company. We still at this point have no response from them on what authority the Treasury Secretary was acting under or what accounts in the Treasury Department are managing those funds. Where are they flowing? Wright said that Venezuelan oil sales so far have totaled $1 billion and in the next few weeks will bring in another $5 billion. Wright claimed that the Venezuelan government should expect up to $1.5 billion a month in revenues and that they will choose how to spend the money. He said that Venezuela's bought U.S. medical supplies and wants to make investments to repair their electric grid. Terrific. Where's the auditor? There are 91 separate Treasury accounts that we as Congress have approved to manage these funds. Secretary Treasury sat here and said I have no idea what account these are in and I don't can't tell you what the authority is, but oh by the way it's going to Qatar and I don't know where that is either and I don't have an audit agreement. It's great that they're telling us this money's out there. Trust but verify. So I have some real concerns about how quickly the administration is moving to take the sovereign assets of another country, move them into accounts, shuffle them around, we have no idea where it's going, they are not giving any visibility to Congress on how they are handling the sale of this oil, the custody of the funds, the disbursement of those funds. This is not a small arrangement. This is not a routine arrangement. This is billions of dollars from a country that's under heavy U.S. sanctions related to terrorism, drug trafficking, anti-democratic actions, human rights violations, and corruption. There is no independent auditor right now tracking that money as far as we have been advised, no public accounting, no timeline for when they might regain of those sovereign assets, and as I pointed out to Secretary Wright, there are $200 billion of creditors, the largest of which is the Chinese, who presumably believe that they have a senior claim to those assets if this is a fraudulent conveyance. So in the name of transparency, in the name of oversight, to ensure that we are not basically providing money laundering for shady actors, we need to add this amendment to this bill and make sure we add this clarity. So that's the reason for it. I hope we can all agree that those are worthwhile goals, and I hope you all share my deep concern with the unwillingness of this administration to provide any clarity on how billions of dollars are moving around that is all subject to the jurisdiction of this committee. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentleman's time has expired. I withdraw my point of order and recognize myself for five minutes to oppose the amendment. I love the gentleman's reference to Marv Albert. I'm a basketball fan. I know the gentleman's from the Chicagoland area, and so he must be, I would assume, a Michael Jordan fan. What Marv Albert also said was, a spectacular move by Michael Jordan. That's all great, but Michael Jordan has nothing to do with community banks, and neither does this amendment. And that's why I oppose it. The amendment doesn't do anything to ensure that community banks can thrive and continue to serve local communities, and we should not seek to use this important community financial institution legislation to make foreign policy decisions that go far beyond enhanced reporting requirements about federal prudential regulators or interactions with international global governance bodies. It's an important topic. Venezuela's an important topic. It's an important topic for the Foreign Affairs Committee. It's an important topic for the National Security Subcommittee here and for our oversight of the Treasury Department, but it doesn't belong in this bill, just like Michael Jordan has nothing to do with this bill and Marv Albert has nothing to do with this bill, the Venezuela issue has nothing to do with this bill, and for that reason I oppose the amendment. And I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? The gentlelady from California, the ranking member.

I move to strike the last word.

Gentlelady moves to strike word. The gentlelady's recognized for five minutes.

I would like to thank our colleague Mr. Casten for his good work to seek out answers from the Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of the American people and to demand greater transparency from this administration and visibility into its opaque dealings concerning Venezuelan oil. This common-sense amendment would require the Fed to report on any activities they have carried out as Treasury's fiscal agent relating to Venezuelan oil proceeds. Americans deserve to know more about these transactions and whether or not they have been carried out lawfully. I urge members to support this amendment and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? If there is no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed shall signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it.

I request a recorded vote.

The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection C5 of rule three of the committee rules. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now move on to the next amendment. Are there any other amendments? Okay. Seeing no further amendments, without objection, the previous question on the substitute is ordered and recorded votes on the pending amendment have been postponed. Once those votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and then will consider the question to report the measure. We will now move on to the next bill. Do we have a... oh, no more bills. No, we're done. Okay. Marv Albert. Spectacular move by Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is the guy who kept winning from everybody. Oh, okay. Briefly with Hakeem Olajuwon. Watch out, your constituents won't like the Knicks reference. Okay. Mike. Okay, pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 2071, the Save Our Shrimpers Act of 2026, which was introduced by Representative Nehls. The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.

H.R. 2071, to prohibit federal funds from being made available to international financial institutions for the purposes of financing foreign shrimp farms and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Davidson has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have been distributed in advance. I'm offering that amendment on his behalf. The clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2071 offered by Mr. Davidson.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as base text for purposes of the amendment. The gentleman from Ohio is not here. Okay, I'm going to recognize myself for five minutes on the amendment. I would like to express my support for H.R. 2071, a bill offered by our colleague from Texas, Mr. Nehls. The bill requires the U.S. executive directors at the international financial institutions to oppose loans that promote new or expanded shrimp aquaculture that are aimed at the U.S. market. In the 1980s, domestic shrimp production accounted for 50 percent of U.S. consumption. While shrimp has become more popular, there are fewer American shrimpers and tighter margins today than there were four decades ago, despite a substantially larger market. The growth has been captured by imports, which now account for over 90 percent of domestic consumption. These imports, however, do not always operate on a level playing field. In 2023, an anti-dumping inquiry by the Commerce Department found that Thai and Vietnamese shrimp were being dumped into the U.S. market. Under current law, our executive directors at the international financial institutions are already required to oppose financial support to bolster foreign commodities that cause substantial harm to American suppliers. H.R. 2071 codifies a policy of opposition to foreign shrimp projects with appropriate waiver and sunset provisions. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the ANS? The gentlelady from California is recognized.

I move to strike the last word.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Communities in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and other U.S. states have deep historic connections to the shrimping industry. They have raised concerns that projects funded by international financial institutions have increased shrimp supply and driven down the price of shrimp significantly. I'm very supportive of American workers, including the shrimpers here, who do not have any concerns with taking protective actions to support shrimpers and their families. That said, I really don't know how this bill will fix the larger problem that that industry faces. Furthermore, the Treasury Department can already act as described in the bill. For example, in January, the U.S. executive director at the Asian Development Bank voted against a Thai shrimp farm project. And so nonetheless, nonetheless, given the harm from significant oversupply, oversupply to America's shrimping communities, I encourage members to support this bill and the communities that it aims to serve. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment to the ANS? Seeing none, there being no further discussion or amendments to the bill, the question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed shall signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended to be reported to the House with favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed shall signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection C5 of rule three of the committee rules. The vote on this question is postponed. We will now move on to the next bill. Do we have another bill? Okay, pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 4171, the Small Entrepreneurs Empowerment and Development or SEED Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Garbarino. The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.

H.R. 4171, to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to provide small issuers with a micro-offering exemption free of mandated disclosures or offering filings, but subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Garbarino has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4171.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as base text for purposes of the amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes on behalf of Mr. Garbarino. I want to thank Congressman Garbarino for introducing the Small Entrepreneurs Empowerment and Development or SEED Act, a critical bill which will help emerging issuers make offerings without being crippled by unnecessary burdensome regulations. We often hear concerns about companies staying private longer, but the reality is simple: a company cannot stay private longer if it never exists in the first first place. By creating a micro-offering exemption, the SEED Act removes the complex, costly filings that prevent startups from becoming more than an idea. While maintaining strict federal anti-fraud protections and bad actor disqualifications to protect investors, this bill clears another pathway for capital formation. The SEED Act will help build a robust pipeline of companies that can eventually grow enough to enter our public markets. We must remember that there is no IPO without successful seed capital. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4171 and empower the next generation of American innovators. I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the ANS? The ranking member is recognized.

I move to strike the last word.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. While we all share the goal of helping entrepreneurs access capital, I cannot support a bill that is a recipe for fraud. H.R. 4171 creates a micro-fraud exemption that would allow fraudsters to raise money from the public and tie the hands of both the states and the SEC to stop them. The SEED Act would allow anyone to raise up to $500,000 with zero required disclosures about the nature of the offering, no requirements to disclose the prospects of the business, nor any requirements showing the financial state of the business. Under this bill, the SEC would importantly, state regulators would not be notified even though they are our frontline cops on the financial markets beat. Notification is not the same as disclosures. Notification basically tells the regulators that the business is legitimate and there are real people behind it. These type of notifications allow our state governments and the SEC to support legitimate businesses and to able to investigate if there are concerns an issuer is fraudulent. Because of the lack of these basic safeguards, the North American Securities Administrators Association came out yesterday in strong opposition to this bill. No one cares more about capital formation than our state securities overseers. Federal securities laws are built on a simple premise: transparency. But this bill bypasses that for smallest offerings even though these are precisely the ones that should have publicly available basic information. While large institutional investors have the resources to conduct their own due diligence into their investments, retail investors do not. Under this bill, retirees, nurses, and firefighters would have no way of knowing if they are investing in a legitimate startup or a scam. While the proponents of this bill point to the fact that federal anti-fraud position will apply, let's be clear: anti-fraud protections only allow an investor to sue after their money has been stolen, something which most investors simply cannot afford to do. Importantly, this bill undermines the very state regulators who could seek compensation for any harmed investors. We already have numerous pathways for small businesses to raise capital, such as regulation crowdfunding, crowdfunding and regulation A, which provides streamlined, scaled-back disclosure requirements. These existing exemptions strike a careful balance between capital formation and investor protection. H.R. 4171 throws that balance out the window. This bill was part of a package in the 118th Congress that forced unanimous Democratic opposition. I opposed the bill back then and urge members to continue to oppose it now. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back and we're going to suspend for a moment. Does anyone else seek recognition on the ANS? No one is here, so hearing none we will move to amendments. Does anyone wish to an amendment? You have an amendment? Yeah. I have an amendment. Okay. We will pause while the amendment is distributed. A point of order has been reserved. The clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4171 offered by Ms. Waters of California, designated as AMD 01.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The gentlelady from California is recognized on her amendment.

Thank you very much. While I understand the intent of the SEED Act, I'm frankly not comfortable with the very limited protections it leaves in place for investors. The SEED Act would allow small stock sales of up to $500,000 with zero information given to investors about how the money will be used, the prospects of the business, nor anything about the financial state of the business. Given this lack of transparency and the fact that the only way a micro-fraud victim can recover funds is to sue, I believe additional protections are necessary. That is why I'm offering this amendment to require the SEC to create a report one year after the bill's enactment that documents all investor complaints made about these stock sales and to indicate which actions the commission took to address those complaints. Additionally, the report would also cover all investor complaints and remedial measures taken in action in relationship to Rule 506, Regulation Crowdfunding, and Regulation A Tier 2 offerings. My amendment solves the bill's disclosure problem by providing transparency into the number of complaints the SEC receives from investors and puts the SEC on the record about what they did or didn't do to address these complaints. I simply urge all members to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I withdraw my point of order. And I recognize myself for five minutes to oppose the amendment. This amendment effectively nullifies the purpose of the bill by making the micro-offering exemption too expensive to use. The amendment sends a clear message to American entrepreneurs: your ideas are only welcome if you can afford an army of lawyers. Our existing anti-fraud framework is well-equipped to deter bad actors. We don't need to bury entrepreneurs in costly paperwork. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment to ensure that H.R. 4171 can offer a viable path to capital for small issuers. I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? I see that the author of the legislation has arrived. Does the author of the legislation seek recognition? If there is no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment from the gentlelady from California shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed shall signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays have it, and the amendment is not adopted.

A recorded vote is requested.

A recorded vote is requested. All those in favor of a recorded vote raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is ordered pursuant to subsection C5 of Rule 3 of the committee rules. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now move on to the next amendment. Is there another amendment? No. Okay. No other amendments. Seeing no further amendments, without objection, the previous question on the substitute is ordered and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once those votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and then will consider the question to report the measure. Are there any other bills? Okay. So pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will reconvene immediately after votes. The committee stands in recess.

The committee will come to order following our recess. Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 7127, the Restoring the Secondary Trading Market Act, which was introduced by Representative Meuser. The clerk will report the bill, which was distributed in advance.

H.R. 7127, to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt the off-exchange secondary trading from state regulation where such trading is with respect to securities of an issuer that makes publicly available certain current information and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Meuser has an amendment in the nature of a substitute, copies of which have also been distributed in advance. The clerk will report that amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7127, offered by Mr. Meuser of Pennsylvania, designated as Meuser PA 035.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as base text for purposes of amendment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meuser, who chairs our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

My bill, H.R. 7127, the Restoring Secondary Trading Markets Act, ensures our capital markets work the way Congress intended them to. Right now, when investors buy and sell securities on the secondary market, in other words, when they trade with each other after the stock has already been issued, those transactions can still be subject to up to 50 different state regulatory regimes, even when the company is already meeting federal disclosure requirements. That is not investor protection, that is duplication, confusion, and very often unnecessary cost, and it has real consequences. It discourages stockbrokers from making markets, reducing liquidity, and makes it harder for small and mid-sized companies to attract investment, particularly in states and regions that do not benefit from large national exchanges. H.R. 7127 fixes that problem in a narrow and targeted way. It says that if a company is already meeting federal disclosure standards under existing SEC rules, states should not be able to layer on conflicting or duplicative requirements just for secondary trading. That approach is consistent with what SEC commissioners, including Commissioner Hester Peirce, have been saying for years. Secondary market liquidity is essential to capital formation, and excessive or overlapping regulation is one of the biggest barriers preventing small businesses from accessing investment capital. Commissioner Peirce has been clear that when secondary markets do not function properly, investors pull back, capital formation suffers, and small companies lose access to growth opportunities. This bill directly addresses that concern. This bill does three important things. First, it creates a clear national standard for secondary trading when federal disclosure rules are already being met. Second, it improves liquidity and access to capital, especially for small and mid-sized companies that rely on secondary markets because they are not listed on major exchanges. And third, it helps states by strengthening local capital formation. When investors can trade more freely and confidently, they are more willing to invest in growing businesses in their own communities. So just as important as what this bill does, just as important is what this bill does not do. It does not eliminate state anti-fraud authority. States retain full enforcement power. It does not weaken disclosure requirements. Issuers must still provide current publicly available information. And it does not deregulate public markets or reduce SEC oversight in any way. At a time when we are talking about expanding access to capital, helping small businesses grow, and strengthening state and local economies, this is a common-sense step. It is narrow, it is responsible, and it strengthens, not weakens, our capital markets. I do urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition on Mr. Meuser's ANS? The ranking member.

I move to strike the last word.

The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear about what this actually does. It dismantles a 100-year-old safety net for retail investors by preempting state blue sky laws for off-exchange secondary trading. We are essentially telling state legislators to stand down and let the scammers hold each other accountable. Unlike the federal securities regulators, which focus on whether a company has registered with the SEC and checked the right boxes on their disclosure forms, state regulators conduct what are known as merit reviews. These reviews allow state regulators to look under the hood and ask, is this a fair deal? If a state regulator sees a predatory scheme, they can block that security from being sold in their state. This bill cuts investor protections for Regulation A and securities that are primarily traded off-exchange, all of which are susceptible to pump and dump schemes. Without blue sky laws, investors are left both more susceptible to fraud and with little means to get their money back. When a retiree in your district gets scammed, they don't call the SEC. They call their state securities commissioners. They are closer to the victims, more agile, and can act faster than a large federal agency like the SEC. By stripping states of their oversight of over-the-counter secondary trading, we are effectively telling local investors, you're on your own until the fraud gets big enough to catch the SEC's very limited attention. This bill was part of a package last Congress that faced unanimous Democratic opposition. I again ask my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, and I yield the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman yields back. Does anyone seek recognition on Mr. Meuser's ANS? Seeing none, I will recognize myself for five minutes. Let me say that I support Chairman Meuser's bill. I think this is a common-sense streamlining of regulatory burden for securities that meet the test in this bill, and I would encourage members to support his bill. And I also want to take a moment to thank members on both sides of the aisle for the markup today, for the debate, for the discussion. I want to particularly thank Mr. Davidson for his bipartisan work on our Defense Production Act bill, and I want to thank Chairman Barr and Democratic members that worked very, very hard on Main Street capital access. I think it's important to recognize, and the ranking member made some key points about deficiencies from her point of view in the Main Street capital access bill, and of course I respect her and her opinions. But I really do believe that this idea of tailoring for less complex institutions is really an important theme. We've taken hours of testimony on it. We've tried to reflect that in a bipartisan way through the work of the committee. And of the 34 individual bills that are in the Main Street capital access package, three-quarters of them did receive Democratic votes, and half of them have Democratic cosponsors. But I, you know, I take what she said seriously, that she can't support all of it. But I do want those who study the work we do here in Congress to recognize that we tried to select policies that, while they don't have full bipartisan support, they do demonstrate that members on both sides of the aisle supported three-quarters of the effort in that package. Further, in addition to that, over the past few days, we've made substantive changes to the remaining 25 percent of the bills that only Republicans supported, and when we marked them up, when we marked them up as standalone measures. For example, we revised the TAILOR Act, a bill that originally required the regulators to tailor regulations by taking into account the risk profile and business model of institutions going back 15 years as well as all new regulations. But based on Democratic feedback from the minority, they didn't want to reopen past post-Dodd-Frank rulemaking, so the TAILOR Act was rewritten to just be prospective, to look at only future rulemaking. And that's an example that we took Democratic comment on. A second one is the HUMPS Act, which previously gave the regulators the discretion to revise or eliminate the management component in the CAMELS supervisory rating framework. With revisions to the HUMPS Act in the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the regulators can now only revise the M, the management rating in that CAMELS framework. These are changes to the Main Street bill that were made in good faith in response to Democratic feedback. And again, these are changes that we agreed to on top of the fact that 75 percent of the bills had some form of bipartisan support. So we look forward to, as I committed with Dr. Foster today, we look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues as we prepare Main Street capital access to come to the House floor. The other thing I want to reference is some opening comments you made, ranking member, that I think fit in with this same theme of me trying to wrap up on this Main Street capital access act. You referenced that we had 12 bipartisan bills in the Housing for the 21st Century Act, and they're good bills. They're bills that we both strongly support. They're the anchor of this Main Street capital access approach. And I would hope that you would join me in encouraging the Senate during their two weeks of debate to consider adding those 12 back bills back to their debate that they have underway in the Senate. I think that would strengthen the housing package in the Senate. And as we made the point here in the House, community banking is what supplies that housing. 60 percent of all one to four family construction activity is conducted by banks under $10 billion. So that's why I think it's important to link those. So I would hope, Madam Ranking Member, you might consider supporting that effort in the Senate. So I think we've done some good work today. I'm grateful for the members and the participation that has led to this, and I look forward to our continued work together. There being no further, I yield back. There being no further discussion...

I have an amendment.

Oh, you do? Okay. We have an amendment, yet again another amendment.

7127.

What's the number?

7127.

This is, we'll pause while Ms. Waters' amendment's distributed.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman.

Could I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

Gentleman from Oklahoma reserves a point of order. Thank you. Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7127 offered by Ms. Waters of California, designated as AMD 01 H7127.

Without objection, amendment's considered read, and the gentlewoman from California is now recognized to describe her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 7127 would create a gap in protection for investors trading in Regulation A and securities that trade in our over-the-counter markets. In order to address this issue, I'm offering an amendment stating the bill's preemption does not apply to any entity that has previously been found to have committed a violation of federal or state securities laws and regulations. My amendment is common sense in that it prevents anyone with a track record of violating our securities laws from being able to take advantage of the bill's state preemption. In doing so, we ensure that we're not handing scammers a clear path to rip off our constituents. I urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlewoman yields back. Who seeks recognition on the Waters amendment? Does the gentleman from Oklahoma insist on your point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw my point of order.

Gentleman withdraws his point of order. Who seeks recognition on the underlying amendment? Mr. Meuser.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Meuser, you're recognized to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. This legislation that I proposed is intended to improve capital access, market function, regulatory certainty. This amendment proposed an additional layer of regulation that's unnecessary, imprecise, and cumbersome. Adding a separate statutory disqualification to this bill's, in my view, serves no purpose. This amendment would cover persons who unintentionally commit technical violations without any fraudulent intent. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the Waters amendment? There being no further discussion on the amendment, all those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed signify by saying nay.

Nay.

Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays have it, amendment is not adopted. The gentlewoman has requested a recorded vote. All those in favor of recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised your hand, a recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to subsection C5 of Rule 3 of the committee rules, further proceedings of the amendment are postponed. We'll now move to the next amendment on the Meuser ANS. Is there an additional amendment? Seeing that there are no further amendments, without objection, the previous question on the substitute is ordered and recorded votes on the pending amendments have been postponed. Once those votes are taken, the committee will immediately vote on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and then will consider the question on reporting the measure. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We will reconvene at 3:15 to take votes. Committee stands in recess. The committee will come to order. The committee will resume its markup of the various measures before us. When the committee recessed, we were considering the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1011, the Financial Services Innovation Act of 2024. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, was recognized for five minutes to speak in support of the amendment. Mr. Lucas, you are recognized. The committee will reconvene. Pursuant to the chair's previous order, we will now take postponed votes on the pending amendments to H.R. 7688. The question is on the amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters. This is Waters 142. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who hasn't voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 25.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Liccardo. This is Liccardo 090. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who hasn't voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 25.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. But the question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Mr. Davidson requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is so ordered. We'll now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 41 and the nays are zero.

A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 7688 as amended, the bill's ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We'll now take the postponed votes on the pending amendments to H.R. 6955. The question is on the second amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters. This is Waters 150. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 25.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the third amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters. This is Waters 148. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 25.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Casten. This is Casten 100. The clerk will open the vote. A majority, the clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 26.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr requests a recorded vote.

Mr. Barr requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of recorded vote, raise your hand. A sufficient number having raised their hand, a recorded vote is so ordered. We will now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 26 and the nays are 16.

A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 6955 as amended, the bill's ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We will now take the vote pending on ordering H.R. 2071 as amended favorably reported. Members will vote electronically. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 42 and the nays are one.

A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 2071 as amended, the bill's ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We will now take the postponed votes on the pending amendments to H.R. 4171. The question is on the amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters. This is amendment one. Clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 17 and the nays are 26.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Gentleman from New York.

I request a recorded vote.

The gentleman from New York requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hands, a recorded vote is so ordered. We will now take the vote on ordering the bill as amended favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 26 and the nays are 17.

A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 4171 as amended, the bill's ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We would now take proposed postponed votes on pending amendments to H.R. 7127. The question is on the amendment offered by Ranking Member Waters. This is amendment one. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 17 and the nays are 26.

A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. Question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on ordering the bill as amended reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. Those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Representative Meuser.

I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

And indeed you do. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. All those in favor of recorded vote, raise your hands. A sufficient number having raised their hands, a recorded vote is so ordered. We will now take that vote on ordering the bill as amended favorably reported. The clerk will open the vote. Is there any member who has not voted or would like to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 26 and the nays are 17.

A majority having voted in favor of H.R. 7127 as amended, the bill's ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Without objection, the staff are authorized to make necessary and conforming changes to the bills considered today. And pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2L, I give notice that all members will have the requisite number of days to file supplemental minority, additional, or dissenting views. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.