Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Act of 2017

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to suspend implementation of section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Mr. Chairman, this misguided provision in Dodd-Frank requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to mandate that public companies disclose whether so-called ``conflict minerals'' they use in their products benefit armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its nine adjoining countries.

Despite its best intentions, section 1502 has been ineffective and, in some cases, has been shown to have increased violence is central Africa. That is why this suspension that I am proposing passed the House last year as an amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill, and a full repeal of section 1502 passed the House this Congress as part of the Financial CHOICE Act.

Conflict minerals refer to tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold, which have been used in a variety of products, from cell phones, cosmetics, jewelry, footwear, apparel, and even auto suppliers located in west Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, the breadth of voices opposing section 1502 is remarkable, and I would like to start with those that matter most. For too long, the people of central Africa have been overlooked in this debate, even though they are the ones who suffer from Dodd-Frank's unintended consequences.

I include in the Record an open letter from 70 Congolese leaders and other regional experts.

An Open Letter

Dear governments, companies, non-governmental

organisations, and other stakeholders implicated in efforts

of various kinds related to the issue of `conflict minerals',

In early 2014, two international industry giants--Intel and

Apple--issued refined corporate social responsibility

policies for minerals sourced in the eastern Democratic

Republic of the Congo (DRC). The announcements followed an

unprecedented wave of

guidelines, law-making, and initiatives over the past few

years to `clean up' the eastern DRC's mining sector, and were

met with widespread praise.

Perhaps the most widely publicised of these efforts is US

legislation known as Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act,

which asks all companies registered on the US stock market to

reveal their supply chains to the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) when sourcing minerals from the eastern DRC

or neighbouring countries. Canada is in the advanced stages

of developing similar legislation, and many other countries

are looking closely at the issue. The European Union has

introduced a voluntary conflict minerals regulation scheme

for all member states, and the United Nations (UN) and

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

have developed guidelines on sourcing natural resources in

high-risk areas such as the eastern DRC.

These efforts primarily target artisanal (or `informal')

mining in the eastern DRC, due to widespread international

recognition that so-called conflict minerals (most notably

tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) produced by artisanal

mining in this part of the world have helped conflict actors

generate revenue to finance their operations in the DRC over

the past two decades.

The Situation

Despite successes of activists in shaping policy, the

conflict minerals campaign fundamentally misunderstands the

relationship between minerals and conflict in the eastern

DRC. First, while the minerals help perpetuate the conflict,

they are not its cause. National and regional political

struggles over power and influence as well as issues such as

access to land and questions of citizenship and identity are

just some of the more structural drivers of conflict. The

ability to exploit and profit from minerals is often a means

to finance military operations to address these issues,

rather than an end in itself. Internal UN assessments, for

instance, show that only 8% of the DRC's conflicts are linked

to minerals, and specific motivations vary greatly across the

vast array of different armed groups.

Second, armed groups are not dependent on mineral revenue

for their existence. The eastern DRC is a fully militarised

economy, in which minerals are just one resource among many

that armed groups--and the national army FARDC--can levy

financing from. The M23, until recently the most powerful

non-state armed group in DRC, never sought physical control

over mining activity.

Moreover, few local stakeholders have been included in on-

going international policy-making, and as a result realities

on the ground have not always been taken into account.

Setting up the required systems and procedures to regularly

access and audit thousands of artisanal mining sites in

isolated and hard-to-reach locations spread across an area

almost twice the size of France would be a challenge for any

government. In the eastern DRC, where road infrastructure is

poor to non-existent and state capacity desperately low, the

enormity of the task is hard to overstate. But in demanding

that companies prove the origin of minerals sourced in the

eastern DRC or neighbouring countries before systems able to

provide such proof have been put in place, conflict minerals

activists and resultant legislation--in particular Section

1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act--inadvertently incentivize buyers

on the international market to pull out of the region

altogether and source their minerals elsewhere.

The Result

As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead

to meaningful improvement on the ground, and has had a number

of unintended and damaging consequences. Nearly four years

after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act, only a small

fraction of the hundreds of mining sites in the eastern DRC

have been reached by traceability or certification efforts.

The rest remain beyond the pale, forced into either

illegality or collapse as certain international buyers have

responded to the legislation by going `Congo-free'.

This in turn has driven many miners into the margins of

legality (for instance, feeding into smuggling rackets),

where armed actors return through the loopholes of

transnational regulation. Others have simply lost their jobs,

and in areas where mining has ceased, local economies have

suffered. To put this in context, an estimated eight to ten

million people across the country are dependent on artisanal

mining for their livelihood. Some former miners have returned

to subsistence agriculture, but persisting insecurity levels

leave them in abject poverty facing dire living conditions,

in fear of missing harvests due to displacement. Others have

been prompted to join militias as a means to quick cash in

the absence of other opportunities; a particularly perverse

impact, when one considers the intentions of the movement.

Alongside the impact on mining communities and local

economies, several armed groups have responded by turning to

different businesses such as trading in charcoal, marijuana,

palm oil, soap, or consumer goods. Those remaining in the

mining sector have largely traded mineral exploitation on

site for mineral taxation a few steps down the supply chain,

operating numerous roadblocks that can bring in millions of

dollars a year. Others are reported to have sent in family

members or civilian allies to run business for them on site,

while they remain safely at a distance.

For the few mining sites fortunate enough to be reached by

Joint Assessment Teams responsible for determining their

`conflict-free' status, these teams have been unable to

provide the regular, three-month validation visits envisaged

in legislation. There is an additional delay of several

months following these visits before the Congolese Ministry

of Mines reviews and approves the assessment at the national

level. Given the speed at which situations can change in

volatile environments, infrequent assessments and lengthy

delays raise concerns over the accuracy of certification and

the credibility of the system.

More worrying still, multinational corporations such as

Apple and Intel are auditing smelters to determine the

conflict-free status of the minerals they source, and not the

mines themselves. As smelters are located outside of the DRC

and audits are not always conducted by third parties, these

processes raise further concerns over whether conflict-free

certifications reflect production realities.

By far the most advanced site in terms of producing

`conflict-free' minerals for sale to the international market

is Kalimbi, a tin mining area home to externally-financed

initiatives running an industry-led bagging-and-tagging

scheme called iTSCi. Yet even here, despite the establishment

of a `closed pipeline' from mine to exportation, the mine

still suffers from the sporadic influence of armed actors,

and miners are made to bear the additional costs of

`conflict-free' schemes. This raises further concerns over

the credibility of the system in place, and its suitability

for the scale-up and expansion to other, more remote mine

sites currently underway. Coupled with slow progress in

implementation, the trend towards the monopolisation of

`conflict-free' supply chain initiatives, in particular

traceability by iTSCi, is economically damaging to local

populations since it currently excludes and isolates the

overwhelming majority of mining communities from legal access

to international markets.

The Alternative

There is broad consensus for the need to clean up the

eastern Congo's minerals sector, yet much disagreement about

the international community's current model for achieving

this goal. As such, efforts to improve transparency in the

eastern DRC's mineral supply chains should continue. Yet a

more nuanced and holistic approach that takes into account

the realities of the eastern DRC's mining sector and the

complexity of the conflict is needed. To this end, we make

the following five recommendations:

Improve consultation with government and communities:

Congolese government and civil society were poorly consulted

on Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act prior to its passing,

and as a result many were unaware of its implications. The

few who were consulted were unanimously pro-Dodd-Frank,

creating additional conflicts on local levels where

endorsement and dissent compete. More Congolese voices must

be listened to, and the local context and power structures

taken into account. This would ensure greater understanding

of the local context and better harmonisation with existing

national and regional initiatives, such as the International

Conference of the Great Lakes Region's (ICGLR) Regional

Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural

Resources.

Work towards meaningful reform: The audit process should be

designed to improve policies and practices rather than to

just provide window-dressing. The dominant belief that static

oversight and validation processes ensure `conflict-free'

mineral trade is misplaced given the volatile security

situation in most of the eastern DRC. Both mines and smelters

should be regularly inspected and the time period between

inspection and certification minimized. Where this is not

feasible, additional waivers or similar measures should not

be ruled out.

Create incentives towards better practice: Legal frameworks

must be supported by real projects on the ground that can

meet their requirements. If this is not possible--which is

clearly still the case today, nearly four years after the

passing of Dodd-Frank--then transition periods must be

extended and the lowering of excessively high standards for

`conflict-free' minerals should be considered. Similarly,

former conflict actors should be incentivised where

appropriate to join new `conflict-free' schemes. This may

help avoid the eventual subversion or infiltration of the

`clean' system put in place, as has been seen to date.

Promote fair competition: Regulation must be based on

competition that allows not only international businesses but

also Congolese producers to influence (i.e. increase) local

price schemes. This in turn would encourage a regime that

ensures minimum wages which mining cooperatives can guarantee

to their members based on their increased leverage on the

price fluctuation.

Widen the lens: Root causes of conflict such as land,

identity, and political contest in the context of a

militarized economy, rather than a single focus on minerals,

must be considered by advocates seeking to reduce conflict

violence. Furthermore, efforts to eradicate conflict minerals

should not overlook the fact that artisanal mining is a key

livelihood in the eastern DRC that holds as much potential to

help steer the region away from conflict as it does to

contribute towards it. More supportive measures are needed--

such as those found in the earlier 2009

draft of the US Conflict Minerals Act--that can help capture

the economic potential of artisanal mining. Finally, other

critical challenges such as access to credit, technical

knowledge, hazardous working conditions, and environmental

degradation should not be ignored by multinational

corporations if they seek to improve business practices and

increase transparency in their supply chains.

So far, progress has been made in producing more ethical

products for consumers, but stakeholders have not yet

proceeded to improve the lives of Congolese people, nor

address the negative impact current `conflict-free'

initiatives are having. If the conflict minerals agenda is to

lead to positive change on the ground, legislation passed by

national governments and steps such as those outlined by

Apple or Intel need to be grounded in a more holistic

approach that is better tailored to local realities. Failure

to do so will continue to seriously limit the ability of

conflict minerals initiatives to improve the daily lives of

the eastern Congolese and their neighbours. Worse, these

initiatives will risk contributing to, rather than

alleviating, the very conflicts they set out to address.

List of Signatories

1. Aloys Tegera (Director, POLE Institute Goma)

2. Ann Laudati (Lecturer at the School for Geographical

Sciences, University of Bristol)

3. Ashley Leinweber (Assistant Professor of Political

Science, Missouri State University)

4. Ben Radley (Researcher, International Institute of

Social Studies & `Obama's Law' Producer)

5. Bonnie Campbell (Professor of Political Science,

Universite du Quebec a Montreal)

6. Christiane Kayser (Independent Analyst & Civil Peace

Service-Bread for the World mobile team)

7. Christoph Vogel (Researcher, University of Zurich &

Independent analyst/writer)

8. Cyprien Birhingingwa (Executive Secretary, COSOC-GL &

Coordinator of CENADEP Kivu)

9. Daniel Rothenberg (Professor of Practice, School of

Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University)

10. David Rieff (Independent Author and Commentator).

11. Deo Buuma (Executive Secretary, Action pour la Paix et

la Concorde--APC, Bukavu)

12. Didier de Failly s.j. (Directeur, Mason de Mines du

Kivu, Bukavu)

13. Dominic Johnson (Africa Editor and Deputy Foreign

Editor, die tageszeitung)

14. Dorothea Hilhorst (Professor of Humanitarian Aid and

Reconstruction, Wageningen University)

15. Emmanuel Shamavu (Director, APRODEPED, Bukavu)

16. Eric Kajemba (Coordinator, Observatoire Gouvernance et

Paix, Bukavu)

17. Esther Marijnen (Researcher, Institute for European

Studies/Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

18. Evariste Mfaume (Executive Director, ``Solidarite des

Volontaires pour l'Humanite'')

19. Gabriel Kamundala (Researcher, CEGEMI & Universite

Catholique de Bukavu)

20. Ganza Buroko (Cultural Operator & Coordinator of

Yole!Africa, Goma).

21. Godefroid Ka Mana (Professor, ULPGL Goma & UEA Bukavu &

Universite Kasavubu Boma)

22. Godefroid Muzalia (Professor, Institut Superieur

Pedagogique de Bukavu)

23. Henning Tamm (Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow,

Nuffield College, University of Oxford)

24. Herbert Weiss (Emeritus Professor of Political Science,

City University of New York)

25. James Smith (Associate Professor of Anthropology,

University of California/Davis)

26. Jean Ziegler (Former UN Special Rapporteur for the

Right to Food and Professor at University of Geneva)

27. Jeroen Cuvelier (Postdoctoral Researcher, Wageningen

University and Ghent University)

28. John Kanyoni (Independent Consultant and Vice-President

of the Congolese Chamber of Mines)

29. Josaphat Musamba (Assistant Professor, Universite Simon

Kimbangu of Bukavu)

30. Joschka Havenith (Independent Researcher and

Consultant, Cologne).

31. Jose Diemel (Researcher, Special Chair for Humanitarian

Aid & Reconstruction, Wageningen University)

32. Joshua Walker (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University

of the Witwatersrand)

33. Josue Mukulumanya (President of the South Kivu mining

cooperatives board GECOMISKI)

34. Justine Brabant (Independent Researcher and Journalist)

35. Juvenal Munubo (Member of Parliament, Democratic

Republic of the Congo)

36. Juvenal Twaibu (Director, Centre Independant de

Recherches et d'Etudes Strategiques au Kivu)

37. Ken Matthysen (Researcher on artisanal mining in

eastern Congo, Antwerp)

38. Kizito Mushizi (Member of Parliament, Democratic

Republic of the Congo)

39. Koen Vlassenroot (Director, Conflict Research Group &

Professor, Ghent University)

40. Kris Berwouts (Independent Consultant and Author).

41. Kristof Titeca (Assistant Professor, University of

Antwerp)

42. Laura Seay (Assistant Professor of Government, Colby

College)

43. Ley Uwera (Independent Journalist and Author, Goma)

44. Loochi Muzaliwa (Programme Coordinator, Life and Peace

Institute DRC)

45. Micheline Mwendike (Activist, on behalf of LUCHA--Lutte

pour le Changement/Struggle for Change)

46. Manuel Wollschlager (Conseiller Technique, ZFD-AGEH in

Bukavu)

47. Milli Lake (Assistant Professor, Arizona State

University)

48. Nicole Eggers (Assistant Professor of African History,

Loyola University New Orleans)

49. Odile Bulabula (Deputy Coordinator, RIO--Network for

Organisational Innovation, Bukavu)

50. Padraic MacOireachtaigh (Regional Advocacy and

Communications Officer, Jesuit Refugee Service).

51. Pamela Faber (Researcher, St Catherine's College,

University of Oxford)

52. Passy Mubalama (Independent Journalist and Author,

Goma)

53. Paul Muhindo Mulemberi (Member of Parliament,

Democratic Republic of the Congo)

54. Paul-Romain Namegabe (Professor of Law, Director of

CEGEMI, Universite Catholique de Bukavu)

55. Paulin Bishakabalya (Director of Humanitarian

Assistance and Development Committee, Bukavu)

56. Peer Schouten (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of

Gothenburg)

57. Phil Clark (Reader in Comparative and International

Politics, SOAS / University of London)

58. Rachel Niehuus (Postdoctoral Researcher at University

of California, San Francisco)

59. Rachel Strohm (Researcher in Political Science,

University of Berkeley)

60. Raf Custers (Independent Journalist and Author on

Mining).

61. Remy Kasindi (Director, Centre for Research and

Strategic Studies in Central Africa, Bukavu)

62. Rodrigue Rukumbuzi (Coordinator, AGAPE-Hauts Plateaux,

Uvira)

63. Rosebell Kagumire (Independent Consultant and Blogger,

Kampala/Addis Ababa)

64. Salammbo Mulonda Bulambo (Director, PIAP, Bukavu)

65. Sara Geenen (Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of

Development Policy, Antwerp University)

66. Sekombi Katondolo (Director, Radio Mutaani, Goma)

67. Severine Autesserre (Assistant Professor, Barnard

College, Columbia University)

68. Thomas Idolwa Tchomba (Consultant and Mining Expert,

Goma)

69. Timothy Makori (Researcher, Department of Anthropology,

University of Toronto)

70. Timothy Raeymaekers (Lecturer in Political Geography,

University of Zurich)

71. Yvette Mwanza (President of the Mining Committee,

Federation des Entreprises Congolaises North Kivu)

72. Zacharie Bulakali (Independent Researcher on mining in

eastern Congo).

All the signatories listed express their support to the

open letter in its above form but not necessarily approve of

accompanying opinion pieces and/or explanatory notes, which

remain their respective authors' views.

Mr. Chair, they state in the letter that section 1502 provisions ``. . . inadvertently incentivize buyers on the international market to pull out of the region altogether and source their minerals elsewhere.

``As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead to meaningful improvement on the ground, and has had a number of unintended and damaging consequences.''

Dodd-Frank's impact on African miners may seem unimportant to many rich-country activists, but in the Congo, it has been the question of life or death.

According to a Washington Post article entitled ``How a well- intentioned U.S. law left Congolese miners jobless,'' section 1502 ``set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of Congolese miners and their families deeper into poverty.''

The article goes on to share the story of how a Congolese teenager could no longer feed himself after Dodd-Frank ravaged the country's mining sector, forcing the young man to actually join an armed group; the outcome diametrically opposed in the goal of section 1502.

Mr. Chairman, no one can claim that these effects were unforeseeable. In fact, in a letter to the SEC commenting on section 1502, leaders from three Congolese mining cooperatives predicted that the conflict minerals rule would lead to a devastating boycott.

These miners wrote: ``We cannot continue to suffer any longer. Do we now have to choose between dying by a bullet or starving to death?''

I ask my colleagues to remember the Congolese aren't alone in their suffering. The SEC's rules apply to nine

other nations as if they were all one single country. Section 1502 treats over 230 million Africans living in 10 distinct nations as one undifferentiated group.

Dodd-Frank's supporters will say that at this point, some countries neighboring Congo may help smuggle minerals on behalf of armed groups, which is why we need to paint with such a broad brush. But I would ask my colleagues to name another example where a country's economy and each of its neighbors is targeted due to a presumed smuggling risk.

Do we design Russia sanctions to apply to each of its 14 adjoining countries, too?

Do Iranian sanctions implicate all seven of its neighbors?

Perhaps advocates for section 1502 believe that there is no smuggling from Russia and Iran, but the real issue seems to be this: Dodd-Frank supporters have no problem treating Africans differently from other regions of the world.

I find that troubling. So now let's consider implementation of section 1502 itself.

In April of this year, the GAO reported that section 1502 has produced little meaningful information on conflict mineral sourcing. It found that more than half of the companies in 2016 couldn't even determine what country their minerals came from. Most importantly, virtually none of the companies could tell whether their minerals benefited armed groups, a conclusion that echoed GAO's findings from 2015 and 2014 as well.

No wonder companies can't figure this out, Mr. Chairman. Even the Department of Commerce has reported that it is unable to determine whether smelters around the world use minerals traceable to armed groups. In other words, Dodd-Frank is asking U.S. companies--some of which are very small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in large corporations' supply chains--to produce information that even the Federal Government can't provide.

As if that weren't enough, the courts also struck down parts of section 1502 for violating companies' First Amendment rights.

The Trump administration's SEC has had enough of section 1502 failures, and is now reexamining the conflict mineral rule. The State Department is now conducting a review to see how responsible sourcing can be undertaken more effectively. The amendment I am offering today would suspend section 1502 while the administration completes its assessment.

Mr. Chairman, the facts I have laid out on section 1502 aren't partisan, and a suspension shouldn't be either. So let me close with the words of Barack Obama's Securities and Exchange Commission Chair, Mary Jo White, who, in 2013, said: ``Seeking to improve safety in mines for workers or to end horrible human rights atrocities in the DRC are compelling objectives, which, as a citizen, I wholeheartedly share. But as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, I must question, as a policy matter, using the Federal securities laws and the SEC's powers of mandatory disclosure to accomplish these goals.''

It should tell us something when even Democrats' own Securities and Exchange Commission Chair warns that Dodd-Frank overreached on conflict minerals. A suspension would be something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple proposition of adding $500,000 to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which supports locally based community organizations working to expand economic development, affordable housing, community banking, and financial services. The underpinning of this amendment is to enhance financial literacy, as seen by many of us in our district, as a very important component.

Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this underlying bill to the floor, and let me indicate that this is a small measure, working with all of the agencies, to ensure that the many elements of financial documents or financial opportunities that low- income communities have, they will be informed and literate about how much to borrow and, as well, what opportunities they can take advantage of.

Certainly, it will be impactful for those of us in areas where we have experienced the severe hurricanes and natural disasters that will be impacting our community for a long time.

The CDFI provides for economic development, job creation, business development, and commercial real estate development, affordable housing, housing development, home ownership, community development, financial services, basic banking services to underserved communities, and financial literacy training.

It also helps Native Americans through providing for financial assistance, technical assistance, and training to Native Americans CDFIs and other Native American entities proposing to become or create CDFIs.

Through these programs, direct investment is provided, supporting and training financial institutions that provide loans, investment financial services, and technical assistance to underserved populations.

And I can assure you that the inequities in banking in low-income communities, the access to banking clearly suggests that more work needs to be done by the CDFI.

Finally, I would make the point that our overall community experienced a major loss of wealth in the last 15 years, starting with the 2007-2008 mortgage debacle, which caused a lot of low-income people to lose wealth. The importance of helping them with financial literacy, I believe, is an important element.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the Jackson Lee amendment to Division F of H.R. 3354, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018.''

I wish to commend Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Quigley for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by increasing funding by

$500,000 to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program for people receiving financial assistance and for the responsibilities that this very important subagency has.

Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program administers the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the

While, I am clearly disappointed in the response, I am glad that I offered this amendment. I think the position is wrong as it relates to the needs to help individuals who have already suffered an enormous blow.

In particular, financial literacy is an aspect that is certainly needed in low-income communities, and we can see the impact of not having the understanding of various financial opportunities. And the CDFI has done that, and particularly supporting Native Americans among many others.

So I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment because it is not a lot and it would add to this aspect of financial literacy, which we need.

There are a lot of products that are out there, and I guess I might say that, as much as we have tried, with the Community Reinvestment Act, to assist or to encourage or to push our financial institutions to lend to our many diverse groups, low-income groups and minority populations, it is still a problem in getting access to funds by low- income communities.

So the CDFI and the focused addition that I would add would, in fact, make a major difference, and I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the managers of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, any Member of Congress or any elected official has had the sad duty of going to a child's funeral. Most of us in the Christian faith have heard maybe the same words said often in the place of worship and in the funeral service, no matter who it is, and that is that a child should not go before their parents. We have seen the brokenness and, of course, the absolute despair of that family that has lost a child.

Unfortunately, as we have found in Hurricane Harvey, when people have looted victims of the hurricane, it is unfortunate that bad things can happen to good people.

So the families of deceased children are victimized. They are saddened by the loss of their child, whether it is an accident that is tragic or a sickness; and then, because those names are printed and become public, they are victimized again.

Alexis Agin was 4 years old when she died last year from a brain tumor. As her parents grieved from their daughter's loss, someone else paid attention to the details of her death, too. An identity thief was easily able to get Alexis' personal information after she died. Her parents had no inkling until they went to file their taxes, then to their astonishment and despair, they learned that someone else had already filed a tax return using Alexis' Social Security number and claiming her as a dependent.

The Agins soon learned they were one of many. They said: ``Within an hour of learning that my daughter's Social Security number had been compromised and stolen, no fewer than 14 other parents whose children passed away due to cancer contacted us and advised us that their children's Social Security numbers, likewise, had been stolen.''

Americans are told to jealously guard their Social Security numbers, but after one dies, the government goes public with that coveted information. It is included on the Death Master List.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article from ABC News entitled ``When Loved Ones Die, Their Identity is There for the Taking.''

[From ABC News, May 8, 2012]

When Loved Ones Die, Their Identity Is There for the Taking

(By Lisa Stark)

Alexis Agin was 4 years old when she died last year from a

brain tumor. As her parents grieved their daughter's loss,

someone else paid attention to the details of her death too.

An identity thief was easily able to get Alexis' personal

information after she died. Her parents had no inkling until

they went to file their taxes. Then, to their astonishment,

they learned that someone else had already filed a tax

return, using Alexis' Social Security number and claiming her

as a dependent.

The Agins soon learned they were one of many. ``Within an

hour of learning that my daughter's Social Security number

had been compromised and stolen,'' said Jonathan Agin, ``no

fewer than 14 other parents whose children passed away due to

cancer contacted us and advised us that their children's

Social Security numbers likewise had been stolen.''

Americans are told to jealously guard their Social Security

numbers, but after one dies, the government goes public with

that coveted information. It is all included on a Master

Death List.

``This is a database of more than 8o million records that

the Social Security Administration maintains of all the

deaths in the country. And that information is actually

publicly available,'' said John Breyault at the National

Consumers League. ``Consumers can go online, on any number of

sites, and get full name, date of birth and full Social

Security number, which we call the holy trinity of personally

identifiable information.''

The list is used by banks, credit agencies and others to

try to prevent identity theft after someone dies. However, a

court case in the 197os forced the Social Security

Administration to make the list public, under Freedom of

Information Act laws. ``Unfortunately, dead people don't have

any privacy rights,'' said Breyault, ``That information, once

you're dead, is publicly available information.''

``Within 3o seconds of learning that my daughter's Social

Security number had been stolen, I went online and found her

Social Security number,'' Agin told ABC News. ``All the

information is there.''

Breyault of the National Consumer League showed ABC News

just how easy it was. He sat down with me at a computer and

pulled up a wealth of information on my husband, who died of

cancer last year. My tax refund for this year has now been

held up because someone else filed a return, apparently using

my husband's Social Security number The Internal Revenue

Service said it might be a simple mistake by the other

taxpayer, not a case of identity fraud. The agency, however,

can't yet tell me for sure as it works to unravel the

situation.

Today on Capitol Hill, the House Ways and Means'

Subcommittees on Social Security and Identity Theft held a

hearing on this growing problem.

In his testimony, Russell George, the Treasury inspector

general for tax administration, told lawmakers that while

processing tax returns in 2011, the IRS managed to flag and

stop 940,000 returns that appeared to involve identity theft.

The refunds requested on those returns totaled $6.5 billion.

George told lawmakers, ``There is much more fraud that it

[the IRS] does not detect.'' The inspector general

``identified approximately 1.5 million additional undetected

tax returns with potentially fraudulent tax refunds totaling

in excess of $5.2 billion,'' said George. Those refunds were

paid out. ``If not addressed, we estimate the IRS could issue

approximately $26 billion in fraudulent tax refunds resulting

from identity theft over the next five years,'' he testified.

The IRS told ABC News that it believes that five-year

estimate is ``far too high. The estimate was based on figures

from 2010, before the IRS instituted major changes in the way

it handles identity theft cases,'' the agency said. ``Our

increased compliance and prevention efforts mean we are

stopping more refund fraud than ever before.''

The Social Security Administration had recently taken steps

to cut back on the Master Death List information it releases

publicly, leaving off the decedent's state and ZIP code. And

the IRS said it has installed identity theft screening

filters on its computer systems to flag suspicious returns.

``Fighting identity theft will be an ongoing battle for the

IRS and one we cannot afford to let up on,'' said Steven

Miller, an IRS deputy commissioner, in written testimony.

Late last year, the IRS established a special taxpayer

protection unit to help handle identity theft cases. But

George testified that those trying to file their 2011 taxes

found it difficult to get through to the unit. ``The unit

received more than 86,000 calls during the 2012 filing

season, but has only been able to answer about 21,000,'' said

George. And according to his testimony, the average phone

wait time for taxpayers was almost one hour.

Taxpayers caught in this mess are forced to prove their

loved one's identity to the

IRS. Agin said he had to provide evidence to show the IRS

that his late daughter was his child. Some cases have taken

up to a year to resolve.

Congress is considering a number of bills that would limit

access to the Master Death List For Agin and the hundreds of

thousands of other taxpayers who have been victims of this

fraud, it can't come soon enough. ``It's bad enough losing

your child to any type of disease, cancer in any manner,''

said Agin, ``but then have somebody steal their identify, the

last remaining vestige of your child, it's horrible.''

Mr. Chairman, there is no dedicated person in the IRS to deal with these broken and grieving families, so they simply become victims. By the time they find out, someone has bought a house, someone has taken their luxury vacation, got many credit cards, and used this dead child to abuse this family again.

The Jackson Lee amendment is simple. What it does is it provides a dedicated person, funding to the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service for the purpose of assisting the parents of a deceased child where that child's identifying information has been stolen and fraudulently used on a personal income tax return filed with the IRS.

It is a simple request, Mr. Chairman. If the Taxpayer Advocate Service office is what it is, and if anyone has tried to use it, including Members of Congress, we know there needs to be a dedicated person just to answer the phone of the grieving parent who finds out through IRS filing that they are being abused again and their beautiful angel is being used for other and evil works of someone who would use that deceased child to their advantage.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to Division D of the Rules Committee Print 115- 31, which makes appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018, ``H.R. 3354, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018.''

I wish to commend Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Quigley for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendment is simple but provides an important and necessary protection for grieving parents.

The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to ensure that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has adequate resources to assist parents of a deceased child whose Social Security Number was stolen by tax cheats and used on a federal tax return to receive an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to be a compassionate use of IRS funds to help grieving parents navigate the process of reclaiming their child's identity from tax cheats.

This amendment is necessary when we consider the story of little Alexis Agin who was just 4 years old when she died of a brain tumor in 2011.

As her parents grieved, someone stole Alexis' identity to commit tax fraud.

Alexis' parents did not discover the crime until they filed their taxes.

The sad fact is Alexis' parents are not alone--they were one of at least 14 other parents whose children died of cancer and learned that their child's Social Security number had been stolen by tax thieves.

Nearly all of us understand the importance of safeguarding our Social Security numbers, but after someone dies Social Security numbers are published on a national online registry called the Master Death List.

The Master Death List registry exists to alert businesses and financial institutions to not renew credit cards or create new credit in a deceased person's name.

But it also alerts thieves of opportunities to steal identities and commit tax fraud.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle identity thieves have stolen the tax refunds of more than 490,000 dead persons since 2008.

The thieves typically claim that a dead person is their dependent when they file tax returns.

In Fiscal Year 2012, the IRS initiated approximately 900 identity theft related criminal investigations, triple the number of investigations initiated in FY 2011.

Direct investigative time applied to identity theft related investigations increased by 129 percent over that same period.

On July 30, 2013, in St. Louis, Missouri, Tania Henderson was convicted of theft of government funds and aggravated identity theft and sentenced to 144 months in prison and ordered to pay $835,883 in restitution to the U.S. Treasury.

According to her plea agreement and other court documents, Henderson stole the identities of more than 400 individuals, many of whom were deceased, and filed fraudulent tax returns using their names and Social Security account numbers.

The theft of identities of deceased children for the purpose of committing tax fraud is a sad fact that too many parents have to face while they are attempting to cope with the tragedy of losing their child.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will help ensure that the IRS Tax Advocate Service has the resources needed to assist these grieving parents with filing the last tax return where their child's name will be listed as being a member of their household.

I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment, which would be a compassionate use of IRS funds.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, last time I was on the floor, I mentioned that I was disappointed, and my friend on the other side made a remark that we all come here disappointed. I am saddened by the comment that he made earlier, and I am saddened by his response now because this is simply asking for a dedicated person, the offset is the operations account. It doesn't matter what conversations and what we have done. It is a simple direct response to the pain of people.

This is a mountain if it happens to you. It is not whether we are coming down or we have had conversations; it is a mountain.

So I would simply say, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, identity thieves have stolen tax refunds of more than 490,000 dead persons. This Death Master List continues. The IRS initiated approximately 900 identity theft-related criminal investigations out of 490,000.

So what if you are this parent of a dead child?

I just would have a person dedicated to taking your calls. That is all I am asking in this amendment with a slight offset.

It doesn't make any sense. Alexis' parents did not discover the crime until they filed their taxes.

How many others have not?

So I ask my colleagues, out of the goodness of their heart--this is the last amendment, and I don't think any manner of conversation about what I did yesterday and what I did last year is going to be helpful. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to help the parents of deceased children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply preserves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's independent funding and ensures that it is adequately funded. That is essentially what this is all about. This is very clear. The sides on this couldn't be more clear. My amendment is one of many this week, but I hope that people pay special attention to how folks vote on this particular amendment.

This amendment is a clear litmus test. If a legislator wants to support

the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if they want to support the work of $11.5 billion being returned to consumers, they should vote ``yes.''

A ``yes'' vote on my amendment means you want to protect Americans from fraud, deceptive practices, and rip-off schemes.

A ``yes'' vote means you want banks, debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders, and other finance companies to be held accountable if they rip off consumers.

A ``yes'' vote means that you want honest and fair-dealing firms in the financial services space to be rewarded for their good work and for people who take advantage of consumers to be punished.

We want to keep good companies good. How can you do that if good and bad get treated just alike?

We need the CFPB. My amendment asks that you stand with Ari Booras, for example. As you may have seen on ``CBS Sunday Morning'' a few weeks ago, Harry Booras contacted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer complaint center for help. His teenage son, Ari, joined the Army, just like mine did, and bought a used truck at a car dealer near his base.

My boy was 18 when he went to the Army. Ari was the same age, I imagine. Yet that desire was taken advantage of.

Teenage Ari joined the Army and bought a used truck at a car dealer near the base. The loan was way more than this private could possibly afford, with an extensive extended warranty and 18.5 percent interest. Private Booras would have paid three times more than Blue Book value for this $11,000 truck. He would have paid three times more. Yet he can't afford three times more. He is just a private trying to serve his country.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got Private Booras and 50,000 other servicemembers out of these predatory loans that ruin their finances and cause enormous stress in their lives. We need servicemembers thinking about protecting the country, not how to fight off some predatory lender.

My amendment asks that you stand with Samir Hanef from Durham, North Carolina. Samir was one of more than half a million people who was wrongly charged for auto insurance when he took out a loan to buy a Honda Civic.

Samir, a social worker, already had insurance, but Wells Fargo charged him and 20,000 others, customers, added insurance that made them miss payments. This led to their cars being repossessed in some cases.

The numerous scandals at Wells Fargo--the forced insurance, fake accounts, overcharges at mortgage closing, signing customers up for life insurance without their consent, and other fraudulent practices-- are coming to light because of the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its consumer complaint office. They need independence.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves the CFPB's authority to protect people who live in manufactured housing, manufactured housing buyers.

I am lucky to have the National Manufactured Home Owners Association based in my district. For the Record, they have written an excellent letter on behalf of this amendment, which I will include in the Record.

Manufactured Housing Action.

Representative Keith Ellison,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Ellison: We are writing to thank you for

introducing the Ellison Amendment #200 to the Department of

the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Act of 2018

(H.R. 3354). On behalf of the manufactured homeowners we

represent, we our offering our organizational support for

this amendment.

MHAction empowers homeowners and residents in manufactured

home communities to build and win local, state and national

issue campaigns that strengthen the long-term viability and

affordability of their communities. The work of MHAction is

based on a set of core values, central to which are

compassion for our neighbors and love of our communities. We

believe that manufactured home communities play a key role in

providing affordable, safe and accessible housing for all

families, regardless of race, language, immigration status,

class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. MHAction

currently represents over 19,000 manufactured homeowners in

28 states.

It is vital that this amendment passes to protect

manufactured home buyers, especially people of color that

face higher levels of lending discrimination and seniors. We

need to ensure that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau

retains the power to ensure that potential home buyers aren't

steered into high fee and high interest loans. When people

buy a home, it should help increase their stability and

wealth, not damage their finances.

Again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to your

office for fighting to ensure that the Consumer Finance

Protection Bureau can continue to protect manufactured home

buyers from loans that strip away their economic and

retirement security.

Should you have any question, please feel free to contact

MHAction's Executive Director, Kevin Borden. Our organization

can easily put your office in touch with purpose-driven

community leaders in numerous states that have been fighting

to strengthen the economic and retirement security of

manufactured homeowners.

Sincerely,

The MHAction Core Team.

I am also very proud of the residents of the Park Plaza, a

manufactured home resident-owned community in my district.

They tell me that being steered to high-cost loans makes homeownership more costly for families. Before Dodd-Frank and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the manufactured home loan market was notoriously predatory.

For example, a story in The Seattle Times, which I recommend Members read, tells the story of Kirk and Patricia Ackley, a construction worker and a Walmart employee in Washington State.

More than a decade ago, they bought a new manufactured home big enough for their children and room to care for Patricia's dad, who had dementia. But their dream became a nightmare when the promised 7 percent interest rate was raised to 12.5 percent.

This family faced crisis when this raised their monthly payment from $700 to $1,100. They had already invested $11,000 to build the concrete foundation for their new home. They took the loan, but it destroyed their finances and nearly cost them their marriage. The home was repossessed.

A 2015 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times interviewed more than 280 customers of Clayton Homes. One person they interviewed was a member of the Navajo Nation. She said she learned about Clayton on Navajo radio.

The ad recommended that she talk to a specific Navajo-speaking salesperson at a lot outside of the reservation. He told her that Vanderbilt Mortgage was the only source of finance for homes on the reservation. He didn't tell her the truth and overcharged her.

Now it is illegal for a salesperson to steer buyers to high-cost loans because of new rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But section 915 of the bill weakens those protections. Loans with high interest rates can be especially devastating to buyers of mobile homes since houses often depreciate quickly.

A buyer with a high rate will still owe a large sum for many years on a home that can be almost impossible to sell or finance. That is because the value of the home can fall below the loan balance.

Opponents of my amendment say that they want to help manufactured home buyers. That is a good thing. Yet none of them have cosponsored H.R. 515, which would provide low-cost loans to owners of outdated mobile homes so they can buy ENERGY STAR homes, which would reduce their bills and save energy. None of them have joined me to cosponsor the Frank Adelmann Manufactured Housing Community Sustainability Act, which helps residents of mobile home communities form a cooperative and buy the land that they live on. Or what about H.R. 3583 that gives manufactured homeowners located in communities the same tax benefits as those who own their own land?

I have introduced these bills to try to help people who live in manufactured homes. We do and must stand with them because this is an affordable, and sometimes quality, housing option for people, and yet manufactured homeowners support my bills.

Right here we have the National Manufactured Home Owners Association, which has said very clearly that my amendment is a good one.

There is a way to help manufactured homeowners that does not involve overcharging them. There is a way forward to help owners of manufactured housing without helping Clayton Homes and its affiliates make more money off of them.

And let's be clear, nearly no other lender benefits to this change to section 915. Ninety-one percent of the high-cost loans come from lenders owned by Clayton. The industry's second largest mobile home lender, Wells Fargo, didn't have a single loan in the high-rate pool in The Seattle Times study.

Protect manufactured home buyers. Support my amendment No. 200.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to preserve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority to regulate small-dollar loans.

Sometimes people need access to more money quickly. We know that. Your car breaks down, your refrigerator dies, or your kid breaks a leg at a soccer game and you get hit with an unexpected health bill. Life happens sometimes, not on a plan. We get that.

Unfortunately, too many people--about half of families--do not have the adequate savings for the cushion. Right now, Mr. Chairman, about 63 percent of all Americans report that they do not know what they would do if hit with an unexpected $500 bill.

If they take out a payday loan or a title loan, they can fall into a cycle of debt, and many people do. Instead of getting one $500 loan, most people get a repeat loan of 6 to 10, on average, paying additional fees each time, at 400 percent interest. So a $500 loan could cost thousands of dollars.

More than 80 percent of the payday industry's revenues are generated by repeat borrowers, not one-and-done, Mr. Chairman.

That is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau prioritized improving the small-dollar loan market. Unfortunately, language in this bill would stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from moving forward to rein in abuses in the payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar debt traps.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has documented through extensive study how payday lending traps borrowers in a cycle of debt: one in three auto title loans in default, one in five borrowers using auto title loans have their cars repossessed. That is 20 percent.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is close to releasing guidance to improve this market. Its efforts are supported by a broad network of civil rights and consumer advocates, as well as faith-based leaders opposing predatory lending.

I am really proud of Exodus Lending in my district. The Minneapolis Lutheran congregation recognized that too many of their congregants were stuck in debt traps. Their parishioners had jobs. They had bank accounts. But when they took out small-dollar loans, it gave lenders access to their bank accounts, which stripped out a third of their paycheck every 2 weeks. Instead of one loan, they ended up getting ten because they could not repay the first loan.

So the Lutherans, working with Sunrise Banks, established an alternative. They made more than 100 loans to people stuck in debt traps. Other communities are creating small-dollar lending alternatives through employer assistance programs with for-profit partners.

My amendment would simply allow the CFPB to finalize its rulemaking so cool ideas like these, to help people out of debt, could go forward. We need strong Federal standards so people can have access to small loans on a quick basis without falling prey to debt traps.

Research from the Center for Responsible Lending shows that payday lending drains $3.4 billion a year nationally from consumers' pockets-- money that is no longer available to help pay for medicine, new tires, or any kind of emergency.

The CFPB is very close to putting forth a better way to get private sector lenders involved. We could have a $300 loan with $60 fees that someone can repay.

Let's allow the CFPB to move forward to better small-dollar loans. Please support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear, to get a payday loan, you have to have a bank account and a job. We are not talking about the unbanked. We are talking about people who run into a short-term financial crisis, they go to a payday lender, but the amount of the fees are so high that they have to borrow money to pay the money back, and they end up getting in a cycle of 6 to 10 loans that they have to continue to take out, which drains money from their finances. They lose bank accounts because of payday loans.

We are saying: Let the CFPB allow the regulatory process, the rulemaking process, to go forward. Let's not chop it off, let's not stop it, and let's see what we can find out. People in my district have come up with some pretty innovative ways to go around the high-cost, high-APR payday lending scam.

But if we just say, No, we are just going to take authority away from the CFPB, what we are really doing is subjecting Americans to the payday loan industry. Now, I don't want to take support from those guys, so I am happy to stand up here and say: Vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504, and as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I rise to offer en bloc No. 5 as part of the consideration of division D of H.R. 3354. The list of amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

From the beginning here, let me just thank the ranking member, Mr. Quigley, for his good work over the last several months as we have worked together as a team to try to come up with a product that everyone would be pleased with, and also Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member, as well.

But I have to give credit to our leadership. They have decided to go big this year. They have had faith in Chairman Frelinghuysen and our committee members just to get the job done. By the end of this week, this House will be the first Republican majority since 2004 to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time.

Now, this bill is certainly true to its name and it is also true to our principles. We make America safe by funding our military and securing our borders. We are making America prosperous by restoring financial freedom so all Americans can earn a living and achieve their own dreams.

Now I will say something obvious, Mr. Chairman. America entrusted our party with the White House and both Houses of Congress in this last election. Take a look at this package. These are policies that we have been elected to pass. This is the U.S. House saying: We hear you, and we are with you, and we are going to get the job done.

So I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and the subcommittee chairs--all have worked hard over the last several months--and their committee staff for going big and getting this package to the floor as we finish it up here this evening.

It is also important to thank my subcommittee and their personal staff as well. I want to thank them for the many hours of work, the weekends, the late nights and the holidays that have

brought us to this moment. I want to thank our clerk, Dena Baron; and Marybeth and Ariana; Brad Allen, who is in our Financial Services Office; and until a few days ago, when a great opportunity took her away from us, Kelly Hitchcock, who has been in our office as well.

And then, of course, my personal office, we have John Donnelly, Jason Murphy, and Sam Mahler, who have worked very diligently, Mr. Chairman, to bring us to this point on this evening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), who has worked hard on this amendment and has a portion of the amendment he would like to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who has been leading the fight against opioid and drug abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for his

fierce support and defense of our First Amendment rights and religious freedoms. Faith-based and pro-life organizations should be free to serve according to their deeply held beliefs. So the vote on this amendment today is one on which you should be voting ``yes'' for the First Amendment and ``yes'' for religious freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for Ms. Norton, and I appreciate her passion and zeal for the District. She advocates well for them.

I hear my friends across the aisle speak about disregard for local law. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, this is truly not the case.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the seat of government of the United States, which is the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia is neither a State nor a municipality; in fact, it is a District. Therefore, D.C. derives all of its powers not from the sovereignty of statehood but from the delegation that is given to them by Congress.

By the way, the Home Rule Act in 1973 has allowed D.C. to assume more and more responsibility over time.

This bill before you continues to appropriate D.C. funds, as it has for the last 44 years. That is 44 years of Republican majorities and Democratic majorities. This changes nothing from that. It was under various administrations as well.

This bill does not change the special and unique relationship between D.C. and the Federal Government, because the D.C. Budget Autonomy Act did not change that special, unique relationship between the District and the Federal Government whatsoever.

The D.C. Budget Autonomy Act only amended the Home Rule Act as adopted by the D.C. Code. So no State, county, city, or hybrid like the District of Columbia can override the supremacy of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, as we debate this each and every time, let me assure the body here that the District of Columbia has plenty of autonomy, but when it comes to spending, that is the role of Congress as given to us through the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work here by the gentleman making a great case on why this amendment is harmful to the American people and to the financial prosperity, and so I join them in my opposition, and their opposition as well, to this amendment and urge the House to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for his work on this. I mean, the language that the author of this amendment is trying to strip is actually language that improves the quality and affordability of housing for millions of Americans. So I appreciate Mr. Barr for trying to save Americans from the limited access to resources out there.

Unfortunately, new regulations by the CFPB have limited access to financing options for manufacturing homes as well as many other things.

And, as a result, many lenders now today are no longer able to offer small balance loans, which are often used for the purchase of affordable housing, such as manufactured housing. We should be supporting and encouraging more access to financing. After all, we are talking about the American Dream, the ownership of your home. Don't take that away.

I thank the gentleman for his work, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I join this team here in opposition to the amendment.

I want us just to think about what we have heard over the last several minutes of debate here of various amendments.

First, we heard an amendment offered to take away the American Dream so that consumers couldn't buy a home at an affordable cost. Next, we are hearing that the other side of the aisle wants to take away the ability of small loans from individuals and consumers across the country. But even prior to that, they did not want the very agency that is causing this damage to have any oversight by Congress. This is maddening. This is amazing.

I appreciate the good work that has been done by the Financial Services Committee. I am glad we have been able to incorporate a lot of the great work into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I join these gentlemen in opposition to the amendment because this is about making America prosperous again, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Quigley and our team have worked hard on this bill, and there are a lot of tough decisions, no doubt about that. We have made some tremendously difficult decisions.

I know Mr. Mitchell was sitting here with a mission from his constituency, and that was to produce savings, to find savings and to reduce the debt and the deficit. Mr. Chairman, I applaud his efforts. I know he has sharpened his pencil and he has done a lot of work, and I appreciate him bringing this concept before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's thoughts and advocacy for communities and developing them, and certainly our thoughts and prayers go to her and her constituencies that have been impacted through the recent hurricanes, as we do with Florida and the other Southeastern States.

This is just one of those tough decisions that there are only limited resources that we had to work with, so we had to make some tough decisions. In fact, there are many areas in this bill that I wish we could provide additional resources for.

But I am glad that we could take this from what was given to us originally, as zeroed out by the President in his recommendation, and we were able to begin backfilling it for these needed loans for communities to allow for some of the development to occur and small businesses to be able to thrive.

So I know that, working with Ranking Member Quigley, we did what we could, and we both wish we could have done more. And I know, as we move forward through the process, we will continue looking at this.

But, again, let me close by saying that I certainly understand the gentlewoman's thoughts on this, and I know that all of the committee supports her sentiment in this case. But because of the reasons I stated, the limited resources, and the tough decisions we had to make, I have to oppose this amendment and urge everyone to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close with this. The gentlewoman won't be the first to ever be disappointed in my response, I can assure you that.

But let me just point out for the House here, she is asking for a half-a-million-dollar increase in this fund when, in fact, we increased it by $176 million over the President's request. So I think that is moving far away from where we started, and to a better spot. And while I wish we could provide a little bit more, we can't.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, it is anti-coal policies such as this that result in a market loss for American coal and clean coal technology and cut off, really, quite frankly, an affordable, reliable source of energy that is critical to economic development in struggling regions of the world.

This section 133 does not mandate coal-fired generation for U.S.- funded international development projects. It

just simply ensures that coal can continue to be a part of our country's longstanding energy strategy.

Abandoning support for fossil fuels hurts American jobs, and it slows American innovation.

It is for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as we come to the last amendment on the last bill of this appropriations season, I was hoping we could end it on a positive note. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this amendment. I respect the gentlewoman's thoughts on this. It is a compelling story that she shared with us, and a lot of families have been impacted by identity theft. It is certainly something that concerns me and our entire committee.

We have worked through this. In fact, in May of this year, I held an oversight hearing and questioned top officials about this and their efforts to reduce identity theft. Additionally, the Financial Services bill that we are speaking of here includes targeted funds to combat identity theft as well as additional reporting requirements to monitor the IRS's progress in this area.

In fact, overall identity theft referrals from the Taxpayer Advocate are down. They are down right now. It is not perfect. They are not at zero, but they are moving in the right direction, as are inventory receipts in the IRS Identity Theft Victim Assistance office.

Our committee--myself, along with Mr. Quigley and the entire committee--have had to make a lot of tough funding choices throughout this season. It has not been easy. There are a lot of very worthy programs that we wish we can fund more. Unfortunately, we just can't do all that has been requested by all the Members who have a lot of great and creative ideas to help taxpayers and our constituents.

But in this case with this line item, we didn't cut anything. In fact, it has been flat-funded. It is at the same level that was funded last year, and that comes in a portion of our appropriations budget here that we are talking about. It is being cut, on average, 6-plus percent overall. This one line item, though, remains static, and that should speak a lot to our committee and their work to find ways in which to provide additional resources to combat identity theft.

Mr. Chairman, as we wrap this up, I want to thank you and everyone else for their patience today over the last many weeks. I thank the Committee on Appropriations Chairman Frelinghuysen and all the great work by the House of Representatives as we wrap up this final amendment with my opposition to the amendment. I urge the House to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in June, the House passed H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act, with overwhelming support.

Section 713 of the Financial CHOICE Act contained language to subject the CFPB to the annual congressional appropriations process.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is funded out of the earnings of the Federal Reserve system. In order to obtain funding, the Director need only submit a letter to the Board of Governors and Federal Reserve each quarter certifying the amounts of funds determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary for carrying out the authorities of the Bureau. The Federal Reserve then transfers the stated amount to the Bureau for operations.

Basically, the Federal Reserve serves purely as an ATM machine for the CFPB, and neither Congress nor the President has the ability to have any input into the Bureau's funding or oversight of whether that funding is spent effectively.

The Bureau's funding is, therefore, different from other regulators that police markets for force and fraud, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and all those which are funded principally through congressional appropriations.

To return to a constitutional structure and create agency accountability, Congress must reclaim its power of the purse over the most potent tools the Constitution gives Congress for conducting oversight of Federal agencies and implementing the real reforms. There can be no consent of the governed if the American people, through their democratically elected Representatives, have no say in how their government spends their hard-earned dollars.

To reassert Congress' power of the purse, the Financial CHOICE Act calls for all the Federal financial regulatory agencies, including the CLEA and FSOC, to be funded through the congressional appropriations process, ensuring that these agencies use their funding effectively and transparently to fulfill their mission of protecting consumers and investors.

Like other executive branch agencies and other regulators that police the markets, the CFPB will have the chance to justify its expenditures to Congress as a part of the appropriations process. Congress can continue to fund programs that provide value to consumers and can stop funding programs that are mired in waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a basic accountability measure, no more, no less.

It seems my good colleague across the aisle is fearful that we may do something to harm that ability. He is afraid of providing accountability for those dollars. That is our basic function and it is our responsibility. We must not miss this opportunity to reestablish separation of powers and restore the constitutional governance to the administrative state.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), chair of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, just to close, I would encourage all the Members to oppose the amendment. It is curious why we have someone here who is fighting the ability of Congress to do its job to provide oversight. So I ask the question: Are we fearful of somebody looking over the shoulder of CFPB? Why? What are they hiding? What are they not doing? What should we be worried about? I think, more than ever, we need to be looking over their shoulder.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, some of the debate we are having here this afternoon. We are picking around on the edges of some things and don't really understand the unintended consequences of what we are trying to do here.

The amendment that is here, to try to change the definitions of what a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage to facilitate access to credit for purchasing manufactured homes, is going to do just the opposite of what the gentleman is trying to do.

Do you realize that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), in his district, he has testified in our committee that over 50 percent of the people in his district live in manufactured homes. This is not a little bitty problem of half a dozen people living over on the side. This is a major source of housing for many people.

I can tell you, I have got a story right here from a banker in southeast Missouri who had an individual who has several disabilities, was a very honest man, wanted to come in and take care of a dental problem that he had, and his only collateral was a truck and his manufactured home.

He wanted to make the loan on the manufactured home because he could stretch out the payments and do it at a less interest rate, but he couldn't do that. Why? Because the way the law is

structured, he had to do it on his car loan, and, as a result, it really strained and put difficulties in the way of--put barriers in the way of this individual. So I certainly am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in June, the House passed H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act, with overwhelming support. Section 733 of the Financial CHOICE Act contained language to remove the CFPB's authority to regulate small- dollar credit.

Federalizing payday loan regulation is unnecessary and harms consumers. The legislatures of several States have determined the respective short-term small-dollar lending solutions that work for their constituents. No State is without small-dollar short-term lending laws and regulation of some kind.

Congress has an obligation not to suspend the Democratic process in the States by delegating to the CFPB Director the authority to impose one unelected man's view on all Americans.

Small-dollar and payday loan products are an unfortunate necessity for many unbanked and underbanked Americans.

What is the APR for losing a job, Mr. Chairman? What is the APR for getting evicted and having your utilities shut off? What is the opportunity cost for struggling Americans no longer having access to this vital lifeline?

Removing the option to utilize a small-dollar short-term loan is likely

to have a very real and very harmful impact on a consumer, forcing them to miss bill payments, shift to the alternative, potential legal options, or exacerbating any number of other conceivable financial emergencies that could arise.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the best way to improve products is to promote competition and offering them, not ban them. The Financial CHOICE Act ensures that the market, not the regulators, is responsible for determining product viability in the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, CFPB's own study showed that their regulation was going to drive out of business 85 percent of the small-dollar lenders, and they still went ahead. They don't care. They intend to restrict credit to these very people that need the credit.

An FDIC 2015 study shows that 25 percent of the people in this country are either unbanked or underbanked.

How do we solve that problem? How do those folks have access to credit?

The CFPB is not trying to regulate. They are trying to destroy the small-dollar lending market.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is really frustrating to me from the standpoint that just a minute ago I gave the figure of 25 percent of our people are either unbanked or underbanked. My good colleague across the aisle said he is not worried that people who are unbanked can't have access to payday lending or short-term lending, and that is just not accurate. That is, quite frankly, in many instances, where people get their credit started. They go to someplace like this because they have a job.

You can't get a payday loan or a small-dollar loan like this unless you have a job. They take the stub of their paycheck and they can go in and say, I have got a job. From there, they are able to then start paying back whatever the loan is that they take out.

I have in front of me also a whole list of groups of folks and individuals here who have utilized short-term small-dollar programs.

Here is Michelle from Fulton, Missouri, in my own district. She says: My frustration to loan access today is that my 20-year-old daughter, who has a full-time, decent-paying job, cannot get a loan to buy her first vehicle. She isn't even able to get a credit card, which you used to be able to just apply for and you would get it. It is a catch-22: you need credit to get credit. But nobody will give you credit to begin with.

This is an opportunity for a lot of people to get their foot in the door to get credit established and, if you have bad credit, to reestablish good credit. And it also helps people to take care of--and I have another whole bunch of stories here about a young man who needed to get a car loan to get his car fixed, as the gentleman from Minnesota indicated.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I ask everybody else to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a provision that subjects the National Credit Union Administration to the annual congressional appropriations process.

My point this afternoon is that Congress must restore its power of the purse, one of the most potent tools the Constitution gives Congress for conducting oversight of Federal agencies and implementing reforms. There can be no consent of the governed if the American people, through their democratically elected representatives have no say in how their government spends their hard-earned dollars.

We must not miss the opportunity to reestablish separation of powers and restore Article I authority, which Congress has given away in so many instances that the administration now has more power than the legislative branch.

The NCUA is a prime example of why it is time to reassert Congress' power of the purse. Accountability and transparency was so lacking under former Chairman Debbie Matz' tenure that, over the course of her tenure, the NCUA budget increased each year, in some cases by double- digit percentages. The Financial Services Committee, in fact, was forced to hold a public hearing during the 114th Congress.

NCUA should not be singled out to avoid accountability to Congress. The CHOICE Act, which was passed by the House with overwhelming support--and the Congressman from Nevada's support as well--subjects all Federal financial regulators to the same congressional appropriations process, including NCUA. There is no reason to single out the NCUA for different treatment from all other regulators, all of whom the House has already voted on to put on appropriations just 3 months ago.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.