Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member seems as if she would like to have a conversation about housing and prices. I am happy to do that--I am a former realtor and builder--just not right now.

Today, we are here to talk about H.R. 4790, the Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4790 would streamline the regulatory authority over the Volcker rule by granting the Federal Reserve the exclusive primary authority, while requiring all of the other agencies to yet do their job as prescribed.

This was really about proprietary trading. Because of the key role that market making plays in ensuring deep, liquid capital markets, the framers of the Volcker rule sought to exempt market-making activities from the coverage of its prohibition on proprietary trading.

There is just one problem: The line between impermissible ``proprietary trading'' and permissible ``market making'' is virtually impossible to draw.

To add insult to injury, the framers of the Volcker rule unartfully conferred responsibility for both implementing and enforcing the rule on five different Federal financial regulators, all of which have different mandates and regulatory philosophies: the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, SEC, and the CFTC. It is an alphabet soup of regulators.

With each regulator having different statutory mandates and regulatory missions, is it any surprise that these five agencies have failed to reach a consensus on the regulation to implement the Volcker rule's vague legislative language?

Let me give you another example. This is a little like driving down an unmarked section of the road where the State police, the Department of Transportation, the local police, the parking attendant, and the FBI have all been told that they have primary enforcement responsibilities for the speed limit. It just doesn't make sense. As a result, banks are getting out of the market-making business for fear of running afoul of the Volcker rule. This is a great detriment to the U.S. capital markets.

The real-world implications of the Volcker rule have been higher borrowing costs for job creators, smaller investment returns for hardworking families, and less economic activity overall because of further regulatory restraints placed on already reduced liquidity margins in key fixed-income markets, including the corporate bond market.

So, needless to say, from its inception, the Volcker rule has been a solution in search of a problem. It seeks to address activities that had nothing to do with the financial crisis, and its practical effect has been to undermine financial stability rather than to preserve it.

H.R. 4790 is a much-needed first step to addressing the numerous unintended and negative consequences of the Volcker rule. This bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out, streamlines the rulemaking authority of the Federal Reserve. It consolidates examination and enforcement authority into a single primary regulator.

This legislative measure makes important and sensible changes to ensure much-needed regulatory clarity and reduces burdensome compliance costs.

Mr. Speaker, despite the hyperbole you are hearing from the ranking member, nothing in this bill grants the Federal Reserve the ability to repeal the Volcker rule--nothing. Additionally, the other regulators, that alphabet soup of regulators, are still required to enforce the law.

Everyone deserves to have clarity and understanding of what the rules of the road are, and that is what this bill is trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4790.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am going to miss both the chairman and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) after they leave this term.

I am going to try to address the ranking member's timing issue, but the fact is that much of this bill simply codifies what FSOC's current process is and, thus, is not changing that timing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4061, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017, which would enhance transparency and procedural fairness for the nonbank systemically important financial institutions designation process.

Dodd-Frank created FSOC and charged it with identifying risks to the financial stability of financial companies that would pose a threat to our overall financial stability. The problem with this is that FSOC has the authority to designate a nonbank financial institution, such as an asset manager or an insurance company, and subject the institution to heightened prudential supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

All you hear from the other side is that this is about megabanks. It is the exact opposite. It is about these insurance companies and these asset managers and broker dealers.

In 2014, FSOC designated MetLife, a life insurance company, for ``heightened prudential supervision'' by the

Federal Reserve. However, in 2016, a Federal district court rescinded FSOC's SIFI designation of MetLife, finding that it was ``arbitrary and capricious'' and that the FSOC had ``made critical departures'' from its own standards from making designation determinations.

Now, I wasn't there when Dodd-Frank was created, but I have been dealing with the echo effect of it for the last 7 years, and I don't believe this is what Congress intended. I don't believe that the architects--in fact, I can't believe that the architects--of Dodd-Frank intended for bank regulators to rewrite the rules of insurance companies.

As The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``It's as if a committee of baseball umpires rewrote the rules of football despite protests from the NFL players, owners, and referees.''

Let me give a personal example. My political science degree should then qualify me to be a chemical lab scientist. Hey, they both have science in the title.

It doesn't make sense.

In fact, even Barney Frank, the law's namesake, told Congress that, in general, he did not believe that companies ``that just sell insurance'' should be designated as systemic.

Well, today we have the ability to right the ship. By passing this important bill, Congress has the opportunity to bring about commonsense, bipartisan reforms to this designation process. And this is what American, hardworking taxpayers expect out of us: an ability to find a solution.

Specifically, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act of 2017 would amend the Dodd-Frank Act to require FSOC to determine whether to subject a U.S. or a foreign nonbank financial company to supervision by the Federal Reserve, must consider the appropriateness of imposing heightened prudential standards as opposed to other forms of regulation to mitigate identified risks to the financial stability. In other words, as my friend from Florida said, don't go butterfly hunting with a sledgehammer.

H.R. 4061 directs FSOC to reevaluate, both annually and periodically, final determinations of systemic risk regarding a nonbank financial company under supervision.

Finally, the bill directs the FSOC to study the impacts of its determinations to nonbank financial companies to Fed supervision and prudential standards and whether such determinations have the intended result of improving domestic financial stability every 5 years.

I would like to commend the bipartisan work of my colleagues and friends, Representative Ross and Representative Delaney. They have done a great job on this. Their bipartisan approach enhances the ability of FSOC to mitigate risk, a very important element, but it also ensures that affected nonbank--again, nonbank--financial institutions are afforded the opportunity and the ability to question and engage--not veto, but to question and engage--the FSOC prior to a final SIFI designation being made.

This is good work that gives hardworking taxpayers a solution, and this is what they expect: commonsense, bipartisan solutions. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from New Jersey and the work that he has put into this.

I rise today in support of this much-needed legislation that would increase the limit that small companies looking for additional investments and investors can solicit under Reg. A+. These deals would increase from $50 million to $75 million. This will enhance capital formation for growing small companies that are exploring crowdfunding as a method to raise capital.

The JOBS Act has proven to be wildly successful, and this program has proven itself successful as well. Yet it can be even more so with this modest increase.

So, specifically, the legislation further strengthens the ability for small- to mid-sized companies to attract more traditional underwriters and more sophisticated investors into the Reg. A+ process.

Reg. A+ has been termed a ``Mini IPO'' or an ``IPO to go,'' and for good reason. While the cost of doing a full-blown IPO has skyrocketed, and the crowdfunding industry has been adopting Reg. A+ and leveraging it to raise growth capital for a fraction of what a traditional full- blown IPO would be, would cost, while still having access to the capital markets.

Like the chairman, I and many others on the committee have been concerned about the decrease in these initial public offerings, or IPOs, over the last number of years. Reg. A+ has been able to step in and help fill that gap. It provides much greater flexibility and marketing to potential investors, both accredited an non-accredited, while maintaining important consumer protections that everybody agrees needs to be there.

Despite Reg. A+ being cheaper and faster, however, major underwriters and broker dealers have been slow to fully adopt Reg. A+ because the size of the increase up to that $50 million has really been minimal compared to a traditional IPO.

Raising the Reg. A+ limit to $75 million is certainly a step in the right direction to alleviate this problem, as it opens Reg. A+ to larger companies that may be considering doing a full-blown traditional

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for his leadership and my friend from California on this.

Mr. Speaker, I can't think of anything that is more important than what we are talking about here in Washington. There are three critical foundations which our Nation was built upon: the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the right to life.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President, said: ``No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.''

What he means by civil authority is government.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today in the well of the House Chamber, Americans' freedom of conscience and our right to life is, once again, under attack, and this time in California. This law at issue in California is a classic example of government using its power to force citizens to promote messages that conflict with their personal beliefs.

Pro-life pregnancy centers are a valuable asset to women, to men, to the families, and certainly to those babies. Not only around the country but certainly in Michigan, these centers provide, at no charge, practical advice and resources, information, emotional support for expecting mothers and those fathers and families in need. As leaders of this Nation, we should be offering support, resources, and praises for their efforts, not forcibly targeting these PRCs with unconstitutional government mandates.

Through the work of my wife, Natalie, who served for a number of years on the board of a local pregnancy resource center in west Michigan, I have seen firsthand the overwhelming positive impact that they have on the community. My sister-in-law still serves on that board. This is real impact in real lives, to women and certainly to their babies.

Now, maybe even more importantly, even after that baby is born, these resource centers will oftentimes provide care and clothing and education and emotional support. I know in my own church in west Michigan we regularly have those dresser drives where we fill a dresser for that pregnancy center, and we are providing those diapers and providing that formula. We are there to help those mothers make it through.

Well, the Federal Government should never force or attempt to coerce medical professionals, employers, or resource centers to perform or promote abortions against their beliefs. Our basic freedoms and founding principles were established to protect us from that exact sort of intimidation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank my friends for leading this effort, but these pregnancy resource centers work. We know that. They offer compassionate care to those who need it the most and should be treasured by the government and not targeted by them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a mild medical issue. Had I been present for roll call vote number 81, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1222 the Congenital Heart Futures Reauthorization Act of 2017 I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 82, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 2422 the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017 I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 83, on the Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 84, On Ordering the Previous Question, on H. RES. 748 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 85, On Agreeing to the Resolution to H. RES. 748 Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 86, On Ordering the Previous Question, to H. RES. 747, Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4296 to place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, and providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4607 the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 87, On Agreeing to the Resolution, to H. RES. 747, Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4296 to place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, and providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4607 the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 88, On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, H.R. 4296, To place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 89, On Passage to H.R. 4296 To place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 90, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1865 Mimi Walters of California Amendment No. 2, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 91, On Passage of H.R. 1865 Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, I would have voted ``yay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, Lieutenant Mark Russo on his retirement from the Michigan State Police.

As a graduate of the 101st Trooper recruit school in 1987, Trooper Mark Russo went on to serve at the Ithaca Post, Criminal Investigation Division, and the Lansing Post. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1994 at the Ionia Post and in 1998 transferred to a multijurisdictional narcotics unit, the Metropolitan Enforcement Team. He served on that team for 14 years before being promoted to a Lieutenant within the Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division.

During his distinguished career, Lt. Russo received multiple awards including the Sixth District Gerstacker Award, the Grand Rapids Police Chiefs Award, and the International Narcotics Interdiction Association Group of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Second District of Michigan, we thank Lt. Mark Russo and his wife Tracy for their 31 years of service to West Michigan and to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, this February marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of a truly great American, Mr. Frederick Douglass. Having been born into slavery as Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey in Talbot County, Maryland, Mr. Douglass never knew his real birthday. He often lamented that he had only a few, shadowy memories of his mother, who would walk miles at night to visit him as a child, and then walk back home to be in the fields before sunrise. Yet that little boy would grow up into a brave young man, who taught himself to read and write, and successfully escaped slavery on his third attempt. He would marry Anna, the love of his life, and remain married to her until her death. He was a devoted father to all five of their children. While still a fugitive slave, he would write the first of three autobiographies: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, which remains one of the greatest books ever written in the English language. Mr. Douglass was a deeply courageous American who never shied away from confronting evil, even at great personal risk. He became a world-renown orator in the cause of abolition, laying bare the horrors of slavery and helping to end that cursed institution in America once and for all. He began and edited his own abolitionist newspaper, The North Star. He successfully published his paper until slavery ended, despite opposition and persecution from other abolitionists. He met with and served as an advisor to President Lincoln during the Civil War, and did not hesitate to confront the President directly over the treatment of African American soldiers in the Union Army. After the Civil War ended, Douglass served four more presidents, fighting to end racial segregation and to get African Americans and women the right to vote. For his entire life, he worked tirelessly to bring justice to the oppressed and to call America to live out its highest ideals, reminding us that ``The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.'' I would also like to recognize two great organizations that have been founded to continue Mr. Douglass' legacy of faith-based activism, moral courage and clarity, and family devotion. The Frederick Douglass Foundation was founded in 2009 by Dr. Timothy Johnson, Mr. Troy Rolling and Rev. Dean Nelson to engage and recruit black activists, community leaders to become members of the Republican Party. The organization has thousands of members and chapters in over 15 states. The Douglass Leadership Institute, founded in 2015 by Rev. Dean Nelson, a non-partisan organization which educates, equips and empowers faith-based leaders to embrace and apply biblical principles to life. Both organizations are committed to Righteousness, Justice, Liberty and Virtue.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing some of the details of the bill, but here is the real message: this is about our small communities and small banks that are the lifeblood of those communities.

A little earlier you heard the ranking member talk about this being about Wall Street.

Do you know what?

She is right. This is about Wall Street. Wall Street was one block away from where I lived on Sanford Street in Zeeland, Michigan. By the way, we were connected by Main Street and Central Avenue. That is what it is about. Whether it is Wall Street in Zeeland, Michigan, or Sanford Street, or my friends in Baldwin, Michigan, this is about our small communities.

What does a strong local community bank bring?

It brings local investment.

And what does that local investment bring?

Stability, predictability, trust, trust among the farmers, among those corner pub owners, or among those small hotel owners that may be depending on the stray traveler that is going to be coming through.

This has been sort of viewed as a risk to these small banks. It is actually the opposite of that. Either, A, one small community bank is going to merge with another small community bank and they are going to remain small community banks under that $3 billion threshold; or, B, what we have been seeing a lot of--and this is what the chairman was talking about--they are going to get gobbled up by a large bank that doesn't qualify under this legislation.

And guess what.

They are far more likely to remove those ATMs and far more likely to move those local branches out of places like Tustin and Luther and Baldwin and Holland.

I can tell you this: if you went and said that this is anything other than about strengthening our small community banks, it shows, A, one is either wildly out of touch or, B, playing politics.

That is the sad part, because I can tell you this: if you go talk to my friend Debbie Smith-Olson, who is the CEO of Lake-Osceola State Bank in Baldwin, Michigan--located in the poorest county in the State of Michigan, one of the top 100 poorest counties in the Nation--and you told her that this was about Wall Street, she would laugh.

If I went and talked to my friends at Macatawa Bank and tried to describe this as being about helping big banks and Wall Street and rolling back Dodd-Frank, they would first look at me in stunned silence, and then they would ask me: Are you serious?

Well, unfortunately, that is the kind of rhetoric that you are hearing out here today.

Let's make sure that we understand what this is really about: strengthening our small banks, which strengthen our small communities and strengthen our small-business owners. That is what is going to continue this economic comeback that we are experiencing here in the United States.

I commend the gentlewoman from Utah in her work on a bipartisan manner on the basis that this has been coming together with people of goodwill trying to come up with a solution to make sure that we don't see needless consolidation in a banking community that has already been so hit.

As I wrap up, this is about making sure that we have a solid community banking system. We know that they have been under assault under these Dodd-Frank provisions that have come through, which I don't think were necessarily maliciously put in, but they were misunderstood about what those effects were going to be. The gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) is rectifying that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to support that and to vote ``yes'' for this very important bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1153.

As someone who worked in the housing industry, in fact, for the third generation, this is a very important issue to me and, more importantly, to all of our constituents across the country.

The qualified mortgage/ability-to-repay rule, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, went into effect in January 2014. This QM rule is the primary means for mortgage lenders to satisfy its ability-to-repay requirements. Additionally, Dodd-Frank provides that a QM may not have points and fees in excess of 3 percent of the loan amount.

So far, so good.

As currently defined, however, points and fees include, among other charges: salaries paid to loan officers; loan level price adjustments, as the chairman was talking about, which are traditionally known as points; payments by lenders to correspondent banks, credit unions,

and mortgage brokers in wholesale transactions; and, as has been discussed, fees paid to affiliated, but not unaffiliated, title companies; and--this is the one that is most bizarre of all--amounts of insurance and taxes held in escrow. That counts towards that 3 percent.

As a result of this confusing and problematic definition, many affiliated loans, particularly those made to low- and moderate-income borrowers, would not qualify as QMs. Without that designation, it is unlikely the loan would be made. And if it were, it would only be available at higher rates, due to the heightened liability risks. Consumers would lose the ability to take advantage of the convenience and market efficiencies offered by one-stop shopping.

Hardworking Americans utilize one-stop shopping every day. They partake in it. For example, in west Michigan, we have the headquarters of Meijer. It is a great regional supermarket chain, and it is where families across the Midwest go to buy groceries, pick up clothes for the kids, and pick up auto parts. It is one-stop shopping that allows you to get just about everything you need for your home.

Well, purchasing a home is one of the most important decisions a family makes. Why shouldn't they have the same ability to take advantage of that same cost-effective convenience of one-stop shopping when buying a home?

I, along with Representative Gregory Meeks, reintroduced H.R. 1153, bipartisan legislation to modify and clarify the way points and fees are calculated and help families across America to one-stop shop.

This legislation is narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting required under Dodd-Frank's ability-to-repay provisions. As the chairman pointed out, also. The RESPA provisions that are Federal law stay in place.

Very similar legislation overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last Congress as well as in the 113th.

I think it is important to note that when we first introduced this bill in 2012, it looked substantially different. However, working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we worked together to improve the legislation. The result has been a truly bipartisan effort at every step of the way in the legislative debate.

Specifically, H.R. 1153 would do a couple of things. It would provide equal treatment for affiliated versus unaffiliated title fees. It doesn't change the 44 States that have a regulated title insurance cost structure. It doesn't change any of those costs that a homeowner would have. It just allows them to actually go lower, rather than higher.

It also clarifies the treatment of insurance held in escrow. These two simple, commonsense changes will promote access to affordable mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income families and, indeed, all families, especially first-time home buyers, by ensuring that safe, properly underwritten mortgages pass the QM test.

Whether or not you supported Dodd-Frank, it is clear that the law is going to require some tweaks to ensure qualified borrowers aren't locked out of home ownership and the beneficial features of a qualified mortgage.

The QM represents the best mortgage on the market. It is the gold standard. And it should be the gold standard. We should want more responsible people getting QMs, not fewer.

Quite frankly, this is something we should all agree on. In fact, we did last year. Our bill doesn't touch any of the CFPB's strict underwriting criteria. It doesn't, in any way, suspend a lender's legal requirement to determine that a borrower has the ability to repay that loan.

The ranking member points out a real problem that happened in the industry and that, frankly, many of us in the industry warned of, but this does nothing that allows State regulated title insurance to be violated or any of those Federal steps regarding the qualified mortgage. It, in no way, sidesteps RESPA or QM requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am completely baffled by the ranking member's new opposition to this bill. This bill was very carefully negotiated in order to receive bipartisan support, which the ranking member voted for previously. In fact, she was so supportive that she, along with 11 other Democrats from the committee, sent a letter, dated August 1, 2014, to the Senate urging them to ``quickly adopt the Mortgage Choice Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter of August 1, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2014.

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Johnson and Members of

the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

On June 9, the House passed the Mortgage Choice Act (H.R.

3211), on the suspension calendar without objection. Senators

Manchin and Johanns introduced a companion bill, S. 1577 in

October, but it has not yet been considered. We support the

Mortgage Choice Act because of our concern about lower-income

consumers' access to credit and their ability to select the

mortgage and title insurance providers of their choice.

Passage of H.R. 3211 represents the fourth time that the

House has approved virtually identical legislation without

objection. In 2007 and 2009, a Democratic House majority

passed essentially the same provision in the Miller-Watt-

Frank anti-predatory lending legislation, and then a third

time as part of the House's version of the Dodd-Frank Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.

The Mortgage Choice Act simply excludes the cost of title

insurance from the definition of points and fees under the

Truth in Lending Act regardless of whether a title insurance

agent is affiliated with a mortgage lender or not. It also

clarifies that funds held in escrow for the payment of

property insurance do not count as ``points and fees.'' The

legislation is needed to ensure that smaller loans to

creditworthy low and moderate-income consumers can select the

mortgage lender and title insurance provider of their choice

and obtain a ``qualified mortgage,'' the gold standard for

all mortgages.

The bill authorizes the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau to implement rules governing the exclusion of

reasonable title insurance charges from ``points and fees.''

It preserves the Bureau's strong enforcement authority to

require transparency and disclosure of affiliations and

charges under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(RESPA). In fact, the CFPB has been vigorous in its pursuit

of RESPA violations, ranging from minor disclosure errors to

kick-backs for referrals by an unaffiliated title company.

We urge you and the entire Senate to quickly adopt the

Mortgage Choice Act to improve access to credit, enhance

competition among title insurance providers, and reinforce

the CFPB's authority to define what title insurance costs

qualify as excludable ``points and fees.''

Sincerely,

David Scott; Maxine Waters; Emanuel Cleaver; Henry

Cuellar; Daniel T. Kildee; Jim McDermott; Patrick

Murphy; Gerald E. Connolly; Michael F. Doyle; Betty

McCollum; Gregory W. Meeks; Gary C. Peters.

In the letter, she stated that the bill would ``improve access to credit'' and ``enhance competition among title insurance providers.'' Well, I couldn't agree more with the ranking member.

She talks now of kickbacks. I am confused as to how an affiliated title structure, pricing structure, versus an unaffiliated title purchase is somehow a kickback.

I am confused at how an escrow, money that is ours that is put into a holding account to be used later to pay off debt, is a kickback.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to yield to the gentlewoman to hear that answer.

She is talking about megabanks. This is, frankly, just a red herring in this whole thing.

Congress has the opportunity to help more Americans realize a portion of the American Dream, not by some grandiose law or decree, but by simply reforming a burdensome regulation. Home ownership has been a pillar in American life for generations. Today, we can reaffirm that pillar and reassert that home ownership can and should be an attainable goal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Meeks, and many others who have worked so tirelessly on this to fix this flawed provision, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1153.

Mr. Speaker, we must never forget that life is truly a gift. I rise this afternoon in support of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be here marching in Washington, D.C., tomorrow to give a voice to the voiceless.

This House consistently defends the unborn and promotes a culture of life. We have passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which would ban late-term abortions at 20 weeks. We have passed legislation to prevent tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. We voted to defund Planned Parenthood and have voted to increase funding for federally qualified community health centers that promote and provide women's health services while protecting life.

This week, I look forward to joining my colleagues in voting in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. All of these legislative achievements are encouraging progress; however, our work is not done, and we must continue to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today for the same reasons that Americans will be marching in Washington and in west Michigan over the next few days: to defend the unborn, give voice to the voiceless, and promote a culture of respect for life from its beginning sparks to its final twilight.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the World Bank Accountability Act, sponsored by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Having had the opportunity last Congress to chair the subcommittee that Mr. Barr now leads, I can tell my colleagues that the reforms in this bill are real and they're urgent.

Let me highlight one case of management failure at the World Bank that I focused on last Congress, alongside with my ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I think the scandal will illuminate not only the reasoning behind the reforms demanded by H.R. 3326 but, also, the mechanism for achieving those reforms, as the chairman was pointing out. It is the power of our purse that will effect change.

In 2015, the World Bank canceled an IDA--International Development Association, as has been referred to--road project in Uganda. This initiative saw appalling lapses in basic management by the Bank which, literally, enabled sexual exploitation of children to happen. When local Ugandans complained to the Bank staff, they were ignored. Only after the Bank's ombudsman became involved directly did the Bank really investigate the abuses.

My colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and I were so outraged by the scandal that I, along with Ms. Moore, my ranking member, wrote a letter on July 14 of 2016 to the World Bank demanding corrective action.

Here is the thing: To underscore the gravity of the Bank's management failures, we originally proposed a letter at the highest levels of the committee, including the chairman and the ranking member. In fact, the letter as it went out--and I will include it in the Record--was on the letterhead of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters. And, unfortunately, the ranking member then refused to sign the letter, then just leaving it as a subcommittee letter that went out by myself and Ranking Member Moore.

Committee on Financial Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2016.

Dr. Jim Yong Kim,

President, World Bank Group,

Washington, DC.

Dear Dr. Kim: We are writing to express our alarm over the

World Bank's cancelled Uganda Transport Sector Development

Project. As you know, the Bank is facing serious allegations

related to misconduct by a Chinese contractor, including

sexual exploitation of minors, repeated harassment of female

staff, and deficient safety measures that may have resulted

in five fatalities. The Bank has admitted that its

supervision of the project was inadequate, particularly with

respect to protecting Ugandan girls.

In addition to negligent supervision, the Bank's slow

response to local communities' accusations is troubling.

According to the Bank's own timeline, Ugandans had to wait

six months from the time they first voiced their complaints

until the Bank's Country Director wrote to public authorities

requesting follow-up by law enforcement. Ten months elapsed

before the Bank suspended the project, and delays in the

Management Response meant that the Bank's Inspection Panel

did not visit Uganda until one year following the initial

allegations. As the Panel continues to investigate this case,

we urge you and Bank management to cooperate fully while

respecting the Panel's independence. We also ask that any

findings of negligence and wrongdoing lead to appropriate

disciplinary action,

The failure of this project to protect, let alone benefit,

Ugandans should inform supervision in all sectors and regions

going forward. We believe that the Bank must strengthen its

role in supervising and monitoring its projects to ensure

that the poor are protected in the Bank's work. Any actions

by the Bank that would weaken its oversight could undermine

support for the institution.

Additionally, the Bank has long faced criticism, including

from its own staff, for a culture that too often places the

volume of lending above concerns for the effectiveness of

that lending. Last October, the Subcommittee on Monetary

Policy and Trade held a hearing on the multilateral

development banks that explored this very problem, and a

report by the Bank's Independent Evaluation Group notes how

the ``pressure to lend'' has characterized the Bank's culture

for decades, often at the expense of development outcomes. It

is clear that such a culture can distract from the proper

preparation and administration of projects, including

monitoring and supervision, thus putting development at risk.

In the case of Uganda, the Bank clearly should have made

supervision a higher priority. We hope that future

beneficiaries, be they in Africa or elsewhere, will encounter

more capable and responsive partners at the Bank.

Sincerely,

Bill Huizenga,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Gwen Moore,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Chair, I think what America just heard from the last two speakers on the other side of the aisle was that, literally, the Democrats

wanted the money to the World Bank but not the reforms. That is why they voted for the $3 million-plus to go into that account, that IDA account.

How cynical. I mean, funding of IDA is about as good as putting a Band-Aid on a car accident victim; right? It is not doing anything, ultimately, if there is such woeful inadequacy in trying to provide the true issues that need to be addressed.

So, the sexual abuse of underage Ugandans, not really interested in talking to you about that; harassment of female project staff, not really interested in talking about that on the other side of the aisle; deficient project safety that may have resulted in five fatalities, not interested in talking about that. So, when they rise, talking about how much they care about the poor and those who are underserved--forgive me if I am cynical, Mr. Chairman--it rings a bit hollow.

For the Bank, it got even worse. After sending this letter with Ms. Moore, we received a response that the Bank was undertaking cosmetic steps to improve their projects and their actions, such as creating a task force.

Again, forgive me for being a little cynical about the task force, but not only was the country manager associated with the Ugandan project not held accountable, he was promoted to country director for the Congo.

It still gets worse. Last November, we learned that the Bank was suspending yet another road project in the Congo due to allegations of sexual violence against women. The investigation is still underway today, Mr. Chairman. And the Bank has already admitted that it ignored repeated requests to the beneficiaries in the Congo to look at the other complaints, but we are beginning to see a theme: let's just keep the money flowing anyway.

Here is the thing: it was the same projects, the same people in place. I am just wondering why they--whether it is the ranking member or others who voted for this in subcommittee--refused to keep the Bank's feet to the fire.

Mr. Chairman, I am just confused as to why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to hold the Bank's feet to the fire because we have known about these issues for several years. Task forces haven't been sufficient; rhetoric hasn't been sufficient. We need real accountability in the Bank, and we need it now. It needs to be initiated immediately, and then it needs to be maintained and institutionalized.

So I thank my friend from Kentucky for taking this commonsense approach and for demanding that the World Bank live up to its commitments to the poor, whether they are in Africa or in other places in the world.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for roll call vote number 710, S 1552--No Human Trafficking on Our Roads Act, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out each year, public companies convene these shareholder meetings at which the companies' shareholders vote for the companies' directors and on other significant corporate actions that require shareholder approval.

As part of this annual process, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires public companies to provide their shareholders with a proxy statement before those meetings.

A proxy statement includes all important facts about the matters to be voted on at the meeting, including, for example, information on board of directors candidates, director compensation, executive compensation, related party transactions, securities ownership by management, and eligible shareholder proposals.

The information contained in the statement must be filed with the SEC before soliciting a shareholder vote on the election of directors and the approval of these other corporate actions. Solicitations, whether by management or shareholders, must disclose all important facts about the issues on which the shareholders are being asked to vote.

Institutional investors, including investment advisers to mutual funds and pension funds, typically hold shares in a large number of public companies. Each year, the investment advisers to these funds vote billions of shares on behalf of their clients on thousands of proxy ballot items.

What you have heard about, really, was the theoretical way this is supposed to run. Unfortunately, that is not reality, and that is not what you are hearing from the other side, because in 2003, the SEC adopted a rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, requiring an investment adviser that exercises voting authority over its clients' proxies to adopt policies and procedures designed to ensure that the investment adviser votes those proxies in the best interests of their clients. Perfect. That is exactly what they should be doing.

The SEC's release adopting the rule clarified that ``an adviser could demonstrate that the vote was not a product of a conflict of interest if it voted client securities, in accordance with a predetermined policy, based upon the recommendations of an independent third party.''

Okay so far, but here is where we see the problem. As a result, institutional investors increase their reliance on these proxy adviser firms to help them decide how to vote their shares.

In 2004, the SEC staff, without a Commission vote, just the staff, issued two ``no action'' letters ``effectively blessing the practice of investment advisers simply voting the recommendations provided by a proxy adviser,'' according to SEC Commissioner Dan Gallagher.

Largely, as a result of the SEC's regulation, proxy adviser firms now wield tremendous outside influence on the U.S. proxy system. Studies have shown that the two largest proxy adviser firms are comprised of approximately 97 percent of all the proxy advisory industry and can control a significant percentage of share votes in corporate elections, which is sometimes as high as 40 percent. There have been numerous instances where these two firms have issued vote recommendations on publicly traded companies that include errors, misstatements of fact, and incomplete analysis.

Additionally, some proxy advisory firms' recommendations have been made without any sort of communication or contact with the public company that they are actually reviewing. In fact, these same proxy advisory firms even encourage companies to join their service on the other side of the ledger in order to have the privilege to ``influence'' an advisory firm's recommendations.

Members heard from the ranking member about a teacher having to check with a student about what their grades are going to be as a student.

Well, what this is, Mr. Speaker, this is the teacher shaking down the student for their lunch money and milk

money to make sure that they are behaving.

So let's talk about reality here.

Regulators, market participants, and academic observers have highlighted potential conflicts of interest inherent to this business model and activities of these proxy firms. For example, proxy advisory firms may feel pressured by their largest clients, who may be activist investors, to issue voting recommendations that reflect those clients' specific agendas, not the boards' or the corporations'.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, proxy advisory firms often provide voting recommendations to investment advisers on matters for which they also provide consulting services to public companies. Talk about, again, a conflict of interest.

Some proxy advisory firms also rate or score these public companies on their governance structures, policies, practices, and they are trying to actually influence the corporate governance practices of these companies.

Essentially, these proxy advisory firms have hijacked the proxy system by aligning themselves with activist shareholders, who also might be their clients, to push social and political initiatives rather than using shareholder votes to maximize shareholder value and increasing shareholder returns.

Well, H.R. 4015 is to the rescue on this. It would foster greater accountability, competition, responsiveness, and, most importantly of all, transparency.

This legislation would ensure that voting recommendations at proxy advisory firms are, in fact, in the interest of long-term shareholders.

So let's not misunderstand. The role of these proxy advisory firms serves a very important place in our economy. However, these firms aren't immune to conflicts of interest.

The good work of my friend, Mr. Duffy, on H.R. 4015 will improve that transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I come down here again finding myself in a position, not planning on speaking. I am down here to speak on a bill that I have on the floor--a bipartisan bill, I might add. I can't help but address what I am hearing from the other side.

First you are hearing: This is getting rushed through. We need to slow this down. We need to be thoughtful.

I ran in 2010 talking about tax reform. Many of my colleagues ran in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 talking about tax reform and the need for it. Even President Obama talked about this, when he was saying we needed to lower the corporate rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent. Why? Because we are uncompetitive. We are uncompetitive as a country.

Now you are hearing the other side saying: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We have to slow this down, slow the whole train down.

What they want to do is protect the status quo. They want to protect the status quo, which I believe is unacceptable.

We know that there is great agreement between the House version and the Senate version, delivering $24,000 on a standard deduction, which is going to bring real tax relief to working families; making sure that pass-throughs, those small businesses, those S-corporations and LLCs and sole proprietorships, actually get treated better and, at the least, the same way that a C-corporation would.

Here we are on the cusp of making sure that we advance the ball.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and classmate from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, for the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Speaker, more and more baby boomers retire every day, and it has been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned, small, and family-run businesses will either be closed or, if possible, sold to a new generation of entrepreneurs in the coming years.

Mergers and acquisitions--or M&A as it is oftentimes referred to-- brokers play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of ownership of these smaller, privately held companies. However, today's one-size- fits-all system of broker-dealer regulation unnecessarily burdens business sellers and buyers with the pass-through of heavy regulatory compliance costs that do not provide significant incremental benefits in privately negotiated M&A transactions.

Today, Federal securities regulations technically require local mergers and acquisitions brokers to be registered and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, just like Wall Street investment bankers. Those bankers are trying to sell or buy publicly traded companies. That is right; anyone brokering the sale of a hometown small business in your district or in mine, like in Holland, Michigan, must be federally registered and regulated as a securities broker-dealer, in addition to State law requirements, regardless of the size of the business or the sale transaction.

Federal securities regulation was primarily designed to protect passive investors and public securities markets. Privately negotiated mergers and acquisitions transactions facilitated by these small business brokers are vastly different and do not typically relate to the transactions meant to be protected by the SEC and FINRA regulation and registration.

That is why I have continued to introduce bipartisan legislation known as the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act. This bipartisan bill would create a simplified system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of smaller, privately held companies.

I would like to thank Representatives Sherman and Maloney, along with the work of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for what they have done. And as my friend from Georgia had pointed out, not every day do we have to just keep kicking each other in the shins. We actually can work together, and this is an example of doing that.

So the impact of this legislation would significantly reduce transaction costs, promote competition among these small business brokers, and facilitate private businesses and acquisitions of these small businesses.

This initiative promotes economic growth and development through these sales, and there is really substantial relief of regulatory burdens on small business professionals who serve these smaller business owners.

Business brokerage services are critically important to entrepreneurs who start, build, and eventually want to sell their private companies. Similarly, these services help new entrepreneurs acquire these businesses, while helping existing companies grow, thus preserving and creating jobs in the communities that we all serve.

We have worked very closely with our colleagues across the aisle, and this has been a multi--not just multiyear--a multi-Congress effort over the last few different Congresses, and I am just pleased today that we can show the American people positive, effective, bipartisan work that is coming together.

It is legislation like H.R. 477 that demonstrates, frankly, that Congress can act in a bipartisan manner to positively impact the lives of Americans, and I urge swift consideration and passage of this important bill.