Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's hard work on this.

The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. As part of that mission, the SEC was mandated by law to conduct an annual forum focusing on small business capital formation.

For nearly a decade, the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation has highlighted the merger and acquisition broker proposal as one of its top recommendations to help small businesses.

The MAB proposal would address securities regulation of business brokers

and merger and acquisition advisers who are in the business of facilitating the purchase and sale of privately held small companies. This proposal would significantly reduce their Federal regulation compliance costs, which can initially exceed $150,000 per broker and, after that, cost $75,000 per additional year. However, the SEC has never acted on this, despite their recommendation.

As we see more and more baby boomers retire, it has been estimated that $10 trillion--with a T--of equity is locked up into these small, family-owned typically privately held businesses.

Today the Federal securities regulations require an M&A broker to be registered and regulated by the SEC and FINRA just like a Wall Street investment banker buying or selling publicly traded companies.

Anyone who is trying to sell a hometown business, like a family hardware store, a jewelry store, or even a pizza parlor, suddenly has to be treated like they are being sold or bought by a Wall Street investment bank regardless of their size. We don't think that is right.

But the impact of this legislation is meaningful because it reduces transaction costs, promoting competition among those small business brokers and facilitating private business merger, acquisitions, and sales of these small businesses. This small business initiative promotes economic growth and development.

So we have worked very closely across the aisle with our colleagues, and I thank them. Even in today's politically charged environment that we have, it is nice to show the American people that we can actually do some positive, efficient, and effective initiatives with bipartisan support.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Posey, Higgins, Sherman, and Maloney, as well as Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for their efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus and to get the important legislation across the finish line.

I have been working on this now for three Congresses, and we believe that we have a very positive spot here where we can all support this. I want to encourage my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 477 and demonstrate that Congress can actually work in a bipartisan manner and get some things done for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the amendment and the work of Mr. Sherman, Mrs. Maloney, the ranking member, and, obviously, our chairman as well. So I do agree and accept this amendment as a friendly amendment.

It does confirm what the no-action letter has put in place. I believe it properly makes sure that the SEC's role is preserved but that Congress has its imprimatur on this as well. It aligns the bill with the principles outlined in the SEC's no-action letter.

I think this is a good, reasonable amendment. I am pleased to work with the gentleman from California as well. I am glad that we can get this settled in a timely manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3973) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require certain entities to develop internal risk control mechanisms to safeguard and govern the storage of market data.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, cybersecurity is critical to consumers, investors, market participants and, frankly, the very markets themselves. However, in April of 2016, the GAO--the Government Accountability Office-- identified weaknesses regarding information security protocols at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and noted that the SEC's failure to implement an agencywide data security program had occurred.

Once confirmed in May of this year, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton initiated an assessment of the SEC's internal cybersecurity risk profile and their approach to cybersecurity from a regulatory and oversight perspective. The SEC's internal assessment found that the agency had inadequate controls and that there were serious cyber and data risks.

Unfortunately, in September of this year, Chairman Clayton issued a statement on cybersecurity in which he revealed that a cyber breach ``previously detected in 2016 may have provided illicit gain through trading.''

Specifically, a software vulnerability existed in the test filing component of the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval--also known as the EDGAR system--which resulted in access to nonpublic information. While this breach provided hackers access to highly sensitive material, at the time, the SEC believed ``the intrusion did not result in unauthorized access to personally identifiable information''--or PII, as we commonly refer to it-- therefore, ``jeopardize the operations of the SEC, or result in a systemic risk.'' And that was a quote from the SEC's report.

However, unfortunately, in a follow-up disclosure shortly after that, Chairman Clayton revealed that personally identifiable information, including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, were actually compromised for two individuals in that particular breach.

The GAO report and the EDGAR data breach underscore what is now even of greater concern, the sufficiency of risk control mechanisms for the SEC-approved consolidated audit trail, or also known as the CAT system. The CAT will be the most comprehensive repository of market data we have seen, and it will collect and identify every order, cancellation, and trade execution for all exchange-listed equities and options across all U.S. markets. It will also collect personally identifiable information beginning 1 year after it begins accepting market data.

Thesys Technologies, which was selected to be the plan processor for the CAT, is scheduled to begin accepting data from self-regulatory organizations who must provide data to CAT on Wednesday, November 15, just merely days from today.

Many of my colleagues, as well as market participants, have voiced concerns about the cost of building and implementing such a system and the amount of PII that will be required to be collected by the CAT.

Last Congress, several Members wrote to former SEC Chair Mary Jo White expressing serious concerns

about the security of such sensitive information held within that CAT system, as well as those who will have access to such information.

As I mentioned, the deadline for the SROs to begin reporting to this CAT system is just 2 days away. It is paramount that the SEC has adequate data security controls in place before that implementation.

Previously, in committee, I had put it this way: That is a repository of the information of gold. Gold is the equivalent of information today. What they are doing is they are putting more gold into that data vault, and we don't have the security to support it.

So while the CAT may be a helpful resource for the SEC, and even the self-regulatory agencies or organizations--SROs--once fully implemented, insufficient data security controls will undermine confidence in our markets and may very well result in the CAT being counterproductive.

Thus, I joined with Financial Services Committee Chairman Hensarling in writing Chairman Clayton to ``encourage the SEC to delay implementation of the CAT system until the SEC can implement information security safeguards and internal controls to ensure the security of confidential and sensitive data.''

No assurances for a delay in implementing the CAT have been provided, and even if they have, it is appropriate for Congress to set baseline standards to ensure that controls are in place. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do our job.

H.R. 3973, the Market Data Protection Act, introduced by Representatives Davidson and Sherman, is necessary to ensure that the SEC is properly securing critical data that supports our financial markets as well as the personal information of millions of customers with broker-dealer accounts.

Specifically, the bipartisan legislation would mandate that the SEC, FINRA, and the operator of the consolidated audit trail, in consultation with the SEC's chief economist, develop comprehensive internal risk control mechanisms to safeguard and govern the storage of market data, all market data-sharing agreements, and all academic research using that market data.

The bill also halts market data reporting to the consolidated audit trail until the operator of the CAT system develops such internal risk control mechanisms that they are deemed satisfactory.

The EDGAR security breach and the recent massive Equifax data breach--and I might add, Mr. Speaker, we just saw a report of an NSA breach that had just happened, our largest database--well, this would become the second largest database in the country.

Those breaches--in which the sensitive information of nearly 150 million Americans have been compromised, in the Equifax breach--only underscore the importance of proactively ensuring that any highly sensitive data being collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission or at the SEC's discretion, subject to their oversight, is protected with appropriate safeguards. We owe that to the American people.

The importance of cybersecurity at the SEC cannot be overstated. The SEC's ability to safeguard nonpublic financial information and other highly sensitive data instills confidence in the markets.

SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar recently commented regarding CAT that ``deadlines are important, but the SEC has one chance to get this right. We have to make sure that we have everything locked down. We can get it done, or we can get it done right. We need to get it done right.''

I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Piwowar. That is why this legislation is so urgently needed. I commend the bipartisan work of Representatives Davidson and Sherman, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the sponsor of this legislation and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I had said before, when information is the equivalent of modern-day gold, we need to make sure that whatever vaults that information, that gold, is going into are properly protected--properly protected for consumers and their personally identifiable information. We have an obligation, as the government, to make sure that their information is protected as best as possible, and doubly so when it is going into government-run systems. That is the reason why H.R. 3973 is so imperative that it be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend my friend from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and my friend from California (Mr. Sherman) on their bipartisan work on that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chris VanderSlice, who passed away on October 28, 2017 after a courageous four year battle with leukemia. Chris was a beloved educator and leader in the West Michigan community--whose legacy will never be forgotten.

Chris, or ``Slice'' as his colleagues knew him best, was a servant leader with Grandville Public Schools for nearly 18 years. His career began as a teacher at Grandville's Middle School and South Elementary. Chris was then promoted to assistant principal at Grandville High School, where he became principal in 2013.

A former Hope College basketball team captain, Chris brought his competitive spirit to the classroom and school district. He inspired a culture of ``pride and excellence,'' that influenced both students and teachers. After only a short time as principal, Chris implemented professional learning communities to improve teaching techniques and accountability.

Following the initial diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 2013, the Grandville community quickly rallied to embrace the VanderSlice family. The swift response from the community is a touching testament to the character of Chris, his family, and West Michigan as a whole. Chris leaves behind a legacy of ``grit and perseverance''-- characteristics that will continue to inspire, encourage, and forever impact generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, Chris VanderSlice spent his life working to educate and better the students of Grandville, Michigan. It is thus fitting and proper that we honor him here today. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Tonya, daughters Hannah and Elizabeth, and to all who knew and loved Chris.

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to come down to the floor here to manage some bills here in a couple of minutes, but I decided I needed to take this opportunity to address some of the things that the American people might have been hearing from the other side of the aisle just now.

This is absolutely just political demagoguery what is going on. Frankly, it is political malfeasance. This is about simplification. This is about fairness. This is about making sure that hardworking American men and women and their families have the opportunity to live the American Dream.

Right now, we have a Tax Code that is massive, first of all. Second, it is filled with loopholes and exceptions that lobbyists and the well connected have put in there over the last number of decades. It is time to change that. The American people deserve this.

There is real tax relief for real working families, and that is why I think you are seeing such enthusiasm out of the American people for this tax plan.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Colorado allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission prohibits the sale or delivery of securities that have not been registered with the agency.

A large portion of startups--and, really, these are ideas--rely on small, nonprofit offerings also known as private placements, such as with friends and family. They do a round of offerings in order to raise initial, early-stage seed capital; however, the Securities Act of 1933 does not define what constitutes a public offering or, conversely, a nonpublic offering. As a result, startups may unintentionally violate the act when it seeks to offer securities to potential investors in a private placement.

Let's put that in real English. Let's make this actually approachable in a way that I think true American entrepreneurs can understand.

The reality is, these are people with an idea, a drive to move forward and to improve something. They go and offer to their family, or maybe ask of their family, to be a part of that dream, to help with some seed capital, to give them a little bit of their hard-earned money to help them achieve their dream.

And, guess what?

They get to take part in the success of that. There is some risk, but there is also reward.

How this really translates is that there might be the doctor who has got a great idea for a new health drink or a new implement to use while he is in surgery. This might be a mom who left the workforce and was taking care of her kids and said: There has got to be a better way of making sure my kids are getting a healthy meal transported to school; or something like that.

These are people who are looking around and saying: I can go make life better not for me, not just for my family, but for others. They are then trying to pursue that.

To address this uncertainty that we have, H.R. 2201, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act, would implement a simple amendment to the Securities Act of 1933, by making clear what constitutes a nonpublic offering.

It is going to provide small businesses with needed clarity and confidence to know that their offering is not a Securities Act violation. Think of that. Again, it might be that doctor or that stay- at-home mom who is out there just trying to fund an idea, unintentionally and with no malice or no understanding that they are violating Federal law.

A micro-offering authorized under this bill would allow small businesses or small entrepreneurs to operate with confidence, and the commonsense requirements to be a part of this are such:

Each investor has a substantive preexisting relationship with an owner. This is no fly-by friendship. This is somebody who you actually know;

There are fewer than 35 purchasers or investors; and

Also, the amount cannot exceed $500,000.

If you just divide out $500,000, which is a lot of money, by 35 people, that is less than $15,000 a person. That is $14,285, to be exact. This is not about helping Wall Street somehow, for crying out loud. This is about Main Street.

I believe it is important to note, as the sponsor, Mr. Emmer, had noted earlier, that nothing in this bill would remove or inhibit the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Justice from prosecuting securities fraud.

With antifraud protections still in place, the legislation appropriately scales Federal rules and regulatory compliance costs for these small businesses and entrepreneurs.

H.R. 2201 is a commonsense bill designed to help Main Street and not Wall Street. Simply put, it will allow these small businesses and entrepreneurs, these DREAMers, to access capital necessary for their growth.

As I said, Representative Emmer has done a phenomenal job in shepherding this through. In a 2016 Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee hearing where we dealt with the bill, he had a great quote that said:

``The problem with the ability of small businesses to effectively use this exemption is--the term `private offering' is not defined in law. Not only does this prevent small business from using the exemption, it leaves businesses who try to use the exemption and can't afford a team of expensive lawyers--which, again, most small businesses cannot-- exposed to potential lawsuits and future liability. . . . This legislation will create a bright line safe harbor for small private offerings. It will help entrepreneurs open new businesses and expand existing ones.''

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hard work of my colleague, Mr. Emmer, on this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2201.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3911) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to risk-based examinations of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations-- or NRSROs, as they are known--have been heavily criticized for the role that they played in facilitating the financial crisis.

In the years leading up to the crisis, the government adopted a series of policies that had the effect of conferring a ``Good Housekeeping'' seal of approval on the rating agencies and on their products, including designating certain agencies as nationally recognized--a label that they had put on--and hardwiring references to their ratings into numerous Federal statutes and regulations.

These regulatory privileges and the perception that the government had placed its blessing on the rating agencies' assessments led to a sense of complacency among investors and a failure of private sector due diligence that contributed to mispriced risk and a collapse of market confidence when ratings of certain asset-backed securities were called into question during the credit meltdown of 2007 and 2008.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated myriad regulatory requirements on these NRSROs that were aimed at enhancing their disclosure and transparency. While some of these provisions may have been constructive, several created new barriers to entry and further entrenched a type of rating agency oligopoly that has not served investors or the economy well.

The Dodd-Frank Act follows a ``registration, not regulation'' approach. While it does not require the SEC--the Securities and Exchange Commission--to regulate or evaluate the rating agencies' methodologies or models, it does seek to ensure that ratings are based on an objective application of the methodologies and that commercial considerations do not influence ratings decisions.

Specifically, section 932, creates the Office of Credit Ratings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which imposes more stringent conflict-of-interest regulations on credit rating agencies and gives the compliance officers at these rating agencies additional responsibilities, including filing annual reports with the SEC.

While credit agencies must be held accountable, these increased reporting requirements have given the burden to small credit rating agencies and have hurt investors who bear the true cost of these rules. That one-size-fits-all annual reporting requirements imposed by Dodd- Frank on all NRSROs placed unnecessary burdens and compliance costs on small NRSROs, who in no way were a cause of the financial crisis.

As a result of the annual reporting requirements, large NRSROs that can absorb these compliance costs have gotten bigger; and smaller NRSROs, for whom these compliance costs really impose a disproportionate burden, they have been prevented from entering the marketplace and providing necessary competition.

On May 15, 2013, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White wrote a letter on behalf of a unanimous commission to Chairman Hensarling of the Financial Services Committee to request the provisions of H.R. 3911 as a legislative proposal. She said: ``Rather than focusing every year on each of the designated eight review areas, allowing a risk-based approach would permit the SEC staff to tailor examinations. . . . As a result, staff could focus limited resources on these specific risks rather than reviewing the designated eight areas, some of which may not present a risk for a particular firm. . . . `'

Consistent with former Chair White's request, H.R. 3911, statutorily changes the annual reporting requirements so that they are risk-based, instead of requiring the burdensome review of all eight review areas currently mandated.

This approach is a commonsense balance that still ensures large NRSROs are regulated while smaller NRSROs are provided necessary relief to enter and thrive in the marketplace.

The legislation unanimously passed the Financial Services Committee last month, and I was pleased to be a part of that.

At this time I would like to commend the bipartisan work of Representatives Wagner and Foster on this important bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3911.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the author of this bill and chair of the Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and, as I had said, sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of my colleague from Michigan: a bipartisan, unanimous bill coming out of the Financial Services Committee deserves the support of this House. We are very pleased that we have been able to strike this accommodation, this balance, between making sure that those rating agencies that truly did have a hand in causing our economic downturn are separated from those smaller institutions that really had nothing to do with that.

Now, with this overregulation that has occurred due to Dodd-Frank, I have really been put at a disadvantage and, ironically, have lowered competition in this space. So we believe that we are restoring some commonsense provisions back into the law. With that, I would like to encourage all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3911.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2148) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify capital requirements for certain acquisition, development, or construction loans, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an organization that, frankly, most citizens might not have any idea exists, much less the effects and the influences on their banking lives, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision agreed to modify internationally negotiated bank regulatory standards, known as the Basel Accords. This was going to increase bank capital requirements.

On July 9, 2013, the Federal banking regulators here in the United States--including the Federal Reserve; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC; and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC--all issued a final rule to implement most of the so-called Basel III recommendations, including modifications to capital requirements.

Basel III imposes new rules for high volatility commercial real estate, also known as HVCREs.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of acronyms in the Financial Services space, but you will be hearing a lot about these HVCREs over the course of the next few minutes.

These HVCRE rules are those which the regulations characterize as loans that finance the acquisition, development, or construction of real property. Loans that finance the acquisition, development, and construction of one- to four-family residential properties, projects that qualify as community development investment, and loans to businesses or farms with gross revenue exceeding $1 million are exempt from this HVCRE classification.

In June of 2017, the Treasury Department released its first report in response to the President's February 2017 ``Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System,'' informing the administration's perspective to regulate the financial system. The report, entitled, ``A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities--Banks and Credit Unions,'' calls on regulators to simplify and clarify the definition of these HVCRE loans to avoid the application of excessively stringent postcrisis capital requirements and concentration limits related to such loans, but does not identify specific language and changes.

Additionally, in September of this past year, the OCC, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve proposed a rule that attempted to simplify the regulatory capital calculations for these HVCREs. The proposal would change the current definition of HVCRE and replace it with a new definition related to high volatility acquisition, development, or construction loans. HVADC is what it has been dubbed.

The complexity of the HVCRE definition and its uncertain application are making it difficult for banks to comply.

While we appreciate the various banking agencies' attempt at simplifying the capital treatment of acquisition, development, and construction loans, their proposal actually broadens the number of loans subject to higher capital charge. This actually increases the amount capital banks will be required to carry for these ADC loans-- hardly a simplification.

Increases in risk weighting on these loans have had a significant impact on institutions' capital ratios and, as a result, have increased costs to borrowers. If a loan is classified as an HVCRE loan, the lender will face a lower return on its capital as a result of the higher capital reserve requirement, meaning they are going to have to hold more capital. This will lead to increased pricing on the loan, including a higher interest rate for the borrower.

H.R. 2148, Clarifying Commercial Real Estate Loans, introduced by my colleagues Representatives Pittenger and Scott, helps address the uncertainty related to the Basel capital rules and its impact on certain acquisition, development, or construction loans. The bill clarifies the types of loans that should and should not be classified as HVCREs and which types of equity can be used to meet capital requirements.

Currently, that uncertainty is creating confusion and affecting commercial real estate ADC loans by increasing borrowing costs and reducing credit availability, which may be contributing to a slowdown in commercial real estate lending.

I commend the bipartisan works of Representatives Pittenger and Scott on this important bill. Having passed the Financial Services Committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 59-1, there is no reason that we shouldn't have the same overwhelming bipartisan support for H.R. 2148 today.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2148, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), the vice chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), vice chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee of Financial Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2148. I commend my good friend, Mr. Pittenger, for his great work on this. Again, I point out that this bill came out of the Financial Services Committee on a bipartisan vote of 59-1. We think that this is a commonsense, reasonable accommodation for a problem that has been created by Dodd-Frank, and we are glad that, on a bipartisan basis, we can be addressing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3903) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the ability to use testing the waters and confidential draft registration submissions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades, our Nation has experienced a 37 percent decline in the number of U.S. listed companies--public companies. Equally troubling, we have seen the number of publicly traded companies fall to around 5,700. These statistics are concerning because they are similar to the data we saw in the 1980s when our economy was less than half its current size.

Mr. Speaker, since 2000, the average number of initial public offerings, or IPOs, has fallen to approximately 135 per year, which pales in comparison to the more than 450 IPOs filed per year in

the early 1990s. Notably, there has not been a corresponding downward trend in the creation of new companies over that same period. This demonstrates that the regulatory costs associated with going public is deterring new and emerging companies from making the decision to go public.

Now, you may ask: Why is this important?

Well, first of all, it is preventing our capital markets from reaching their full potential, which sounds very academic and pie in the sky.

What does that mean, though?

What it really means is that it is not allowing Mr. and Mrs. 401(k) from participating in the economic successes that we have seen lately.

Federal securities regulations are typically written for large public companies, and this one-size-fits-all framework imposes a disproportionate burden on small and emerging companies looking to go public.

The 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act, which was a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Obama, created a new type of issue called an emerging growth company, which allowed these so-called EGCs with less than $1 billion in revenue to be allowed to communicate with potential investors before an initial public offering and file confidential draft registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 29, 2017, the SEC extended to all companies the option of submitting in advance draft registration statements for IPOs and follow-on offerings within 1 year of an IPO.

H.R. 3903, the Encouraging Public Offerings Act, would ensure that all issues making an IPO would be allowed to communicate with potential investors before an offering and file confidential draft registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, we are going to codify what the Securities and Exchange Commission has said we should be doing.

H.R. 3903 simply codifies that practice into law and it will allow these companies to finalize their registration documents without undue expectations from outside influences, and it allows companies to time their offering with the market before making their Form S-1s public and beginning an investor road show.

I commend the bipartisan work of Representatives Budd and Meeks on this important bill to ensure that H.R. 3903 applies to all companies, without losing valuable investor protections--a key element in this.

This bill will also help encourage companies to go public, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3903.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the sponsor of this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yielded myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we know that trillions of dollars are invested in our economy through IRAs, 401(k)s, and other investment tools. However, these companies need to be publicly traded for Joe and Jane IRA or Mr. and Mrs. 401(k) to even be able to have the opportunity to invest in them. That is what this bill is trying to do.

This bill is trying to make sure that those emerging companies, those small startup kind of companies, who may be very innovative or, frankly, might be even more mundane, but they are small and they are looking to grow, that they have an opportunity to do so.

Who benefits? Everyone. Everyone is going to be able to take a much more broad view of how they are going to invest their hard-earned dollars that they have worked so long and hard for.

Mr. Speaker, this is also, I believe, an important aspect, because we know that economic growth comes from small- and medium-sized businesses. That is where we are going to see really the engine of our economy rev up.

It is maybe not as much of a headline grabber as some of those big companies adding 100 or 200 or even thousands of jobs, but all of those smaller companies adding people into the workforce add up to far larger numbers than those numbers are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3903, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1585) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to codify certain qualifications of individuals as accredited investors for purposes of the securities laws, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and emerging companies are what drive the American economy. We meet them in our districts and see firsthand the benefits that their dreams, their innovations, and their hard work provide to our constituents and to our communities.

These innovators, entrepreneurs, and risk takers are critical to our country's economic growth and prosperity. In fact, small businesses are responsible for more than 60 percent of the Nation's net new jobs over the past two decades. Sixty percent of all of the new jobs over the past two decades come from these small emerging companies.

Their ability to raise capital in the private markets is critical to the economic well-being of the United States.

So if our Nation is going to have an economy that provides opportunities for every American, then we must promote and encourage the success and growth of our small businesses and our startups. It is this notion that brings us to this legislation that we are discussing today.

Under current law, accredited investors are allowed to purchase securities that haven't been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These types of offerings carry more risks than public offerings. The thought is that individuals with enough financial sophistication or net worth can bear the potential losses that may be associated with these types of securities.

How the law works today is that this definition of an accredited investor is solely based on wealth.

The ability to participate in a private offering should not be limited to individuals that pass some type of Federal Government assets test. Instead, the ability to participate should be expanded to include all individuals who demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of the offering. That may be a doctor who has gone through the training and has an idea that a new piece of equipment might work for them; or a scientist who has done research in the lab who says: You know what, this makes sense to me, and they understand the risk that they are entering into.

Well, H.R. 1585, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act, introduced by Representative Schweikert and Representative Hill, will expand the definition of an accredited investor in a way that will appropriately increase the pool of potential investors, thereby providing additional investment opportunities for more Americans and enabling the businesses they invest in to create more jobs.

The expansion of the accredited investor definition will enhance the ability of many companies, particularly small and emerging companies and businesses, to raise capital and grow by increasing the pool of potential investors. These are investors, again, that are very knowledgeable about that particular area.

This will both provide greater investment opportunities for more Americans and will enable these businesses to begin investing to create more jobs.

H.R. 1585 is a bipartisan bill that will help create jobs and a healthier economy. The bill provides Americans with more investment opportunities and enhances small companies' ability to raise capital.

This legislation overwhelmingly passed the Financial Services Committee by a bipartisan vote of 58-2, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this particular bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a member of the Financial Services Committee and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, just to recap, 60 percent of all job growth over the past two decades has come from small and emerging companies. This bill today recognizes that and encourages more of that to happen. It allows knowledgeable but maybe not wealthy folks to invest in areas of their expertise. In an era of crowdfunding and fund-me pages and those types of capital raises and investing, this bill makes sense. As the gentleman from Ohio, my friend Mr. Davidson, pointed out, it came through the committee unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all like to point out that Congress can work together across party lines and have some common goals that can be achieved and recognized, and this is one of those bills. I am very pleased to have such broad support.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage continued support for this bill, H.R. 1585, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Big Sable Lighthouse. For a century and a half, the Big Sable Lighthouse has been lighting up the eastern shores of Lake Michigan. On November 1, the people of Ludington will celebrate this momentous occasion.

In July 1866, Congress appropriated funds for a new lighthouse to be constructed along the shores of Lake Michigan's Big Sable Point. Completed in 1867, the 112 foot yellow brick structure was later covered with steel plates to withstand the harsh elements of the lakeshore.

After 100 years of service, the lighthouse was finally decommissioned in 1968--whereupon it fell into disrepair. Without upkeep, Big Sable was deemed unsalvageable by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1986. Thankfully, a few intrepid businessmen positioned sandbags in front of the lighthouse and residence, shoring up the weathered seawall. These men would later found the Sable Points Lighthouse Keepers Association, whose efforts preserve and promote the now accessible tower.

Today, the lighthouse has been completely restored and opens daily for visitors to climb. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 150 years that Big Sable has been lighting the shores of Lake Michigan. I welcome them to make the two mile hike to Big Sable Point and see what West Michigan has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a funeral. Had I been present for roll call vote number 569, H.R. 3551 C-TPAT Reauthorization Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 570, S. 504 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 571, Approval of the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 572, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 577--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 469--Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017 and of the bill H.R. 732--Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 573, Adoption of H. Res. 577--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 469--Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017 and of the bill H.R. 732--Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 574, H.R. 2142 INTERDICT Act, as amended, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 575, Cohen (D-TN) Amendment No. 2--Exempts settlement agreements based on race, religion, national origin, or any other protected category, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 576, Johnson (D-GA) Amendment No. 3--Exempts settlement agreements that direct funds to remediate the indirect harms caused by the manipulation of emissions standards in automobiles, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 577, Jackson Lee (D-TX)--Amendment No.4--Exempts settlement agreements that pertain to providing restitution to a State, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 578, Cicilline (D-RI)--Amendment No. 5-- Exempts settlements that resolve predatory or fraudulent conduct involving residential mortgage-backed securities, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 579, Conyers (D- MI)--Amendment No. 6--Exempts settlement agreements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from lead in drinking water, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 580, Passage of H.R. 732--Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 581, Passage H.R. 3898 Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, as amended, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Keys for Kids Ministries on the celebration of its 75th anniversary. Keys for Kids Ministries, formerly known as the Children's Bible Hour, will be celebrating this momentous occasion on October 12.

Inspired by a group of West Michigan pastors, Children's Bible Hour first aired as radio programming in 1942. It utilized kid's choir, solos, and radio drama to help children learn about God and inspire a relationship with Jesus. Wildly successful, the Children's Bible Hour grew to television and--by the end of the decade--was filling churches and auditoriums across the country.

In 1982, the Keys for Kids devotional was introduced, followed by the Keys for Kids radio broadcast in 1989. Both continue to reach thousands of children each month. Always striving to reach more individuals with the story of Jesus, Keys for Kids recently launched the Creature Feature Storytellers. This marked the beginning of Keys for Kids International and plans to translate the Keys for Kids devotional into 100 different languages.

While its name has changed, its organization expanded, and ministries diversified, Keys for Kids remains true to the mission established by Rev. Gil Cosselman, Dr. David Otis Fuller, Rev. Malcom Cronk and Rev. Donald Hescott.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the work of Keys for Kids Ministries, the millions who have been impacted, and the millions yet to be reached. May we celebrate the 75 years of inspired work and look forward to the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1624) to require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to treat certain municipal obligations as level 2A liquid assets, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of much-needed legislation that would simply fix a 2014 rule by financial regulators and allow municipal bonds to be considered as level 2B liquid assets, at a minimum, for purposes of calculating total high-quality liquid assets, or HQLAs, under the liquidity coverage ratio. The Municipal Finance Support Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that passed unanimously out of committee, showing its clear need.

Municipal securities are frequently issued by the transportation, housing, and healthcare authorities of State and local governments to raise funds to pay for projects ranging from bridges and schools to hospitals and recreational facilities. Excluding municipal securities from treatment as HQLAs will result in higher borrowing costs for State and local governments during times of economic stress.

Furthermore, there is no reason why high-quality liquid bonds issued by the United States and municipalities should receive a lower standing than foreign sovereign debt with equivalent or, frankly, even lesser credit quality and market liquidity.

Finally, disincentivizing financial institutions from holding investment-grade municipal securities could cause banks to retreat from the $3.8 trillion market, thereby forcing State and local governments to scale back pending projects on roads, schools, and other infrastructure projects financed with the bonds. Classifying investment-grade municipal securities as HQLAs will ensure low-cost infrastructure financing remains available for State and local governments.

Although the Federal Reserve has issued an amended rule allowing municipal bonds to count as HQLAs for some banks, neither the OCC nor the FDIC have acted to follow the Fed's lead in amending their HQLA definitions to include these municipal securities. Their inaction creates a split regulatory system in which the treatment of municipal securities for the purpose of measuring the liquidity of the bank's holdings depends entirely upon who the regulator is.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1624. I commend my ranking member from the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments, Mrs. Maloney, as well as the work from my colleague from Indiana.

This is a commonsense, no-nonsense, bipartisan solution to a mistake that was made by regulators. We need to grant clarity and harmony to those who are borrowing those dollars, those municipalities, States, and cities, as well as the investors and those who hold these bonds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am pleased that we can support H.R. 1624, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, my amendment would prohibit funds from being used to implement a misguided and harmful rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica.

This destructive rule was first proposed in 2013 and significantly threatens jobs in a number of industries around the country including: construction, foundries, aggregates, oil and gas, brick manufacturers, maritime as well as several other industries.

The limits set in this rule are simply unworkable, without extraordinary costs to both workers and job creators in my district and manufacturing centers across America. We are talking about the loss of thousands upon thousands of American jobs.

Furthermore, even if these companies were able to meet this unreasonable requirement without putting hardworking Americans out of work, commercial laboratories have not been able to measure workplace silica levels with any accuracy or consistency making it nearly impossible for employers to determine if they are in compliance.

We are in the midst of strong economic growth, but burdensome regulations like this threaten our economic well-being. In fact, the cost of compliance for the construction industry alone has been estimated to be nearly $5 billion per year.

This rule's impact on the Foundry industry would also be catastrophic. Independent analyses show it would cost the industry $2.2 billion annually, which represents 9.9 percent of the industry's revenue and an astounding 276 percent of its profits.

Another key industry that will suffer under this regulation is hydraulic fracturing which uses tremendous amounts of sand. The American energy sector has boomed in recent years--increasing economic prosperity and creating thousands of jobs across America. Hydraulic fracturing is also a major reason why our nation has become more energy independent and allowed us to help our allies in Europe while countering countries such as Russia and Iran.

The deadline for the construction industry to comply with this rule is September 23.

We cannot stand by while another burdensome and unworkable regulation is piled on job creators that are finally starting to see growth. We need to act now to protect American Jobs. I encourage you to join me in voting for this amendment to stop this job-destroying rule.